HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V AFZULPURKAR WP.No.12525 of 2008 Dt.29.7.2009 1.Dawood Khan and another … Petitioners Vs. 1. Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad and two others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V AFZULPURKAR WP.No.12525 of 2008 O R D E R:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of certiorari by calling for the records in L.G.A.No.25 of 2007 dated 17.4.2008 on the file of the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The applicant-3rd respondent herein filed L.G.O.P.No.505 of 1997 under Section 7-A(1) of the Act in respect of land in an area of 616 Sq.yards in Survey No.1374 situated at Subhashnagar locality of Karimnagar revenue village within the municipal limits of Karimnagar Municipality. In the concise statement, the 3rd respondent herein alleged that the petitioners herein have illegally encroached upon and occupied the said land without any right and title by creating false unregistered sale deeds said to have been executed by late Abdul Rahaman in favour of vendee of petitioner No.1 herein. That inspite of demands made by her, the petitioners failed to deliver back possession of the said land. The Special Tribunal by order dated 27.8.2007 dismissed the LGOP against which the applicant-3rd respondent herein carried the matter in appeal before the Special Court in LGA No.25 of 2007. The Special Court by the impugned order allowed the appeal, which is in the following terms: “Hence, in our view, the entire proceedings in the LGOP, without the statutory verification report of the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer under Rule 6(2) of the Rules framed under the Act, gets vitiated. Therefore we hold that the findings recorded by the Special Tribunal, Karimnagar District, is not sustainable and the same is hereby set aside. Consequently, we have no option except to remand the matter without going into the merits, to the Special Tribunal for disposal afresh in accordance with law. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed and we hereby set aside the impugned order and decree and remit the same to the Special Tribunal, for disposal afresh, in accordance with law and by giving opportunity to both the parties, by complying with mandatory requirements under Rule 6(2) of the Rules framed under the Act. The Registry shall send the entire record to the Special Tribunal concerned, under proper acknowledgment”. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the respondents in the L.G.O.P. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Assignment. Perused the impugned order passed by the courts below. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously contended that when the dispute is between two private parties, failure to refer the application to the Mandal Revenue Officer for verification under Rule 6 of the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules,1988 would not have any impact on the facts of the case and the matter was adjudicated after holding full-fledged enquiry basing on the material available on record and, therefore, the Special Court ought not to have remanded the matter. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the decision in Vonkela Subramanyam and others v Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad and others[1] 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader contended that inspection and report by the Mandal Revenue Officer before the Special Court or Special Tribunal as the case may be before taking cognizance is a mandatory requirement and drawn our attention to Full Bench decision of this Court in Mohd.Siddiq Ali Khan and others v Shahsun Finance Limited, Chennai and another[2]. The Full Bench of this Court in Mohd.Siddiq Ali Khan and others case (2) supra, has considered the scope of Section 6 of the Rules, which reads thus: That a plain reading of Rule 6 of the Rules does not suggest that application filed under Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act or under Sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of the Act may have to be referred for local inspection or verification or both by the Mandal Revenue Officer only after the Special Court or the Special Tribunal, as the case may be, takes cognizance of the case. On the other hand, it suggests that every case taken cognizance of, suo motu by the Special Court may be referred for local inspection or verification or both by the Mandal Revenue Officer. It means that Rule 6 of the Rules makes distinction between the applications filed under Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act and the cases taken cognizance of suo motu by the Special Court. In all cases, wherever, the Special Court takes cognizance of a case suo motu, local inspection or verification shall be after taking such suo motu cognizance by the Special Court, as is evident from a plain reading of Rule 6 of the Rules, which says every application filed under Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act or every case taken cognizance of suo motu by the Special Court, and in all other cases, where application filed under Sub- section (1) of Section 8 of the Act, the same required to be referred for local inspection or verification or both by the Mandal Revenue Officer even before taking cognizance of the case. The portion of the Rule 6 of the Rules, "or every case taken cognizance of suo motu by the Special Court", if not be read, the Rule 6 of the Rules would read: "every application file under Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act or on application filed under Sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of the Act, before the Special Tribunal, may be referred for local inspection or verification or both by the Mandal Revenue Officer having jurisdiction over the area or by any other Officer of the Government authorized by the Court in this behalf." The report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, obviously, renders valuable assistance to the Special Court in order to decide as to whether the application filed is a fit case to be taken cognizance of. In our considered opinion, reference of every application under Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act or on application filed under Sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of the Act, for local inspection or verification or both by the Mandal Revenue Officer before the Special Court or the Special Tribunal takes cognizance of the case is a mandatory requirement. In the result, we hold that the Special Court is required to follow the procedure under Rule 6 of the Rules before taking cognizance of a case. It is unnecessary to restate that registering or numbering of an application filed under Sub- section (1) of Section 8 of the Act or an application filed under Sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of the Act cannot be equated to that of taking cognizance of a case for the purpose of passing such orders as the Special Court may deem fit and proper in the case. The report to be submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer is required to contain the correctness of the statements made in the applications with regard to columns 1 to 15 and 19. Columns 6 to 14 relate to the details of the land alleged to have been grabbed, the market value of the land and its location etc. That in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of the Act and Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act, those are the essential aspects, required to be taken into consideration by the Special Court for the purpose of taking cognizance of a case. The report cannot be equated to that of any evidence or collection of material. Therefore, taking into consideration the verification report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer would not amount to relying upon any evidence produced by the parties even before taking cognizance of the case. The verification report may render valuable assistance to the Court for the purposes of taking cognizance of a case. The report merely provides inputs enabling the Special Court to apply its mind to the fact situation for the purposes of taking cognizance of the case. 6. The Special Court remanded the matter only on the ground that procedure under Rule 6 of the Rules was not followed by the Special Tribunal which in the facts and circumstances of the case does not warrant any interference by this Court. There is no jurisdictional error so as to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The writ petition is meritless and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ______________​______ VILAS V AFZULPURKAR, J 29th July, 2009. PNV THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.12525 of 2008 Dt.29-07-2009 [1] 2007(5) ALD 184 (DB) [2] 2005(2) ALD 675 (FB)