THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.No.1296 of 2011 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) The petitioners herein are the respondents in L.C.G.No.27 of 2008 filed by the 1st respondent herein on the file of the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Special Court”), seeking to declare the petitioners herein as land grabbers and to evict them from the application schedule property admeasuring 799 sq. yards and deliver possession of the same to her, was allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. The parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Special Court. The 1st respondent/applicant filed the said L.G.C. alleging that she is the owner of 2551 sq. yards bearing plot No.265/S in Shaikpet village, in Sy.No.120 (new) 403/1 (old) having purchased the same vide registered sale deeds under Exs.A-1 to A-3, dated 06-03-1982, 05-08-1983 and 10- 09-1981 respectively and the total extent of all three sale deeds comes to 2024 sq. yards only as against the actual existence of 2551 sq. yards. The 1st respondent in the L.G.C. viz., Chalasani Sandeepa, is the owner of plot bearing No.395, which is situated on the southern side of the plot of the applicant. The 1st respondent therein taking advantage of the 2nd respondent official position as an Ex-office bearer of the Society, had clandestinely encroached upon the property and grabbed an extent of 799 sq. yards illegally situated on the southern side of the application schedule property. The application schedule property belongs to the applicant and respondents 1 and 2 have no right, title or interest over the property grabbed by them to an extent of 799 sq. yards. The L.G.C. was filed in the month of February, 2008 and a report under Rule 6(2) and (3) of the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for short “the Act”), was called for in the month of June, 2008 and the Tahsildar, Shaikpet village filed a report, dated 11-11-2008 stating that as per the documents, the applicant has purchased the land admeasuring 2024 sq. yards in Plot No.265-S and on ground, the applicant is in possession of 1547 sq. yards including 322 sq. yards and the remaining extent i.e., 799 sq. yards is the application schedule land. The Tahsildar also filed a sketch showing north road No.10 of Jubillee Hills, the area in possession of the applicant is 1547 sq. yards, the area covered by all three sale deeds is 2024 sq. yards, possession as per the documents/plan/lay out is 1225 sq. yards, possession other than lay out is 322 sq. yards and the application schedule property is 799 sq. yards. A counter was filed in the L.G.C. in the month of September, 2008 stating that the 1st respondent purchased total extent of 3063 sq. yards under three sale deeds-Exs.B-1 to B-3, which were executed on the same date i.e., on 25-10-2002 . The property purchased by the 1st respondent is covered by a compound wall and she never encroached the land of the application schedule land and, therefore, the averments of the applicant alleging that the 1st respondent encroached her application land is totally incorrect and false. The applicant has purchased an extent of 2024 sq. yards though claiming possession 2551 sq. yards. It is stated that respondents 1 and 2 never grabbed any portion of the application schedule property. Though the L.G.C. was initially filed against respondents 1 and 2 alone, thereafter the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet, Hyderabad and the Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling Department, Hyderabad were impleaded as respondents 3 and 4. The 3rd respondent/Mandal Revenue Officer filed a counter stating that the application schedule property was inspected and got surveyed by the Mandal Surveyor, who reported that the land in question falls in T.S.No.3, Block-A, Ward No.9 correlated to Sy.No.403 part of Shaikpet village, which is covered in the land allotted to Jubilee Hills Co-operative Housing Society. The application schedule land falls within the land allotted to Jubilee Hills Co-operative Housing Society, as such no Government interest is involved in the land in question. The 4th respondent/ Special Deputy Collector filed a counter stating that the application schedule property falls in Plot No.265-S of Jubilee Hills Co-operative Housing Society in Sy.No.403 of Shaikpet village and the allottees of Plot No.265-S of Jubilee Hills Co-operative Housing Society have not filed any declarations under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and as such, no interest is involved in the land in question. Under Ex.A-1, the applicant purchased an extent of 1191 sq. yards in plot No.265-S and the measurement of the said plot at north and south is 80 feet and east and west is 134 feet and towards West Plot No.265-T, East plot No.265-W, West land belonging to the Society and towards North 80’ wide road No.10. Under Ex.A-2, the applicant purchased an extent of 429 sq. yards situated towards southern side of the land covered by Ex.A-1 and the measurements of the said plot, towards North 80 feet, South 81 feet, East 58 feet and West 51 feet and still towards southern side, the land is shown as open space. Under Ex.A-3, the applicant purchased an extent of 404 sq. yards situated towards southern side of the land covered by Ex.A-2 and its measurement towards North and South is 110 feet and East 23 feet and West 43 feet. In the rough sketch plan, the applicant has not given any measurements except showing the total extent of the land of Plot No.265-S is 2024 sq. yards and an extent of 799 sq. yards grabbed by respondents 1 and 2. The rough sketch plan does not contain measurements, boundaries etc., but the rough sketch plan submitted by the Tahsildar in respect of plot No.265-S, he has shown the plot of the applicant, including the application schedule property not covered by Exs.A-1 to A-3. Neither the applicant nor the Mandal Revenue Officer has shown the land covered by Ex.A-1 to A-3 either in the rough sketch attached along with application or in the rough sketch filed along with the report. The layout of the sale deeds of the Co- operative Society has also not been filed. Ex.B-5 sale deed relates to the vendor of R-1 in respect of 3063 sq. yards. In the instant case, the survey in respect of the land covered by Exs.A- 1 to A-3 sale deeds and Exs.B-1 to B-3 and B-5 sale deeds was not all conducted. No steps have been taken by the applicant for appointment of surveyor for localization of the properties. But, however, the Special Court mainly relied on the report and plan filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Rule 6(2) and (3) of the Act. It is stated that the said report was not furnished to the respondents 1 and 2 and in fact, an interlocutory application was filed for appointment of Commissioner for localisation of the property, but the said application was said to have been dismissed by the Special Court. Respondents 1 and 2 in the L.G.C. i.e., writ petitioners submit that the report of the Tahsildar is only for the purpose of taking into cognizance and however, the said report is not mandatory and any report given by the Mandal Revenue Officer is subject to proof. It is stated that neither the Mandal Revenue Officer was examined nor a report and sketch plan was marked to prove the contents therein and, therefore, relying on the report and the rough sketch filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the Special Court ought not to have upheld the claim of the applicant. It is further stated that the applicant has not discharged the initial burden under Section 10 of the Act. The applicant has not shown the measurements of the land covered by Exs.A-1 to A-3 in the rough sketch plan and measurements of the land said to have been grabbed by the 1st respondent therein. Therefore, the question of shifting burden on the writ petitioners does not arise. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the land covered by Exs.A-1 to A-3 purchased by the applicant and so also in respect of the land covered by Exs.B-1 to B-3 and B-5 purchased by the 1st respondent. But, in the absence of any specific localization of both the lands and the extent of the land grabbed, it cannot be said that the 1st respondent grabbed the land to an extent of 799 sq. yards belonging to the applicant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is just and proper to get the land localized by appointing Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records and localize the said property at the instance of the applicant as well as the 1st respondent. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Special Court erred in holding that the 1st respondent is in illegal occupation of 799 sq. yards belonging to the applicant. Hence, the order passed by the Special Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the judgment, dated 29-10-2010, passed in L.G.C.No.27 of 2008, and the matter is remitted to the Special Court to take necessary steps for appointment of Assistant Director of Survey & Land Records for localization and identification of the applicant’s land in plot No.265-S covered by Exs.A-1 to A-3 and the land of the 1st respondent in Plot No.395 covered by Exs.B-1 to B-3 and B-5 and also for identifying the application schedule land and decide the matter on merits in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ____________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date : 13-10-2011 Prv