THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.11715 of 2009 Dated:19.11.2009 Between: Hyderabad Archdoices Society, And others. ….Petitioners And A.D.V.Lakshmi, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.11715 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioners herein filed L.G.C.No.1 of 2006 before the Special Court constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (the Act, for brevity), seeking a declaration that respondent Nos.1 to 45 herein are land grabbers of land admeasuring Acs.3.13 guntas in Survey Nos.4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 (part) of Guttala Begumpet Village of Serilingampally Mandal in Ranga Reddy District (hereafter referred to as, petition schedule land). The Special Court after obtaining the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) under Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988, took cognizance of the case under Section 8(1) of the Act and ordered notice to the respondents. At that stage, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein who were respondent Nos.10, 36 and 42 in L.G.C filed I.A.No.691 of 2006 to dismiss the L.G.C on the ground that it does not disclose any ingredients of land grabbing and that the petitioners’ L.G.C is frivolous and fictitious. The petitioners herein opposed the same. By impugned order, dated 02.03.2009, the learned Special Court allowed the Interlocutory Application opining that L.G.C is not maintainable not only against those who moved the application but also against other respondents in the L.G.C. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition seeking a declaration and a consequential direction to the Special Court to dispose of the L.G.C expeditiously. This Court while admitting the Writ Petition on 16.06.2009 granted ad interim injunction in W.P.M.P.No.15083 of 2009. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 herein, who filed the interlocutory application before the lower Court, and others moved W.V.M.P.No.2299 of 2009 for vacating the ex parte ad interim injunction. At the interlocutory stage, the matter is heard finally and is being disposed of with the consent of the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that during the enquiry in I.A.No.691 of 2006 the Special Court directed joint survey by the rival parties and even before the same could be completed the interlocutory Application was allowed erroneously. He nextly contends that when the parties conducted a joint survey, the petition schedule land was found to be under encroachment of the respondents. This led to filing of I.A.No.1267 of 2006 by the petitioners and the said Interlocutory Application is at the stage of arguments. Therefore, the impugned order is improper. According to the learned Counsel even while dealing with the factual aspects, the Special Court committed an error in not properly appreciating the case of the petitioners. He placed reliance on Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v Government of Andhra Pradesh[1], C.Natarajan v Ashim Bai[2] and V.Laxminarasamma v A.Yadaiah[3]. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 made the following submissions. The allegations and averments in the L.G.C do not constitute “land grabbing” and that the land in possession of respondent Nos.1 to 3 is altogether different to the petition schedule land and therefore, L.G.C itself is not maintainable. When the report was called for by the Special Court, the Mandal Revenue Officer submitted the report specifically saying that there are no encroachments in the petition schedule land and therefore, the case filed by the petitioners is fictitious and frivolous, which is intended to get unethical benefits by threats of land grabbing. Several suits were filed between the parties and respondents in the L.G.C and obtained decrees of injunctions in their favour and suppressing the same, the petitioners filed L.G.C and the Special Court rightly dismissed the L.G.C at the initial stage. They would urge that the respondents are in possession of the land in different survey numbers from 1982 onwards and the petitioners are themselves doubtful about the area which belongs to them and L.G.C would not be maintainable. He placed reliance on P.Nanda Kumar v K.Eswara Rao[4], Uttam Singh Duggal & Company Limited v United Bank of India[5], K.D.Sharma v Steel Authority of India Limited[6], Mohd.Siddiq Ali Khan v Shahsun Finance Limited, Chennai[7], Arif Noorul Hassan v State of Andhra Pradesh[8], G.Bharati Devi v Hyderabad Urban Development Authority[9], Valluri Sithamahalakshmi v M/s.Sarchandra Environ Private Limited[10] a n d Om Prakash Singh v M.Lingamaiah[11]. The only point that falls for consideration in the background of the case is whether the Special Court was justified in dismissing L.G.C filed by the petitioners at the initial stage. The petitioners herein filed L.G.C alleging that they are owners of petition schedule land. The Special Court called for report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal. A report dated 09.03.2006 vide letter No.B/264/2006 was submitted by the said Official, inter alia, stating that the land in survey Nos.4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 is vacant and that town planning survey was not conducted to enable to prepare correlation statement. After receipt of the report, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed I.A.No.691 of 2006 alleging that they have been in possession of the land especially residential plot Nos.831, 834, 835 (500 square yards each), that land is comprised in survey Nos.11/14 to 11/18 (part of survey No.11) of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal. They also alleged that when the petitioners themselves were not clear about identity of land, respondents cannot be branded as land grabbers. Third respondent purchased plot No.834 admeasuring 530 Sq.yards under registered sale deed dated 14.9.1995, vendor of second respondent purchased said plot from Swamy Ayyappa Cooperative Society, which is situated in survey Nos.11/14 and 11/18 of Khanamet Village. They also alleged that respondents 1 and 3 are also owners of plot Nos.831 and 835 situated in survey Nos.11/14 and 11/18 of Khanamet Village having purchased the same from the above said Society. They denied the allegation that any portion of the land which they purchased under sale deeds is situated in survey Nos.2 to 9 (Part) claimed by petitioners. They also pleaded that their possession was confirmed by two Courts in earlier proceedings. They therefore pleaded that they are not encroachers, that the identity of land is not established, and that the reasons mentioned in Form No.1 do not warrant cognizance of the case under the Act. Petitioners herein through their power of attorney filed counter affidavit denying the allegation that the land in occupation of respondent Nos.1 to 3 is covered by plot Nos.83, 84 and 85 in survey No.11. They contended that the earlier proceedings of Civil Court do not operate as res judicata and that the respondents have no right to the land. In view of the rival pleadings, learned Special Court framed two questions for consideration, namely, whether the order of taking cognizance can be recalled and whether the application is liable to be dismissed. Relying on Valluri Sithamahalakshmi (supra) Special Court held that the respondents can raise objection to taking cognizance of the case and it can be recalled. Having held so, Special Court considered the report of MRO and L.G.C.No.151 of 1996, which was filed by Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board against respondents and which was dismissed, came to the conclusion that the L.G.C. No.1 of 2006 is unsustainable. The Special Court also referred to writ proceedings relating to L.G.C.No.151 of 1996 as well as the suits filed in Civil Court, which were decreed in favour of some of the respondents. From a perusal of the impugned order of Special Court, we find no error apparent on the face of record warranting interference. It is now well settled that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India in relation to an order passed by Special Court is very limited. In Konda Lakshmana Bapuji (supra), the Government as respondent contended that the findings of fact recorded by Special Court are not open to challenge in a writ petition. The Supreme Court accepted reasoning of this Court on this issue wherein it was held that when elaborate and detailed enquiry like any other civil suit is conducted, findings of Special Court do not warrant interference by the writ Court. In A.P. Housing Board v Mohd. Sadatullah[12], the ratio in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji (supra) was explained by Supreme Court in the following manner. The provisions of the Act came up for consideration before this Court in few cases. In Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v Government of A.P. and Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 258, a decision rendered by Special Court under the Act and confirmed by the High Court came to be challenged in this Court. … … … … … The Court considered the definition clause and the expressions 'land grabber' and 'land grabbing' and held that whenever there is land grabbing under the Act, proceedings can be initiated and the case can be decided by Special Court constituted under the Act. The Court also held that for the purpose of taking cognizance of a case under the Act, existence of an allegation of any act of land grabbing is sine qua non and not the truth or otherwise of the allegation. But to hold the person to be a 'land grabber', it is necessary to find that the allegations satisfying the requirement of land grabbing are proved. To make out a case under the Act, therefore, the petitioner before the Special Court must plead and prove two ingredients, namely, possidendi i.e., factual possession and animus i.e., intention of the person who is alleged to have grabbed land. If the two conditions are fulfilled, Special Court has jurisdiction to deal with and decide the matter and an appropriate order can be passed under the Act. It was also held that the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 as also of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is limited and findings of the fact arrived at by the Special Court cannot be interfered with in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. The law laid down in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji was reiterated and quoted with approval in State of A.P. v P.V. Hanumantha Rao (dead) through L.Rs. and another, (2003) 10 SCC 121, by observing that an order passed by the Special Court can be interfered with by a High Court in exercise of power of judicial review where (1) there is an error manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear misreading or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (2) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. [See also Gouni Satya Reddi v. Government of A.P. and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 398: AIR 2004 SC 3661: 2004 ALT (Rev.) 31 (SC). (emphasis supplied) Therefore unless the findings of fact recorded by Special Court are demonstrably perverse on the face of it, the writ Court cannot interfere with such findings. Secondly, while exercising Certiorari jurisdiction, unless and until grave error apparent on the face of record is shown, this Court cannot interfere in the findings. The petitioners herein filed L.G.C. alleging that first petitioner acquired land admeasuring Acs.90.00 in survey Nos.2 to 9 (part) of Guttala Begumpet Village under gift deed dated 05.10.1973 and got it ratified by the MRO, Serilingampally, vide proceedings dated 10.9.1993. Petitioners never claimed any part of the land in survey No.11. When the respondents assert that their plots are situated in survey No.11 of Khanamet Village, question of land grabbing by them would not arise. As seen from the report of MRO, except two rooms in survey No.8, entire land in survey Nos.4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 was found to be vacant and there was no town planning survey. Therefore, when the identity of land itself is in dispute, respondents would not come within the definition of “land grabber” as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act nor their position and occupation amounts to “land grabbing”. In addition to this there is no dispute that the jurisdictional facts referred to in the impugned order with regard to L.G.C. filed by Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board and suits inter-parties remain uncontraverted. We are convinced that in dismissing L.G.C. at the instance of respondents, Special Court has not committed any error apparent on the face of record. The submission that at the instance of respondents 1 to 3, L.G.C. against all the respondents cannot be dismissed is misconceived. The Special Court is constituted to take cognizance of case against land grabbers. When the Special Court comes to conclusion that respondents, whether they moved application or not, are not land grabbers and for that reason dismissed the L.G.C. at preliminary stage, the same is not vitiated by any impropriety. The writ petition, for the above reasons, is dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 19.11.2009 vs [1] (2002) 3 SCC 258 [2] AIR 2008 SC 363 [3] 2009 (3) SCALE 685: 2009(3) ALT 1 (SC) [4] 1999 (6) ALT 493 (DB) [5] (2000) 7 SCC 120 [6] 2008 (5) Supreme 287 [7] 2005 (2) ALD 675 (FB) [8] 2007 (6) ALD (NOC 74) [9] 2008 (2) ALT 214 [10] 2008 (6) ALT 528 (DB) [11] 2009 (3) ALT 51 (SC) [12] (2007) 6 SCC 566: 2007 ALT (Rev.) 98 (SC)