THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.No.8972 of 2004 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Krishna Mohan Reddy) This writ petition is directed against judgment delivered by the Respondents 1 and 2 in L.G.A.No.25 of 2003 dated 26.4.2004 and O.P.No.919 1993 on their respective files with a plea to quash those proceedings. 2. The petitioner herein is the appellant and the third respondent herein is the respondent in the L.G.A.No.25 of 2003. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they arrayed in the Original Petition. 3. The petitioner filed the L.G.O.P. under Section 7-A(1) of A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’) to declare the respondent as a land grabber of the property, evict her from the property and deliver the possession of the property to the petitioner. Briefly, the facts set out by the petitioner are as follows: 4. The schedule property admeasuring 150 sq.yards was purchased in the name of his mother K.Rajyalaxmamma under a registered sale deed dated 20.2.1963 from one Naseer Afsar. Immediately the vendor delivered the property to his mother. In fact, the vendor derived the title from Mohinuddin Ahmed Asar Siddique under a registered sale deed dated 21.11.1962. The mother of the petitioner died, leaving behind him and two daughters, who are married. For his ingress and egress, the petitioner left 20 ft. towards the north of his plot running from East to West, which was joining the road leading from Kurmaguda to Eddi Bazar. While so, the respondent encroached upon the said ingress and egress, on the northern side. Therefore petitioner gave a report to the Police concerned for taking necessary action and there being no response, he filed the O.P. 5. The respondent filed counter, it is claimed that she purchased 215 sq.yards equivalent to 179.77 sq.mtrs. under a registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.646 pertaining to the office of Sub-Registrar, Azampura for a valuable consideration of Rs.46,000/-, the plea of the petitioner is not true and prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Based on the pleadings, the Special Tribunal (the primary authority) framed the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioner is the owner of the petition schedule land under a valid title deed and whether the respondent grabbed the petitioner’s land as alleged in the petition? 2. Whether the respondent acquired title to the land mentioned in the counter and if so what is the effect of the document executed in favour of the petitioner? 3. To what relief are the parties entitled? 7. On behalf of the petitioner, he got himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked documents Exs.A1 to A36. On behalf of the respondent, she got herself examined as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B9. 8. On considering the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the enquiry Court allowed the petition on the ground that Exs.A1 to A7 clearly establish that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property and the respondent failed to establish her claim, there is a clear proof that she has encroached the property and directed the respondent to deliver the possession of the property to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Special Court. The Special Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Special Tribunal. 9. It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent (petitioner herein) that in fact the identity of the schedule property is not established and the schedule property is a residential plot, whereas her property is a house property and further she established her possession over her property by placing good oral and documentary evidence, but both the Tribunal and the Special Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence the orders passed by both the forums below are liable to be set aside. 10. Therefore, it has to be examined as to whether the identity of the property claimed by the petitioner is established and also whether the claim of the petitioner that the respondent encroached upon the property is established and whether the orders of the Courts below are sustainable or not. POINT No.1 11. Emphatically it is observed by the Tribunal that the property claimed by the petitioner is totally different from the property claimed by the respondent and Ex.A7 C.C. of the plan attached to sale deed executed by R.Bhaskara Murthy in favour of Syed Asadullah Hassan dated 24.9.1964 establishes that the petitioner is the owner of the schedule property and Ex.A8-complaint given to the Commissioner of Police, Ex.A9-plaint in O.S.No.3781 of 1993 filed by the respondent and Exs.A11 to A35-documents filed in O.S.No.1293 of 1984 also establish the ownership of the petitioner over the property. Further, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent occupied the property and accordingly declared her as the land grabber of the property and directed the respondent to deliver the property to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of judgment with a further direction to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner towards compensation for wrongful possession of the property and also Rs.1,50,000/- towards profits accrued from the property. Questioning the same, the respondent filed the appeal before the Special Court. 12. In the appeal, the Special Court while making similar observations upheld the findings of the enquiry Court, but modified the order as under: “In the result, in view of our findings on points 1 to 3, we hereby dispose of this Appeal by directing the appellant to deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule property to the respondent herein (petitioner in OP) within 30 days from the date of this judgment, failing which the RDO concerned shall evict the appellant and put the respondent herein (petition in OP) into possession of the petition schedule land after expiry of the period mentioned above and submit compliance report under Rule 15(2) of the Rules framed under the Act to the Special Tribunal concerned under intimation to this Court”. 13. It is quite surprising that while concluding that both the properties happened to be different from each other and without any basis, both the forums held that the respondent occupied the property and therefore, declared the respondent as the land grabber of the property. In fact, Ex.A1 executed in favour of the petitioner provides that he purchased 150 sq.yards of land in Charminar mandal, Hyderabad within the following boundaries: North : 20 ft. road South : Plot of Sri Moinuddin Ahmed Assar Siddique East : Neighbours land West : Plot of Sri R.Bhaskar Murthy present Door No.17-9-178 14. Whereas under Ex.B1 respondent purchased House bearing Municipal No.17-9-178/B admeasuring 215 sq.yards at Kurmaguda, Saidabad, Hyderabad within the following boundaries: North : Passage of 5 ft. 6 inches wide South : House No.17-9-177 East : House No.17-9-179/B/1 West : House No.17-9-178 15. Further, there is no material to substantiate that both the properties were surveyed and localised in order to ascertain whether the respondent tress-passed into the schedule property either wholly or in part. The enquiry Court or the Special Court should have taken necessary measures in that context for the purpose of the identification of the property taking help from a qualified surveyor. 16. Surprisingly, the Special Tribunal and the Special Court, without proper discussion about the question of grabbing, concluded that the respondent was the grabber of the property and directed her to vacate the property and deliver the property to the petitioner, which therefore is not tenable. 17. Further, a question has also been raised as to whether, the Tribunal and the Special Court have jurisdiction to entertain the matter when there is no dispute about the ownership of the schedule property and there is only a dispute about the identity or localisation of the property and the grabbing of the property, which aspect neither the Tribunal nor the Special Court considered. There is also no allegation in the petition to the effect that the respondent grabbed the property within the meaning of provisions of the Act. 18. In OM PRAKASH SINGH V. M. LINGAMAIAH[1], the Apex Court observed “wide jurisdiction under Sections 7, 7A and 8 has been conferred upon the Special Tribunal and Special Court and the Tribunal is not only a court but by reason of a legal fiction created is deemed to be a civil court. The Tribunal, however, derives jurisdiction only when jurisdictional facts are disclosed in the petition and it is necessary not only to allege the act of land grabbing within the meaning of the provisions of the Act but also a prima facie case must be made out, however, ordinary disputes with regard to a title of property are not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Court or the Tribunal and they have to be determined in ordinary civil courts. The Special Courts and the Tribunals are not substitutes for the civil courts in the litigations involving a civil dispute relating to immovable property. It has the exclusive jurisdiction where land grabbing is alleged or appeared from the application filed before it.” 19. At this stage, it is difficult to ascertain as to whether the Tribunal got jurisdiction to entertain the matter as it is subjected to actual grabbing of the property and in such case, the conduct of the respondent consequently which can be determined basing upon necessary localisation of the property and necessary evidence. Virtually, it is necessary to remand the matter to the Tribunal (enquiry Court) for the purpose of determining the factors discussed above. Accordingly, the matter is disposed of with a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the matter subject to the observations made above. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date:20.8.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.No.8972 of 2004 20.8.2011 [1] (2009) 12 SCC 613