THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11972 of 2004 DT.22.09.2011 Between: Smt.Ramadevi d/o M.Ramreddy … Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirumalagiri, Secunderabad and ors … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for respondent: The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11972 of 2004 O R D E R:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The petitioner is the applicant in L.G.C.No.22/1998, on the file of the Special Court Under A.P Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad, which wad dismissed by a common order dated 26-2-2004 passed in L.G.Cs.22 and 23 of 1998 by that Court. It is the case of the petitioner that she purchased an extent of 921 sq yards equivalent to 769.9 sq meters bearing Plot Nos.10 and 11 in Sy.No.57/2 at Kanta Basti, Tirumalgheri Cantonment, Secunderabad vide registered sale deed dated 3-6-1980. While so, the respondents grabbed the said land and also raised structures therein. It is the case of the respondents therein that they are not in possession of the land in Sy.No.57/2, but are in possession of land Sy.No.57/1 in an extent of Ac.1-26 gts located at Thirumalgheri, and in the revenue records it is classified as “Poramboke Kancha Sarkari” and it was divided into 65 plots and house-site pattas were issued in favour of them (the respondents). Basing on the pleadings, the Special Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the applicant is the owner of the application schedule property? 2. Whether the rival title set up by the respondents is true, valid and binding on the applicant? 3. Whether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of Act XII of 1982? 4. To what relief? Additional issue was framed on 4-10-1999 as follows: “Whether the applicant schedule land lies in Sy.No.57/2 of Trimalgherry village as claimed by the applicant or in Sy.No.57/1 and its Government land as claimed by the Government?” The tribunal, after hearing both the parties, held that the application schedule property is not located in Sy.No.57/2, Tirumalgheri village as claimed by the applicant, but it is located in Sy.No.57/1 of Tirumalgheri village, and the said property belongs to the Government as claimed by the State. Accordingly, it was held that the applicant is not the owner of the said application schedule property. The Special Court further held that the rival title set up by the respondents/State is true, valid and binding on the applicant and the respondents are not the land grabbers of the property. The respondents herein were represented by an advocate before the Court below and it was contested whereas against the said judgment of the special Court, this writ petition was filed by the petitioner. This Court dismissed the writ petition for default of the petitioner as against the respondents 5,7, 8 and 9. As by the dismissal of the writ petition upholding the order of the Special Court has become final so far as the respondents 5,7, 8 and 9 are concerned and as the order of the Special Court is not separable, the petitioner is not entitled to have a different order insofar as the remaining respondents are concerned and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground accordingly. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________ (V. ESWARAIAH,J) _________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J) Date:22-09-2011 grk THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY (The order of the Bench pronounced by Hon’ble Sri justice V.Eswaraiah) WRIT PETITION No.11972 of 2004 DATE:22-09-2011 GRK