THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA W.P.No.27266 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Justice B.N.Rao Nalla) This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.10.2009 passed by the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 in LGC No.60 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been declared as land grabber to an extent of 161 square yards. 2. The petitioner stated that he purchased 105 square yards of land out of Plot No.14 in Survey No.844/1, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, which was originally admeasuring 266 square yards, under a registered sale deed dated 19th August,1995 through G.P.A. of the respondent No.2 and he also purchased another 51 square yards from the same plot through the said G.P.A. vide registered sale deed dated 30.5.1998. Hence, he is a bonafide purchaser under the above two sale deeds. 3. The respondent No.2 stated that she purchased the Plot No.14 comprising of 266 square yards in Survey No.844/23 of Malkajgiri Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under registered sale deed dated 30.4.1987 executed by Wesley Girls High School and Junior College Employees Cooperative Housing Society, Secunderabad. 4. During the course of trial, the second respondent herself got examined as PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked, whereas the petitioner and one Ravi Kennedy were examined as RWs 1 and 2 and Exs.B.1 to B.7 were marked. The Special Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties and other material brought on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to only 105 square yards land in Plot No.14 and that he has grabbed the remaining 161 square yards land of the second respondent. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Land Grabbing Appeals. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Special Court failed to appreciate that the second respondent executed G.P.A. in favour of Ramesh Kumar to sell the entire extent of Plot No.14 and erroneously come to the conclusion that the General Power of Attorney is not entitled to sell 51 square yards of land to the petitioner and that the land belongs to the second respondent. Further, the learned counsel contended that the Special Court without taking into consideration the evidence brought on record in proper perspective and the factual aspects of the matter, declared the petitioner as land grabber, which is not sustainable under law. 7. Per contra, the leaned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the Special Court has given cogent and convincing reasons for coming the conclusion that the petitioner has grabbed 161 square yards land of the second respondent in Plot No.14. Therefore, the impugned order needs no interference from this court. 8. We have perused the record. It is seen that the second respondent executed agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner. Further, he executed G.P.A. in favour of one Mr.Ramesh Kumar, which is a registered document to sell 105 square yards , out of Plot No.14 and accordingly G.P.A. sold 105 square yards to the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 19.8.1995. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is land grabber to the extent of 105 square yards. So far as purchase of 51 square yards by the petitioner through G.P.A. of the second respondent is concerned, the second respondent as PW.1 in her evidence specifically stated that she executed G.P.A. in favour of M.Ramesh Kumar only to an extent of 105 square yards. Therefore, the purchase of an extent of 51 square yards by the petitioner through G.P.A. is not valid sale deed since the G.P.A. is empowered to sell the land to an extent of 105 square yards only in Plot No.14 to the petitioner. Further, it is to be noticed that the petitioner stated in his evidence that he is in possession of 344 square yards and to that effect no documents were filed and as such it can be presumed that the petitioner was in illegal possession of 161 square yards of land of the second respondent in Plot No.14 (51 square yards Plus 110 square yards) and in that view of the matter, the Special Court declared the petitioner as land grabber to an extent of 161 square yards. 9. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order so as to call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S. RAO,J) _______________ (B.N. RAO NALLA, J) 23.12.2009 Stp