IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 12803 of 2008 Between: The Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal Hyderbad District Now Tahsildar Asifnagar Mandal, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Special Court Under Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Boorugula Ramakrishna Building, Hyderabad. 2 Mohd.Saleem, S/o. Mohd.Moinuddin, H.No.12-2-876/2, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad. 3 Smt. Sakeena Bee, W/o. Mohd. Saleem, H.No.12-2-876/2, Asif Naga, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an order, direction or writ one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to L.G.C.No.35/1996 dated 28- 02-1997 on the file of Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, and quash the same, as illegal, void and against the principles of law and allow the application of the petitioenrs filed in L.G.C.No.35/1996, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS} THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.12803 OF 2008 ORDER:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to L.G.C.No.35/1996, dated 28.02.1997, on the file of the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for short ‘the Special Court’) and to quash the same as illegal. 2. The State, represented by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal, has filed an application in L.G.C.No.35 of 1996 under Section 8 (1) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (P) Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’), stating that the 2nd respondent M. Saleem and his wife 3rd respondent, Sakeena Bee have grabbed 269 sq. mtrs. of land covered by T.S.No.5, Block ‘D’, Ward 24 correlating to Sy.No.28/1, situated at Asifnagar village, Golconda Mandal, within the limits of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and constructed a house. The schedule land is classified as ‘Sarkari Poramboke’ of Asifnagar village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad District. On noticing the encroachment, the respondents 2 and 3 were served with a notice under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 on 23-04- 1995. The respondents 2 and 3 filed an explanation on 17-05-1995 enclosing a Photostat copy of Urdu document purported to be a sale deed. The M.R.O. has recorded a finding that the said copy is not available to examine the contents of the document. The M.R.O. passed orders under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act and served on the respondents and 2 and 3 on 23- 12-1995. The orders could not be executed due to non-availability of Police protection etc. 3. A counter was filed by the respondents 2 and 3, in detail, stating that the schedule land situated in T.S.No.5, Block D, Ward 24, correlating to Sy. No.28/1/Part of Asifnagar village, is not a Government land. It is also not correct to state that the respondents have encroached the application schedule land and constructed a house. In fact, the 2nd respondent is absolute owner of the application schedule land along with house, having purchased the same in the year 1955. The proceedings of the M.R.O., Golconda, initiated under the provisions of the Act, in respect of the application schedule property which was purchased under registered sale deed in the year 1955, are arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. The action was initiated against the respondents 2 and 3 under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act by serving a notice under Section 7 of the Act on 23-04-1995 under Ex.A-5. In pursuance of EX.A-5 notice, orders were passed under Section 6 of the said Act vide Ex.A-6. The action of the applicant for eviction of the respondents 2 and 3 in respect of the application schedule property is after execution of Ex.B-1 registered sale deed, dated 13-06-1955 i.e. after lapse of about 40 years and since then the respondents are in continuous possession of the application schedule property. Consequently, the action initiated under Ex.A-5 is barred by limitation under Section 27 of the Indian limitation Act. 4. Considering the evidence on record, the Special Court held that the respondents are not land grabbers within the meaning of the Act, and accordingly, dismissed the application. Challenging the said judgment, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. 6. The impugned judgment of the Special Court was rendered in 1997. This writ petition is filed in 2008 i.e. after lapse of 11 years. That apart, the Special Court recorded a specific finding of fact that the respondents are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the schedule property from the date of purchase and there is no substantial material to show that the respondents 2 and 3 are the land grabbers. However, it appears that the petitioner without any basis proceeded against the respondents 2 and 3 for their eviction, in respect of the schedule property, which was purchased vide registered sale deed dated 13-06-1955, after 40 years of their continuous possession. Therefore, the action of the petitioner is barred by limitation. 7. Under those circumstances, the Special Court has rightly dismissed the dismissed the application. The reasons given in the impugned judgment are cogent and convincing and therefore, it does not call for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition suffers not only from laches but also devoid of merits. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED June 20, 2008 ___________________________ JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU