IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD. (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1004 OF 2004 B e t w e e n: Mallarapu Mohan and eight others. - - - Petitioners/ Respondents. A n d 1. The Special Court under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad. 2. T.R. Venkatesh. - - - Respondents/ Applicant. The court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHANREDDY WRIT PETITION No.1004 OF 2004 ORDER:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice. G. Krishna Mohan Reddy) This writ petition is directed against the order passed in L.G.C. No.186 of 1999 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Special Court’), dated 10-12-2003. The writ petitioners are the respondents nos.13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 22, 20, 21 and 23 respectively and the second respondent is the applicant in L.G.C. No.186 of 1999 whereas, the first respondent happened to be the Special Court. 2) Heard both sides. 3) For the sake of convenience the parties herein after are referred to as they are arrayed in the Special Court. 4) The case set up on behalf of the applicant is as follows : Mallarapu Papaiah, Mallarapu Laxmaiah and Mallarapu Bashaiah who were brothers owned Ac.25.18 i.e., 11-02 guntas of land in Survey No.1 and Ac.14-16 guntas of land in Survey No.2 of Timmaipally Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. After the death of Papaiah, Lakshmaiah and Bashaiah their legal heirs i.e., the respondents Nos.2 to 7 who are the descendants of Papaiah and the respondents Nos.8 to 12 who are the descendents of Bashaiah sold Ac.5-00 of land in Survey No.1 and Ac.3-00 of land in Survey No.2 at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per acre to the applicant and executed a registered sale deed bearing document No.2433/88 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Medchal on 17-03-1988. Immediately, the property was delivered to the applicant and ever since the applicant has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The respondents Nos.13 and 14 are the sons of the second respondent, respondents Nos.15 to 17 are the sons of the third respondent, respondent No.18 is the son of fourth respondent, respondents Nos.19 and 20 are the sons of the fifth respondent and respondents Nos.21 to 23 are the sons of the sixth respondent. Further the respondents Nos.13 to 16, 19 to 23 filed O.S. No.285 of 1995 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Medcharl, Ranga Reddy District, for partition of their properties in collusion with the respondents Nos.1 to 12 and the respondents along with some unsocial elements started constructing Jai Bhavani temple therein. Further, the applicant filed I.A. No.800 of 1996 in O.S. No.285 of 1995 to restrain the respondents from constructing a temple in the property but it was dismissed. Further, after the dismissal of that Interlocutory Application, the respondents grabbed the entire application schedule property. Further, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara Mandal, made necessary enquiry and issued pateddar passbooks in favour of the applicant in the property. Hence, the application to declare the respondents as land grabbers and evict them from the property and deliver the vacant possession of the property to the applicant. 5) The 19th respondent filed his counter whereas the right of the respondents Nos.1 to 12, 17 and 18 and 23 to file counters was forfeited and though the rights of the Respondents Nos.13 to 16, 19 to 22 to file counter was forfeited at first the same was set-aside on filing the counter by the 19th respondent. 6) The claim of the 19th respondent is as follows : The schedule property happened to be the ancestral joint family property of himself and the Respondents Nos.1 to 6, 8 to 18 and 20 to 23. Their ancestors Papaiah, Laxmaiah and Bashaiah got equal shares in the property during their life time. In the said partition an extent of Ac.3-27 guntas in survey No.1 and an extent of Ac.4-32 guntas in survey No.2 fell to the share of Papaiah, and the remaining 2/3rd share fell to the share of Laxmaiah and Bashaiah and the respondents Nos.2 to 6 being the sons of Papaiah and the respondents Nos.13 to 23 being the grand sons of Papaiah are entitled to the property. Further, the respondents Nos.20 to 23 filed the suit for partition and for separate possession in respect of 1/3rd share out of the total extent of the property against the respondents Nos.2 to 6, 17 and 18. Further, the so called vendors of the applicant got no right to sell away any piece of land out of the schedule property to the applicant. In fact the said sale was done in collusion between the applicant and his vendors. Therefore, the sale is not binding upon the respondents Nos.13 to 16 and 19 to 23 being a false and concocted one and never the applicant was in possession of the property. Further, the temple was constructed by the respondents in the property long back. Hence, the application is untenable. The respondents Nos.13 to 16 and 20 to 22 adopted the counter filed by the 19th respondent. 7) 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 sale deed dated 17-03-1998 was brought up by the applicant in collusion with the vendors under the sale deed and whether the said sale deed was created and concocted sale deed? 3) Whether the rival title set up by the respondents is true, valid and binding on the applicant? 4) Whether the respondents are land grabbers? 5) Whether the applicant is entitled for any compensation? 6) Whether the respondents are liable to be prosecuted? 7) To what relief? 8) There is no dispute about the relationship among various respondents as pleaded in the claims and also as narrated in the counter filed by the 19th respondent. 9) Examining the material available, the Special Court observed as follows : There is absolutely no basis to show that there was partition of the schedule property among various branches of Mallarapu Lakshmaiah, Papaiah and Basaiah and it is also not proved that the property covered by Ex.A-10 sale deed executed in favour of the applicant fell to the share of Papaiah and by virtue of Ex.A-10 sale deed it must be deemed that the property (covered by it) was delivered to the applicant and Exs.A-2 and A-3 pattedar passbooks and Exs.A-4 and Ex.A-5 pahanies for the years 1985-86 and 1997-98 in the name of the applicant and the M.R.O.s report to the effect that the applicant happened to be in possession of Ac.5-00 of land in survey No.1 and Ac.3-00 of land in survey No.2 of Timmaipalli village very much uphold the claim of the applicant and the execution of Ex.A-10 is established. Further, the respondents filed Exs.B-1 to B-9 pahanies in the name of Papaiah, Satyanarayana, Siddeswar and Basavaiah. When the property was sold in the name of the applicant much earlier there was no question of obtaining those pahanies and so on. With such observations the Special Court dismissed the Land Grabbing Case. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 10) It is the contention of the learned advocate for the respondents- petitioners that when there is a dispute about the title of the property the applicant should have approached Civil Court and hence the Land Grabbing Case is not tenable and when the property happened to be the joint family property of the respondents/their ancestors they got respective shares therein and it is the fundamental principle of Hindu Law that joint family property cannot be alienated by some co sharers when there are other co sharers and as such the conveyance of the property if any under Ex.A-10 by only some coparceners of the joint family property in favour of the applicant is not tenable and further the lower Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly and arrived at an incorrect conclusions and ultimately the order passed by the Special Court is liable to be set aside. 11) In order to dispose of this Writ petition, the following points are framed : 1) Whether the sale deed claimed by the applicant is true and valid? 2) Whether some of the joint family members got no right to sell the property to the applicant? 3) Whether the applicant placed sufficient evidence to the effect that the respondents grabbed the property? 4) Whether the Special Court considered the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusion and whether the order passed by it is sustainable or not? 5) Whether the Land Grabbing Case is not maintainable in view of raising of the dispute about the title of the property? 12) Points No.1 and 2: Ex.A-10 evidences that the respondents Nos. 2 to 12 sold the property covered by it with an extent of Ac.5-00 in survey No.1 and Ac. 3-00 in survey No.2 totaling to Ac.8-00 within specified boundaries at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per acre. The Applicant as PW.1 in support of his claim gave evidence in accordance with his pleadings and further got examined PW.2 who was a third party and who was neither attester nor identifying witness on Ex.A-10, whereas he supported his claim, nothing was elicited from their evidence which is against their claim. Further the contesting respondents failed to place any evidence as to under what circumstances the applicant and the respondents Nos.2 to 12 resorted to creating such document. Hence, the execution of Ex.A-10 has been accepted. Further the respondents also failed to place satisfactory evidence to invalidate the contents of the document otherwise. 13) Further, even though it is the claim of the contesting respondents that there was partition of the properties among the three branches, no reliable evidence is placed whereas it is conceded by the learned advocate for the contesting respondents that the suit filed for partition was dismissed by the concerned Court. Further, no evidence also has been placed before the Special Court or this Court to the effect that the various members of the three branches have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares as per the said partition. Further, if there was such a partition there would not have been the execution of Ex.A-10 by the executants of it. Therefore, the question of partition is disproved. This point is answered accordingly holding that the sale is established and it is true. 14) With regards to the question raised by the contesting respondents that only some members of the joint family got no right to execute the sale deed, it is very significant that all the senior members of each of the branches executed the sale deed in favour of the applicant and no suit is said to have been filed by them or their heirs questioning the validity of the sale one way or the other about which there is no dispute. They are also not disputing the identity of the property. Further, when the respondents Nos.2 to 12 remained absent it is categorical that they are admitting the contents of the sale deed. Under these circumstances what the contesting respondents claim that the applicant in collusion with the respondents Nos.2 to 12 brought into existence Ex.A-2 sale deed is only a futile exercise to dislodge the claim of the applicant. Further, therefore the execution of the sale deed by the respondents Nos.2 to 12 is perfectly valid and binding upon all the members of the so called joint family. 15) POINT No.3: With regards to the question of grabbing the property it is not in dispute that the respondents have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. When the applicant purchased the property under Ex.A-10 he must have been delivered the possession of the property. Therefore, it is to be held that subsequently the respondents occupied the property and accordingly have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. Further, therefore when the applicant claims that the respondents occupied the property subsequent to the dismissal of I.A. No.800 of 1996 in O.S.No.285 of 1995 filed by him to restrain the respondents from constructing temple in the property, the same is to be accepted to be true and correct. Hence, in the circumstances there is no hesitation to hold that the respondents are the land grabbers of the property. 16) POINT No.4: The Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, considered the matter properly and effectively in detail and there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Special Court. 17) POINT No.5: With reference to the application of the relevant provisions of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, Section 7-A (1) which is relevant here clearly contemplates : “Every Special Court shall have power to try all cases not taken cognizance of by the Special Court relating to any alleged act of land grabbing, or with respect to the ownership and title to, or lawful possession of the land grabbed whether before or after the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) (Amendment) Act, 1987 and brought before it and pass such orders (including orders by way of interim directions) as it deems fit and so on” Much emphasis is to be given to the effect that the provision authorizes such Special Court to examine the question of ownership and title or lawful possession of the land grabbed being concerned. when it postulates that the question of title of a given property is to be looked into, it is incidental to the question of deciding whether a particular person or persons are the land grabbers of it or not. There is no meaning in claiming when there is a question of title to the property the Special Court got no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. 18) Further, there is no question of acquiring title of the property by adverse possession by the respondents. Therefore, the Special Court got jurisdiction to entertain the matter. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is not tenable and ultimately it is to be dismissed. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ G. RAGHURAM, J. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. DATE: - -2011. Dsh.