THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8266 of 2002 DT.09.8.2011 Between: H.C.Joshi s/o D.N.Joshi … Petitioner And P.Pandu s/o P.Pentaiah & ors … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy 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.8266 of 2002 O R D E RLPer Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The petitioner is the applicant in L.G.C.No.5 of 1998, on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad. The said L.G.C was filed alleging that the 1st respondent herein without any right, title and interest unlawfully tried to grab the application schedule house bearing No.31-2/2 in Plot No.89 admeasuring an extent of 201.5 sq yards situated at Ramakrishnapuram village, Vallabhanagar Taluk, R.R. District. During the pendency of the L.G.C, it was stated that the 1st respondent sold the said property to the 2nd respondent, and accordingly, the 2nd respondent was added as a party as per orders in I.A.No.981 of 1999, dated 21-09-1999. The Special Court by the impugned order dated 31-1- 2002 dismissed the L.G.C holding that the vendor of the applicant got no right, title and interest in the said property and failed to file any document to prove his possession over the schedule land. The Tribunal further relying on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.11415 of 1998 dated 5-11-2001 wherein it was held that the Special Court or the Tribunal cannot exercise the jurisdiction under the Act to declare the persons said to have attempted to grab the land as land grabbers, dismissed the L.G.C. It is not in dispute that the Full Bench of this Court in HAE CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., HYD. V. SPECIAL COURT, ETC,[1] held that an attempt to grab the land should not be treated as an act of land grabbing, as defined under Section 2 (e) of the Act, and that the Special Court or Special Tribunal constituted thereunder got no jurisdiction to entertain such matters based on the allegations of attempts to grab the land. To be precise, it is only in such matter where an applicant before the Court or Tribunal alleges that the land in question has been taken possession of by the respondent illegally and with intention to grab it at the outset, the Tribunal or Special Court can exercise jurisdiction. In view of the said decision of the Larger Bench supra the counsel appearing for the petitioner has rightly contended that the Special Court ought not to have exercised the jurisdiction of the said L.G.C.No.5 of 1998 filed alleging that the respondents attempted to grab the land. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the Special Court rightly dismissed the said L.G.C. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that when the Special Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the L.G.C, the findings on the merits of the case are also without jurisdiction, which is quite acceptable. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the writ petition holding that the Special Court rightly held that it got no jurisdiction to entertain the L.G.C, and when the Special Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the L.G.C, the findings arrived at by it on the merits of the case are also without jurisdiction. No costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH,J ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J DATE:09.8.2011 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 Eswaraiah) WRIT PETITION No.8266 of 2002 DATE: 09.8.2011 [1] 2004 (6) ALD 769 (LB)