IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2882 of 2008 Between: K.Ramchander Reddy S/o.K.Shankar Reddy, Aged 38 yrs., Occ: Advocate, R/o.C-308, 3rd floor Upasana, 4-1-970, Abids Road, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Dr.P.Mallikarjuna Rao S/o.P.Vishwanadha Rao, Aged 67 yrs. R/o.H.No.12-8-259/1, Occ: Medical Practitoner, Mettuguda, Secunderabad 2 V.Ramchandra Rao S/o.V.Musalaiah R/o. Reffcon Rajasoudha Apartments, Moti Nagar, Babbuguda, Hyderabad. 3 Dr.P.Mamatha W/o.K.Venkatesham R/o.H.No.12-8-241/1B, Mettuguda, Secunderabad. 4 P.Pushpaleelavathi W/o.P.V.Rao R/o.H.No.12-8-259/1, Mettuguda, Secunderabad. 5 P.Shivakumar S/o.P.Swamy R/o.H.No.12-8-241/1B, Mettuguda, Secunderabad. 6 Thammineedi Balaji S/o.Venkatanarayana R/o.Plot No.109, S.V. Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 7 Velichetti Shyamala Rao S/o.Veera RAghavaiah R/o. H.I.G. A5, A.P.H.B. Colony, GAchibowli, Hyderabad. 8 V.L. Shivanarayana S/o.Venkata Appa Rao R/o. Indiralok Complex, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 9 V.Nagakumari W/o.V.L.Shivanarayana R/o. Indiralok Complex, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 10 M/s. Mendrick Promoters (P) Ltd., rep. by its M.D. Dr.A.Lingaiah Regd. Office at # 104, RTC Colony, Malla Reddy, Trimulgherry, Sec’bad. 11 Kondabolu Suresh Babu, S/o.Not known to applicant R/o.H.No.6-3-563/26/1/C-2, Hill Top Colony, Aarjay Enclave, Errum Manzil, Hyderabad. 12 The Future Kids School, rep. by its Secretary & Correspondent, Poppalaguda Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, R.R. District. 13 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the District Collector Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapol, Hyderabad. 14 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P. at Hyderabad, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 15 K.Swaminathan, I.A.S. Retd. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad C/o. O/o The Chief Commissioner Land Administration, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 16 The Mandal REvenue Offier, Rajendernagar Mandal, Rajendernagar Ring Road near N G Ranga Agricultural University Campus, R.R. District Hyderabad. 17 The State of A.P. rep. by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Rajendernagar Ring Road, R.R. District, 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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to L.G.C. Sr. No.1468/2007 on the file of the Hon'ble Special Court constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and be further pleased to set aside the impugned order of dismissal of L.G.C.Sr.No.1468/2007 dated 4.11.2007 passed by the Hon'ble Special Court and consequently direct the Hon'ble Special Court to register the Land Grabbing Case and dispose of the same as per Law by conducting a comprehensive Trial and enquiry therein, and be pleased to pass such further or, other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. RAKESH SANGHI Counsel for the Respondent No. : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Third Respondent: Sri K. Ramakrishana Reddy, Senior counsel The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WP No.2882 OF 2008 ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J ) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus calling for the records pertaining to LGC (Sr.) No.1468 of 2007 on the file of Special Court constituted under the AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, (for short ‘the Act’) and set aside the impugned order dated 4- 11-2007 dismissing the said LGC Sr. No.1468 of 2007 by the Special Court and consequently direct the Special Court to register the said Land Grabbing case and dispose of the same in accordance with law. 2. Heard Sri Rakesh Sanghi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. Perused the impugned order passed by the Special Court. 3. The facts as stated by the writ petitioner herein who sought to file LGC Sr.No.1468 of 2007 against the respondents are that an entire extent of Ac.85-21 guntas located in Sy.Nos.279, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286 and RS No.287 of Poppalaguda Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for short ‘the schedule land’ constituted the private estate of erstwhile Hyderabad State viz., Nawab Faqueer Yar Jung and these agricultural lands are being cultivated since generations by poor peasants and their names were entered in various Revenue Records including the Sethwar, Wasool Banqui, Khasra Pahani and Chesala Pahani and they are entitled for grant of patta in their favour. It is stated that Nawab Faqueer Yar Jung migrated to Pakistan and his entire estate was declared as Evacuee property. However, the schedule land was not resumed and possession of the land was not taken by evicting the cultivators as contemplated under Section 8 (4) of the Evacuee Property Act, 1950, and consequently, all those, who are cultivating the land continued to be in possession as cultivators. The petitioner further stated that the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad, has to establish the fact of resumption of the schedule land from the peasants and the cultivators. That the mutations and the entries made in the Revenue Records are illegal and the cultivators are entitled to pattas as per the Revenue Board Standing Order No.15. 4. It is further stated that as the matter stood thus, the first respondent claimed the entire schedule land stating that one Ravinder Kumar Balwani, S/o Tharumal Balwani, resident of Bombay was allotted, the schedule land by the Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bombay, by allotment Order No.Hyderabad/53/9999, dated 16-9-1967 and a separate allotment Order No.Hyderabad/53-A/11005, dated 7-10-1967 and that the first respondent is described as GPA holder of the said allottee Ravinder Kumar Balwani. The petitioner categorically stated that the allotment orders are fake and fabricated documents, created by the first and second respondents and that they have to establish the allotments made by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. It is also stated by the petitioner that Ravinder Kumar Balwani, S/o Tharumal Balwani is non-existent and fictitious person and the said personality has been created by the first and second respondents for the purpose of fabricating the allotments made and that the same has to be proved and established by the party-respondents. It is stated that in order to establish the existence of Ravinder Kumar Balwani, the respondents ought to have produced his Passport, Income Tax Pan Card, Motor Driving License or Ration Card and the respondents failed to do so and consequently, this person is a fake person created by respondents 1 and 2. It is stated that the General Power of Attorney dated 14-12-1966 is a fake and fabricated document as it was executed at Bombay and the same was validated later in the office of the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District on 11-12-1998, since the presence of executants is not necessary for the purpose of validating the document at Hyderabad. Further, it is stated in the General Power of Attorney registered on 14-12-1966 that the schedule land is going to be allotted to both of them in future in September and October, 1967 and that recital by itself discloses that the General Power of Attorney was executed well in advance even prior to the allotment of the schedule land. Further, it is stated by the petitioner that after having created the documents as aforesaid, the respondents including the Revenue officials conspired and subsequently, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad, issued proceedings on 3-7-2001 stating that possession of the schedule land was handed over to the allottee, Ravinder Kumar Balwani in the year 1968 itself and that the same is alienable in the hands of the GPA- holder, the first respondent. The petitioner again asserted that the recitals in the said proceedings are absolutely false and baseless and that the 15th respondent virtually abused the high office of the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, by issuing fake letter dated 3-7-2001 to strengthen the hands of the land grabbers and therefore, he has to be prosecuted under Section 217 r/w section 218 IPC read with the relevant provisions under the Act. Further, it is stated by the petitioner that the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal have also helped the respondents in consolidating their illegal possession over the schedule land by issuing Patta Pass Book and title deeds and also illegally passing mutation orders without verifying the records and thereby dispossessed innocent, impoverished peasants, who were cultivating the land since generations. 5. It is further stated by the petitioner that he came to know about the illegalities referred to above when he was appointed as the counsel by the impoverished peasants of the schedule land to contest CMA Nos.65, 66 and 67 of 2005 on the file of the District Judge, Raga Reddy District. It is stated that some of the respondents have filed O.S.Nos.805 of 2003 etc., on the file of I Additional Sr. Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for eviction of the clients of the petitioner and the same cannot be construed as sub judice for the purpose of entertaining the LGC sought to be filed by the petitioner. It is asserted by the petitioner that he being the counsel of some of the cultivators of the schedule land is entitled to present the subject LGC and that even otherwise, the locus standi of the petitioner pales into insignificance in the light of the fact that the expression ‘any person’ used in Section 8(1) of the Act, the emphasis being on the fact, rather the core issue, that the Act should be utilized for evicting a land grabber from the land which is unlawfully grabbed in violation of law. It is further stated that under the provisions of the Act, prosecution of the land grabbers can also be ordered and therefore, the Special Court ought to have treated the present application on par with a complaint filed by the complainant before the Competent Authority for investigating the crime. 6. The Special Court after considering the matter at length dismissed the LGC at the admission stage and aggrieved thereby the present writ petition has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Special Court grossly erred in not taking cognizance of the case in the light of the allegation that the very GPA dated 14-12-1966 purported to have registered at Mumbai, by the so-called Ravinder Kumar Balwani, S/o Tharumal Balwani, resident of Bombay, alleged allottee of the schedule land by the Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bombay, is found to be a fake, when verified from the Sub-Registrar, Mumbai, under Right to Information Act. Learned counsel also contended that the so-called Ravinder Kumar Balwani, S/o Tharumal Balwani, resident of Bombay, is a fake and fictitious and non-existent person created by the 1st respondent who claims to be the GPA holder of Ravinder Kumar Balwani. Learned counsel lastly contended that the petitioner being the counsel for some of the cultivators of the schedule land is entitled to present the subject LGC in the light of the fact that the expression ‘any person’ used in Section 8 (1) of the Act and mere allegation of land grabbing is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of Special Court either suo motu or an application by any person or office or authority. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in KONDA LAKSHMANA BAPUJI vs. GOVERNMENT OF AP, HYDERABAD1. 8. Sri. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, on the other hand, drawn the attention of this Court to Section 2 (d) and (e) of the Act and contended that there is no allegation of land grabbing by the party respondents in the application made by the petitioner and virtually the petitioner under the garb of land grabbing was calling upon the party-respondents to establish their title and possession with respect to the schedule land. 9. It is clear from the concise statement of case and the memos filed by the petitioner before the Special Court that the petitioner is not at all interested in the schedule land and that he is not having any right or title to the schedule land. The petitioner has stated that he appeared as counsel for some of the persons, who are alleged to be in possession of some extents of the schedule land subject matter of the civil suits, which were filed to evict them from the schedule land. The petitioner claims that he is convinced that the party-respondents herein have grabbed the schedule land and that they should be declared as land grabbers and be evicted from the schedule land and restore to the cultivators or to the Government. 10. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is relevant to refer to Section 8 (1) of the Act, which is thus: “Section 8–Procedure and powers of the Special Courts :- (1) The Special Court may, either suo motu or on application made by any person, officer or authority take cognizance of and try every case arising out of 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 this Act, and pass such orders (including orders by way of interim directions) as it deems fit;” 11. No doubt, under the provisions of the Act, the Special Court has got power to take cognizance of any case suo motu as and when the incidents of land grabbing come to the notice of Court, but cognizance of case can be taken only if the Court is satisfied that the applicant before it has made out a prima facie case of land grabbing against the respondents and unless such prima facie case is not made out, Section 10 of the Act will not come into play to draw a presumption against the alleged land grabbers. 12. It is also relevant to refer to Section 2 (d) and (e) of the Act, which reads thus: “2. Definitions:--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--- (d) “land grabber” means a person or a group of persons who commits land grabbing and includes any person who gives financial aid to any person for taking illegal possession of lands or for construction of unauthorized structures thereon, or who collects or attempts to collect from any occupiers of such lands rent, compensation and other charges by criminal intimidation, or who abets the doing of any of the above mentioned acts; and also includes the successors in interest; (e) “land grabbing” means every activity of grabbing of any land (whether belonging to the Government, a local authority, a religious or charitable institution or endowment, including a wakf, or any other private person) by a person or group of persons, without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking possession of such lands, or enter into or create illegal tenancies or lease and licences agreements or any other illegal agreements in respect of such lands, or to construct unauthorized structures thereon for sale or hire, or give such lands to any person on rental or lease and licence basis for construction, or use and occupation, of unauthorized structures ; and the term “to grab land” shall be construed accordingly ;” 13. The averments made in the concise statement and the documents annexed, do not disclose that there is any allegation that the party-respondents unauthorisedly or unlawfully have taken possession of the schedule land. In our considered opinion unless the averments/allegations made in the concise statement specify and satisfy attracting the ingredients of Section 2(d) and (e) of the Act, mere expression of words of ‘land grabbing’ would not be enough for taking cognizance of the case i.e. factum as well as the intention. In identical circumstances, the Full Bench of this Court in MOHD. SIDDIQ ALI KHAN v. SHAHSUN FINANCE LIMITED2 held thus: “Unless the allegations made in the application satisfy and attract the ingredients of “land grabber” and “land grabbing “ as provided for under Section 2(d) and (e ) of the Act, mere repetition of words “land grabbing” would not be enough for taking cognizance of a case, unless that statement or allegations satisfies both the ingredients – the factum as well as the intention. Act of land grabbing involves “taking of any land belonging to Government etc., or any other private person unauthorisedly, unfairly, greedily, either forcibly, violently, unscrupulously or otherwise but without any lawful entitlement. Taking possession of the land without any lawful entitlement thereto is the sin qua non to hold a person to be a land grabber. It may be noted, to make out a case that a person is a land grabber the applicant must aver and prove both the ingredients – the factum as well as the intention. Unless a person unauthorizedly and without any lawful entitlement thereto enters or intrudes into a land forcibly or otherwise, he cannot be held to be a land grabber. The emphasis is on taking possession without any lawful entitlement.” 14. In this case, the Special Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case and there is no allegation of land grabbing made against the party-respondents in the concise statement filed by the petitioner and, therefore, refused to take cognizance of the case. Cognizance of the case was also refused on the ground that there is an embargo under sub-Section (6) of Section 8 of the Act. The official respondents have also not been able to categorically assert that the schedule land, prima facie, belongs to the Government. 15. On facts, one Ravinder Kumar Balwani, S/o Tharumal Balwani, resident of Bombay, alleged allottee of the schedule land by the Custodian, Evacuee Property, Bombay, has been allotted possession of the schedule land in the year 1968 as is evident from the proceedings dated 3-7-2001 issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, AP, Hyderabad, and mutation was also carried out as per proceedings of Commissioner, Survey Settlements and Land Records, dated 24-5-1997 and pursuant to these proceedings the revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed book in the name of the Ravinder Kumar Balwani. It is stated that thereafter he executed a registered GPA dated 14-12-1966 authorizing Dr. P. Mallikarjuna Rao, the 1st respondent herein to apply for allotment of conversion of agricultural land on his behalf and dispose of the schedule land and buildings and perform other functions. 16. Admittedly, civil suits are pending between the clients of the petitioner and the party-respondents with respect to the same subject matter of the schedule land and under those circumstances, the correctness or otherwise of the various allegations made by the petitioner as to the genuineness or otherwise of the GPA dated 14-12- 1966 said to have been executed by Ravinder Kumar Balwani in favour of the 1st respondent and whether any such person by name Ravinder Kumar Balwani exists or not or he is a fake and fictitious and non- existent person created by the 1st respondent or not are all being seriously disputed questions of facts can be gone into by the civil Court in the proceedings pending between the clients of the petitioner and the party-respondents. 17. The petitioner who sought to file this LGC has admittedly appeared as a counsel for some of the cultivators of the part of the schedule land in civil suits pending between the party-respondents and the clients of the petitioner. The petitioner being a counsel filed the present case on his own without any interest, right, claim or title and without reference to those persons, who engaged him in those civil suits. Mere initiation of the proceedings by a good Samaritan as permitted under Section 8 (1) of the Act, will not itself be sufficient to take cognizance without subjecting the lis to litmus test of prima facie evidence of land grabbing being present, as required under Section 2 (d) and (e) of the Act. As observed by the Special Court, possession of the schedule land secured by the party respondents, being in accordance with law, there is no prima facie material to take cognizance by the Court against the party respondents and under those circumstances, we do find any merit in this writ petitioner warranting interference with the impugned order dated 4-11-2007 passed by the Special Court. 18. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J _______________________ Dated: 19-2-2008 B. Seshasayana Reddy, J Nrg. 1 2002 (2) ALD 56 (SC) 2 2005 (2) ALT 503