THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.5217 of 2000 Dated:19.11.2009 BETWEEN: Durisetti Mallaiah, S/o. Ilaiah, Viduranyapuri, Hanmakonda, Warangal District And another …Petitioners AND E.Yerra Reddy, S/o. S.Veeraiah 2-1-750 (new) Laskar Singaram, Hanmakonda, Warangal District And others. …Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.5217 of 2000 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) These Certiorari proceedings are against judgment and decree in L.G.C.No.168 of 1996 dated 25.11.1999 passed by the Special Court constituted under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (‘the Act’, for brevity). Petitioners herein are respondents in the said case. However, for the sake of convenience, we will refer the first respondent herein as petitioner and the writ petitioners as respondents. The case set up before the Special Court by petitioner is as follows. Sri Sammaiah, grandfather of petitioner, had three sons, namely, Balaguttu, Veeraiah and Mallaiah. In the family partition, each one of them got Acs.2.12 guntas. Petitioner’s father also got Acs.2.12 guntas, out of which, an extent of about Ac.0.15½ guntas was acquired by the Government for laying road and an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas was sold to third parties. Remaining land was in possession of owner. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, statedly, having purchased an extent of 151.66 square yards and 153.33 square yards from Mallaiah (another son of Sammaiah), tried to interfere with the possession of petitioner. He then filed O.S.No.1142 of 1989 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munisif, Warangal. The same was dismissed for default and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed against the said order is pending. In the meanwhile, it is alleged that respondents grabbed the land claiming that they are owners, besides constructing compound wall. Therefore, land grabbing case was filed under Section 8(1) of the Act for declaration that petitioner is owner and to punish respondents for grabbing the land, besides ordering re-delivery of vacant possession of land admeasuring 130 square yards in Survey No.265/C of Laskar Singaram Village. The case was opposed by respondents complaining that they purchased the land from Mallaiah under unauthorized sale deed dated 26.07.1985, and that they did not grab the land. They also alleged that the L.G.C is barred by limitation and they have clear title by adverse possession. In view of contentious issues that fell for enquiry, trial was conducted. Petitioner gave evidence as P.W.1, besides examining P.W.2 and marking Ex.A.1, which is Pahani for the year 1989-1990. On their part, respondents examined three witnesses and marked Exs.B.1 to B.11. The certified copy of judgment was also marked as Ex.C.1. Learned Special Court considered the evidence of R.W.1, Ex.A.1, Ex.B.3 and verification report submitted by Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanamkonda, Warangal District, and came to conclusion that respondents were in possession of land in excess of land they purchased under Ex.B.3, and accordingly, by its judgment, directed the respondents to deliver the land to petitioner. In this writ petition, learned counsel for petitioners submits that learned Special Court was swayed by the report of Mandal Revenue Officer, which was not marked in the evidence and, therefore, there is a grave error apparent on the face of record. The contention is that petitioner herein purchased land under Ex.B.3 from Mallaiah and constructed residential houses in 1989 and therefore, in their right, they are in possession of the land. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that except the pahani Ex.A1, no material was placed by the first respondent to prove his entitlement to the land in possession of the petitioners. There is no serious dispute that the original pattadar was Sammaiah. His three sons partitioned the property and the father of the first respondent by name Veeraiah got Acs.2.12 guntas. After the land acquisition for road and a private sale still an extent of about Ac.1.25 guntas remained with the first respondent. In the meanwhile, the petitioners allegedly purchased small extents of lands from the uncle of the first respondent under notarized sale deeds. Therefore, though they may show that they are in possession of the property in their own rights with reference to the two notarized documents, their title is very much doubtful. On the contrary, Ex.A1-pahani to which a reference was made by the learned Special Court indicates that Veeraiah, the father of the first respondent was shown as pattadar and occupant in respect of land admeasuring Acs.2.12 guntas in survey No.265/C. Therefore, there cannot be any serious dispute regarding the title of the first respondent with reference to the land in survey No.265/C. The next question is whether the land in possession of the respondents admeasuring 151.66 square yards and 153 square yards respectively which they alleged to have purchased from Mallaiah under two unregistered documents is certainly a question of fact. To record a finding that the land in their possession also forms part of land of first respondent under Ex.A1, the learned Special Court relied on Exs.A1, B3 and evidence of R.W.1 as well as the verification report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer. There is no law, which prohibits the Special Court from relying on the verification report of Mandal Revenue Officer because as contemplated under the provisions of the Act it is the requirement of law that a verification report of the Mandal Revenue Officer is called for before taking cognizance of the land grabbing case. When it forms part of the record, nothing prevents the Special Court relying on the same. When the Special Court has appreciated the evidence and recorded a finding of fact, ordinarily the same cannot be interfered in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is well settled in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v Government of Andhra Pradesh[1], A.P.Housing Board v Mohammed Sadatullah[2] and State of A.P. v P.V.Hanumantha Rao[3]. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioners with all force commended us to view that the finding of the Special Court is vitiated by perversity, we are not able to accept the same. We have perused the impugned order and record available before us and convinced that it is a question of fact, which tilted the scales against the petitioners herein. We are not persuaded to the view that the impugned order of the Special Court is vitiated by any grave error apparent on the face of the record. The Writ Petition for the above reasons is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 19.11.2009 vs [1] (2002) 3 SCC 258 [2] 2007 ALT (Rev.) 98 (SC) [3] (2003) 10 SCC 121