IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 949 of 2008 Between: 1 Shaik Khasim Bee, W/o. Shaik Uddensha, R/o. Opp : RCM Church, Pejjonipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 Shaik Mahaboob Bee, W/o. Shaik Mahaboob Basha, R/o. Opp : RCM Church, Pejjonipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 S.D. Khamer, W/o. S.D. Amas, R/o. Opp : RCM Church, Pejjonipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4 Syed Sultana, W/o. Syed Abid, R/o. Opp : RCM Church, Pejjonipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 5 S.D. Ashmtunnisa, W/o. S.D. Basha, R/o. Opp : RCM Church, Pejjonipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 6 Shaik Ismail, S/o. Sali Hussain, R/o. Opp : RCM Church, Pejjonipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 7 Korivada Appa Rao, S/o. Kanna Rao, R/o. Opp : RCM Church, Pejjonipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 8 Ammera Bibi, W/o. Mugbul Basha, R/o. Opp : RCM Church, Pejjonipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 9 J. Sowramma, W/o. Dass, R/o. Opp : RCM Church, Pejjonipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 10 Y. Yocob, S/o. Pothuraju Adiseshu, R/o. Opp : RCM Church, Pejjonipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONERS AND South Central Railway Employees Sangh, Vijayawada Division, Divisional Sangh Office, Vijayawada - 3, Rep by its Divisional Secretary, Sri Yarabarla Krishna Murty .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ and direction calling for the records in and relating to the order dated 03-12-2007 in LGA 23/2007 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order, dated 03.12.2007 passed in L.G.A. No. 23 of 2007 by the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, and quash the same, the petitioners filed this writ petition. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed LG OP No. 145 of 2000 before the District Judge, Krishna-cum-the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Machilipatnam, against the petitioners herein seeking their eviction from the petition schedule property and also for mesne profits at Rs.3,000/- per month from 1.7.1999 till possession thereof is delivered, on the ground that its predecessor M.S.M. Railway Employees Union, Perambur, purchased the vacant land in NTS No.462/1 in Pejjonipet, Vijayawada by a registered sale deed dated 19.02.1942 and thereafter, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation has acquired 273 Sq. yards and subsequent thereto, the M.S.M. Railway Employees Union, Perambur, was split into several zones and South Central Zone is one of such zones. Subsequently, the respondent Sangh was formed and registered and has been in continuous physical lawful possession and enjoyment of the entire land. Contesting the case, the petitioners herein contend that the respondent represented by its Divisional Secretary has no right whatsoever to step into the shoes of the M.S.M. Railway Employees Union, Perambur, inasmuch as he is not even in constructive possession, muchless the respondent can identify the land or say about the actual extent and, therefore, the respondent has no semblance of right and capacity to represent the M.S.M. Railway Employees Union, Preambur. It is also contended that the petition is bad for non- joinder of M.S.M. Railway Employees Union, Preambur. It is also their case that the Mandal Revenue Officer has filed his report along with sketch to the effect that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the site. Therefore, the application filed by the respondent is liable to be dismissed. On these and other detailed allegations, as contained in the respective pleadings, the following issues were framed; namely, 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to invoke the provisions of the Act? 2. Whether the petitioner is the successor of M.S.M. Railway Employees’ Union, Perambur? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs of delivery of possession and profits as prayed for? 4. To what relief? Thereafter, the parties went into detailed comprehensive enquiry where, on behalf of the respondent herein, PWs-1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-16 were marked; whereas on behalf of the petitioners herein, RW-1 to 4 were examined and Exs. B-1 to B-41 were marked. Exs. X- 1 to X-3 were also exhibited. On detailed appraisal and consideration of evidence and material on record, the learned District Judge, on issue No.1, relying on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Jonnalagadda Samarajyam and others Vs. Registrar, Special Court constituted under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, Hyderabad, (2006(6) ALD 176) held that the respondent herein cannot invoke the provisions of the Act; on issue No.2, he found that the respondent failed to prove that it is the successor of M.S.M. Railway Employee Union, Perambur and, therefore, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent herein preferred an appeal being L.G.A. No. 23 of 2007 and the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad by the impugned order allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Lower Tribunal for disposal afresh on merits, after giving opportunity to both the parties, inasmuch as the lower Tribunal had disposed of the L.G. O.P. basing on the decision in Jonnalagadda Samarajyam case, which was later reviewed by a Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported in Telaga Mahajana Sangham Vs. Registrar, Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, and others (2007(3) ALT 544) to the effect that a Co-Operative Society also can maintain Land Grabbing case. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed this writ petition inter alia contending that the respondent herein has no locus standie to file the L.G.O.P. It is also contended that when there is no evidence that the respondent is the successor of M.S.M. Railway Employees Union, Perambur, the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, has erred in allowing the appeal. Heard in extenso Mr. P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel appeared for the petitioners and Mr. A. Satyanarayana, learned counsel appeared for the respondent. On 24.1.2008, this Court, while admitting the writ petition granted interim suspension of the impugned order. The respondent in the writ petition filed WVMP No. 985 of 2008 seeing to vacate the interim order dated 24.1.2008 made in WP MP No. 1134 of 2008, along with a detailed counter affidavit. With these and other allegations, as contended across the Bar and on perusal of the material on record, the point that arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of remand passed in LGA No. 23 of 2007 warrants interference? The Lower Tribunal has dismissed the L.G.O.P. following the ratio laid down in Jonnalagadda Samarajyam’s case to the effect that a Co-Operative Society cannot invoke the provisions of A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, and the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, remanded the matter having regard to the ratio laid down in a decision Telaga Mahajana Sangham holding that a Society also can maintain the Land Grabbing Case. Since the Lower Tribunal has passed the order without reference to the orders passed in the review application in Telaga Mahajana Sangham’s case, without adverting to the merits or otherwise of the contentions raised in this writ petition, we are of the considered view that the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, is perfectly justified in remanding the matter to the Court below for disposal afresh, on merits, after giving opportunity to both the parties. Inasmuch as the LG OP is of the year 2000, we deem it appropriate to direct the learned District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, to dispose of the same as early as possible not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this direction, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. ___________________ S.ASHOK KUMAR, J. April 3, 2008 MAS.