IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2889 of 2008 Between: 1 Pujari Shankuntala, W/o.P.Venkata Swamy, R/o.MIG 38,A.P.H.B Colony Kurnool Dist 2 Pujari Padmaja Daughter Late Venkata Swamy R/o.MIG 38,A.P.H.B Colony Kurnool Dist 3 Pujari Kamakshi D/o.Late Venkata Swamy, R/o.MIG 38,A.P.H.B Colony Kurnool Dist 4 Pujari Prasanna Lakshmi, D/o.Late Venkata Swamy, R/o.MIG 38,A.P.H.B Colony Kurnool Dist 5 Pujari Viswanath, S/o.Late Venkata Swamy, R/o.MIG 38,A.P.H.B Colony Kurnool Dist 6 Pujari Hemavathi @ Hemavahini D/o.Late Venkata Swamy, R/o.MIG 38,A.P.H.B Colony Kurnool Dist ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Special Court for Cases Under A.P Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act,1982 rep.by its Registrar,Hyd 2 Special Tribunal Constituted Under A.P Land Grabbing(Prohibition)Act (Principal Dist Judge),Nellore 3 Chndi Mohan Reddy S/o.Late Ramalinga Reddy, R/o.Bhakthavatsala Nagar,Nellore Dist .....RESPONDENTs Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Cetiorari or any other appropriate writ and quash the judgment of the 1st respondent in L.G.A.No.44 of 2008 dt.5-2-2008 and consequently set aside the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in I.A No.12 of 2007 in O.P.No.2 of 1990 and direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the application schedule land in L.G.O.P.No.2 of 1990 on the file of 2nd respondent and grant such other relief Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.No.2889 of 2008 O R D E R:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 05.2.2008 passed in LGA (SR) No.44 of 2008 by the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for short ‘the Act’) and consequently set aside the orders passed by the 2nd respondent, Special Tribunal under the Act in I.A.No.12 of 2007 in LG.O.P.No.2 of 1990 and direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the schedule land in the said L.G.O.P.No.2 of 1990. The writ petitioners are the LRs of the applicant who originally filed LG.OP No.2 of 1990 under the Act while the 3rd respondent is one of the LRs of alleged land grabber. The 3rd respondent filed I.A.No.12 of 2007 under Section 144 CPC for restitution of the schedule property which is allegedly taken possession by the writ petitioners on 13.7.2005. The writ petitioners resisted the application contending that provisions of Section 144 CPC are not applicable as the claim for restitution on the execution side is illegal. The writ petitioners also pleaded that Devarapalli Venka Reddy who is alleged to be the maternal uncle of the 3rd respondent filed suit for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the schedule property and sought injunction against the execution of the decree. The Special Tribunal upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the evidence on record held that the 3rd respondent is entitled to restitution of property and in case the writ petitioners failed to deliver the possession in 30 days, he can get possession through process of Court. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioners filed appeal in LGA SR No.44 of 2008 before the Special Court, wherein the orders of the Special Tribunal were confirmed. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 141 CPC excludes applicability of the provisions of Section 144 of the CPC and as such the order of restitution is liable to be set aside. The impugned orders directing restitution are resulting in grant of consequential relief without declaration of title of the 3rd respondent with regard to the subject land. Thus, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. It is further contended that at any rate, the remedy of restitution could not have been granted mechanically in favour of the 3rd respondent, without pursuing the earlier round of litigation vigilantly. Originally, the father of the petitioners has filed L.G.O.P.No.2 of 1990 before the Special Tribunal to declare Chundi Ramalinga Reddy, father of 3rd respondent herein as landgrabber with respect to house site bearing plot No.22 in Block D, R.S.Nos.440 and 441 admeasuring 33 ½ ankanams situated at Kondayapalem, Nellore district and the same was allowed on 31.10.1997 declaring the father of the 3rd respondent as land grabber and that order was confirmed by Special Court. Aggrieved by the same, a Writ Petition No.9632 of 1999 was filed before this Court and that writ petition was allowed on 06.7.2006 setting aside the orders passed by the Special Court in LGA 72 of 1997 and holding that filing of the case invoking the jurisdiction under the provisions of the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act is erroneous and the remedy of the father of the petitioners in OP/appellants therein is to file a civil suit. Reversing the order passed by the Special tribunal, it was held as hereunder: “For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that the concurrent findings rendered by the Special Tribunal as well as the Special Court are without jurisdiction. The parties are not remediless. They can always seek the remedy on the principle of ubi jus ibi idem remedium by approaching any competent Civil Court”. In the order dated 19.12.2007 in I.A.No.12 of 2007 in LG.O.P.2 of 1990, the learned Judge adverted to the plea that was taken by the writ petitioners that Section 144 of the CPC is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The very concept of restitution is to see that an advantage taken by a person under a decree which has been substantially set aside or varied by an appellate Court shall not be allowed to be continued and the party put to loss has to get back the property. Under those circumstances, the petition filed by the 3rd respondent herein was allowed holding that he is entitled for restitution of the property and if the petitioners herein failed to deliver possession within 30 days, he can get possession through process of Court or as directed by the court. The said order was confirmed by the Special Court in the appeal preferred by the petitioners. In that view of the matter we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 18th February, 2008. PNV To 1 The Registrar, Special Court for Cases Under A.P Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act,1982 , Hyd 2 The Principal Dist Judge),Nellore Special Tribunal Constituted Under A.P Land Grabbing(Prohibition)Act THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.NO.2889 OF 2008 Dt.18-02-2008