IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 11105 of 2006 Between: State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Amberpet (Previously Musheerabad Mandal), Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Smt.Tota Gowri Devi, w/o T.Rama Rao, r/o H.No.2-2-1107/1, Tilaknagar, Hyderabad. 2 Smt.Saroja, w/o Suresh Kandlekar, r/o H.No.2-2-1107/A/1, Tilaknagar, Hyderabad. 3 Sri R.M.Varma, r/o H.No.2-2-1107/1, Tilaknagar, 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 to issue a writ, order or directions more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records from the ﬁle of the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2002 in LGC No.57 of 2002 dated 17-2-2004 and set aside the same, as illegal, arbitrary and in violative of principles of natural justice and consequently declare the respondents as land grabber by declaring the petitioner as owner of the land, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.11105 of 2006 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) State of Andhra Pradesh ﬁled this writ petition challenging the order dated 17-02-2004 passed in LGC No.57 of 2002 on the ﬁle of Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’), whereunder and whereby the Special Court held that the State failed to establish its title over the schedule property and that the rival title set up by respondents 1 and 2 herein, especially in view of Exs.B-3 and B-31 sale deeds are true, valid and binding on the State and thus, the said respondents have not been declared as ‘land grabbers.’ The details relevant and necessary for deciding this writ petition are that the State represented by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Amberpet Mandal, Hyderabad, has ﬁled the above LGC against the respondents herein alleging that one GLN Rao, S/o Late G.Subbaramaiah had grabbed the land in an extent of 415 square metres in T.S.No.131/1 during the year 1980 and raised temporary structures thereon. It is the further case that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer concerned ﬁled LGOP No.930 of 1990 against GLN Rao and the same was allowed on 12-7-1991 after setting him ex parte and further directing him to vacate the schedule land. It is averred that the said GLN Rao vacated the land and thereafter, the Deputy Tahsildar, Amberpet, was authorised to take possession, but some persons other than GLN Rao were in possession and occupation. It is stated that an enquiry was conducted on 30-4-2001, wherein it was revealed that the respondents herein have grabbed the land; it is alleged that 1st respondent grabbed 200 square metres; 2nd respondent grabbed 192 square metres and third respondent, an extent of 23 square metres in T.S.No.131/1, Block-K Ward No.158 of Amberpet village. The case of the respondents is that the schedule land is a part of Sy.No.521 in Amberpet village and an extent of 8,554 square yards therein is an evacuee property, which was sold in public auction on 24-03-1957 by the competent authority under Section 10 of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act to one G.Subbaramayya and the sale certiﬁcate dated 19-2- 1958 was issued showing that the said extent of 8,554 square yards including the structure measuring 2,455 sft. was sold. After considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal held that the State failed to prove its title in respect of the application schedule land and that the respondents 1 and 2 have established their title in respect of the schedule land. The Tribunal further held that there is no necessity of giving a speciﬁc ﬁnding on the issue of adverse possession and respondents 1 and 2 cannot be branded as ‘land grabbers’, therefore dismissed the L.G.C. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is ﬁled by the State. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for State submits that the Special Court has erroneously taken into consideration the documents ﬁled by the respondents pertaining to Survey No.521 of Amberpet village, whereas the application schedule property is part of S.No.578/1, corresponding to T.S.No.131/1, which is a Government land. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents supported the impugned order. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Special Court relying upon Ex.B29-sale certiﬁcate, Ex.B30-delivery letter and Ex.B34- sketch and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, held that the State has miserably failed to establish its title to the application schedule land and further held that the respondents cannot be branded as land grabbers. When there are such categorical ﬁndings based on appreciation of evidence on record, we are not inclined to disturb the ﬁndings of fact in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 26.8.2008 DA THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.11105 of 2006 (Order of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) 26.8.2008