@#@#@#@#@#@#@ HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO:14917 of 2005 DATED: 15-06-2007 Between: State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Musheerabad, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Syed Waheed Hussain and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS @#@#@#@#@#@#@ ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) on behalf of the petitioner and Sri S.Balchander, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. The petitioner herein is the unsuccessful applicant before the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act who seeks a writ of certiorari assailing the orders in L.G.C.No.37 of 1998 dated 07-03-2005 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, dismissing the application purported to have been filed under Section 8 (1) of the said Act whereunder they sought for declaration that the respondents as land grabbers and that the structures raised by them are illegal and consequently to evict them and award compensation along with other reliefs. The case of the petitioner as per the concise statement on brief history of the case mentioned in the very application filed in L.G.C.No.37 of 1998 runs as follows: “The application schedule land is situated in Zamisthanpur village. The initial Survey of this village was conducted in 1335 Fasli under A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. The Cadestal Survey was taken up in this village in 1358 Fasli, the Sethwar was also prepared, the sethwar has entries upto Sy.No.163 and the rest of Survey numbers shown in the village map from 164 to 182 as ‘Gautan’ for the purpose of identification and location, and Survey NO.179 has been shown as Abadi Lands in the Town Survey Land Register. After the Town Survey Records the application schedule land falls in T.S.No.74 and 75 Ward.153 Block-K of Zamistahanpur village, Musheerabad Mandal, correlated to S.No.179/B which is recorded as G.P. and the names of the persons are mentioned in Col.No.10 pertaining to T.S.No.75 and with regard to T.S.No.71 was recorded as G.P. in column No.20, in respect of T.S.No.71 it is recorded as ‘G’ and T.S.No.75 recorded as G.V.M.Road, which is of an extent of 2354 Sq.Mts and T.S.No.71 is having 1275 sq.mts. On physical verification it is found that there is a building in existence and is known as “MIZEPH CHURCH” over an area of 125 sq.mts. It is submitted that the respondent herein claimed that they have purchased the application schedule property from different persons and they are claiming title. The respondent filed O.S.No.3646 of 1991 on the file of the 2nd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking injunction restraining the authorities from interfering with his possession, and enjoyment and constructions. Pending the suit he also filed W.P.No.1247 of 1996 against the Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration, District Collector, Hyderabad, M.R.O. Musheerabad and Assistant Commissioner of Police, seeking a Mandamus and obtained directions permitting them to make constructions in accordance with the sanctioned plan approved by the M.C.H.Hyderabad dated 20-01-1990. The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 18-09-1996. Aggrieved by the same, the State filed Writ Appeal No.250 of 1997 questioning the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12477 of 1996. The said appeal was ordered and directed the parties to take necessary steps to get the title, rights, interest etc., be decided in the Civil Court and also permitted to make the necessary application forms in the pending suit. It is submitted that when the proceedings were pending the applicant filed L.G.S.R.No.251/1996 on 18-11-1996 and the same was represented and finally this Hon’ble Court passed orders on 21-01- 1997 directing the office to return the L.G.C. and liberty was given to represent the L.G.C. as and when the appropriate orders were obtained from the Hon’ble High Court. Accordingly the present application is filed. Further it is submitted the land is a vacant land and the same has been classified as “Abadi” land. In this connection it is submitted that the Government of Andhra Pradesh, issued G.O.Ms.No.1039 Revenue (R) Department dated 13-09-1972 wherein certain clarifications were issued in respect of classification of Abadi and other lands by the final check officer. In the said G.O. in respect of Abadi land it is stated as follows: “The Government have examined the proposals and they issue the following instructions: ‘ABADI LANDS: The classification of ‘Abadi’ lands may have to retain as ‘Abadi and in cases where they have already been built upon, the name of the occupant may have to be recorded occupant. In the case of vacant lands in the ‘Abadi’ area no private occupancy should be recognized except where the occupant is able to prove a valid grant from the Government”. Thus a reading of the above clarification regarding the classification of the land, it is clear that wherever the buildings are there the names of the occupants were recorded and where ever the land is vacant no private occupancy rights is recognized and is treated as a Government land. The application schedule land is a vacant land. In the guise of the orders obtained from the civil court as well as in the writ petition, the respondents have constructed compound wall recently, therefore the respondents have no manner of right, title or interest, in respect of the application schedule land and it is a Government land and the present application is filed seeking the relief mentioned in the relief column of Form No.1.” Contesting the same, the case of the respondents virtually runs quite in a parallel way where they set up their own independent right, title and interest and denying the claim of the petitioner herein. Subsequent to filing of the comprehensive counter-affidavit, the Court below framed the issues and later the parties went into trial, during which the petitioners have examined P.Ws.1 to 3 on their behalf and marked Exs.A-1 to A-11 whereas on behalf of the respondents R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-119 were marked. On appreciation thereof, the Court below has found that the petitioner has failed to make out any case to declare that the respondents are land grabbers. Hence, the writ petition. Though several contentions are sought to be urged on behalf of the petitioner by the learned Government Pleader inter alia on merits by trying to trace back their title commencing from the proceeding in 1317 Fasli as stated above in the concise statement vis-à-vis the subsequent chequered events including the sethwar etc., however, having regard to the scope of the nature of enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of A.P. Land Grabbing Act, prima-facie, we are of the view that on a bare reading of the aforesaid allegations as extracted above the petitioner virtually tries to make a case in 1317 fasali and admittedly in this case apart from the various surveys etc., there has been earlier litigation in the year 1991 itself in O.S.No.3646 of 1991 on the file of II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein respondent sought for injunction. Later on, it also lead to filing of W.P.No.12477 of 1996 which was allowed on 18-09-1996 and further appeal in W.A.No.250 of 1997 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, directing the parties to approach the Civil Court and seek appropriate reliefs. It is only thereafter the present application filed. Except making such bald and sweeping allegations as can be seen from out of the concise statement there is absolutely no specific averment or allegation in regard to the basic ingredients to call the respondents herein as land grabbers as defined under the provisions of Section 2 (e) of the Act. That apart, even the very allegations as can be found from the above it is not shown the possession of the petitioner at a particular point of time or on a date on which they have been dispossessed by the respondents herein. There is absolutely no reference as to why the respondents have to be declared as land grabbers. As long as the petitioner fails to satisfy the aforesaid definition and the possession and dispossession is not made out, the very application as has been filed and framed does not fall within the parameters or within the jurisdiction of the authorities as constituted under the Act. As rightly directed by this Court in the above writ appeal the petitioner ought to have approached the civil Court for the comprehensive declaration and the consequent reliefs where all such questions are to be gone into instead of trying to knock the doors of the authorities which is wholly unsustainable and not maintainable. Even on the face of it the Special Tribunal having satisfied with itself on the material available held that the petitioner has failed to make out any case to call the respondents as land grabbers. Therefore, we refrain from going into the merits of the case. Having regard to the aforesaid finding which has been arrived at to hold that the petitioner’s remedy is elsewhere within the authority constituted, we do not find any merits in the above writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it shall be open to the petitioner herein to avail the remedies as available under law as already directed by this Court which shall be considered on merits in accordance with law. It is also open for the petitioner to seek appropriate interim reliefs, if it so warrants, on the facts and circumstances which shall also be considered independently. Both those proceedings shall be taken and considered independently uninfluenced by any of the findings arrived at in these proceedings. No order as to costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J ___________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 15th June, 2007 SKM