THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21478 of 2003 AND WRIT PETITION.No.6488 of 2005 DT.24.08.2011 Between: WRIT PETITION No.21478 of 2003 Y.Eshwar Reddy s/o Y.Shiva Reddy … Petitioner And The Hon’ble Special Court under The Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 rep by Registrar and Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.B.Nalinkumar Counsel for respondents: WRIT PETITION.No.6488 of 2005 P.Ganga Reddy s/o late Malla Reddy and Ors … Petitioners And The Hon’ble Special Court under The Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 rep by Registrar and Ors. …Respondents The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21478 of 2003 AND WRIT PETITION.No.6488 of 2005 C O M M O N O R D E R:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) 1. These two writ petitions arise out of the common Judgment and Decree dated 25-3-2003 in L.G.C.No.16 of 1997, on the file of The Special Court Under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, Hyderabad. 2. The 1st applicant in the L.G.C is the writ petitioner and the other applicants 3 to 6 in the LGC are the respondents 9 to 12 in W.P.No.21478 of 2009. The respondents 1 to 3, 5 and 6 in the L.G.C are the writ petitioners in W.P.No.6488 of 2005. 3. It is the case of the applicants before the Special Court in the L.G.C that the application scheduled property admeasuring Ac.2.10 gts in Sy.No.91/AA situated in Old Bowenpalli village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District belonging to them was grabbed by the respondents therein, who are the writ petitioners in W.P.No.6488 of 2005. It is further the case of the applicants that they are the protected tenants and Occupancy Rights Certificate was granted in their favour for an extent of Ac.14.03 gts in Sy.No.91, situated at Old Bowenpalli village and they had sold Ac.10-00 retaining Ac.4.03 gts, out of which the respondents therein have grabbed an extent of Ac.2-10 gts and are making efforts to sell it to 3rd parties. The cause of action arose on 1-7-1996, when the respondents therein tried to interfere with the applicants’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the application schedule property. There is no allegation as to whether or when the property was grabbed by the respondents. 4. The respondents have filed counter in the injunction application filed by the applicants denying the existence of application land. It is the case of the respondents that they were already in possession of Ac.8-00 of land much prior to the purchase of Ac.4-10 gts by the applicants and also the grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate in favour of the applicants, and as such, they have not grabbed the land and are not the land grabbers. 5. The Special Court has dismissed the said application holding that the applicants have failed to establish that they are the owners of the application schedule property, and therefore, the respondents cannot be declared as the land grabbers of the property within the meaning of the Act. At the same time, the Special Court has also held that the rival title set up by the respondents and alternative plea of adverse possession are also not established, whereas aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the 1st applicant in the L.G.C has filed W.P.No.21478 of 2003, and as against the findings of the Special Court that the respondents have failed to establish rival title and the claim of adverse possession, the respondents therein have filed W.P.No.6488 of 2005. 6. After hearing the parties at length, we are of the opinion that as the applicants themselves only claimed that the respondents tried to grab the property and no particulars have been furnished in the application as to when the land was grabbed and how it was developed or sold, whereas accordingly evidence was adduced, therefore, it is a clear case of title dispute and not a case of grabbing of the property. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions has sought for the permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petitions with a liberty to avail the alternative remedy, in accordance with law. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to avail alternative remedy as per law. We also make it clear that none of the findings of the Special Court can operate as res judicata inasmuch as we have expressed our opinion that L.G.C itself is not maintainable inasmuch no clear averment with regard to any land grabbing is mentioned in the L.G.C. No costs. ________________ (V. ESWARAIAH,J) _________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J) DATE:24-08-2011 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.21478 of 2003 AND WRIT PETITION.No.6488 of 2005 DT.24.08.2011