IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH 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 : 27608 of 2005 Between: 1 Emmanuel, S/o. A. Maduranyagem, S.P. Colony, Tirumalgerry Village, Secunderabad. 2 Smt. Mary Philomena, W/o. Emmanuel, S.P. Colony, Tirumalgerry Village, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 A. Anilkumar, S/o. Late A. Jagannath, R/o. A&A Sons Ice Factory, 106, S.P. Road, Secunderabad. 2 Special Court Constituted under the provisions of A.P., Land Grabbing ( Prohibition) Act, BRKR Government - Office Complex, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar. .....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 any appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably one in the nature of writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to a judgment and decree dt. 16.11.2005 made in L.G.C. No.7 of 1999 on the ﬁle of the Special Court Constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing ( Prohibition) Act and to quash the same as being erroneous and contrary to law and pending the above W.P., stay all further proceedings including the execution of the judgment and decree dt. 16.11.2005 made in L.G.C. No.7 of 1999 on the ﬁle of the Special Court constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing ( Prohibition) Act. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- (per GM,J) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking Certiorari to quash the judgment dated 16.11.2005 delivered in L.G.C.No.7 of 1999 on the ﬁle of the Special Court Under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for brevity “the Special Court”). Brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent herein ﬁled L.G.C. No.7 of 1999 before the Special Court claiming himself to be the owner of the land admeasuring 230 square yards in S.Nos.61 and 62 situated in Trimulgheery village and Mandal, Hyderabad District, Secunderabad Cantonment. It is stated that originally, one Mysaiah, who had four sons, purchased a Plot No.50/1 admeasuring 230 square yards of land in S.Nos.61 and 62 situated at Sardar Vallabhai Patel Poor Classes Colony of Trimulgherry village and among his sons, A.Jagannadh, who was the father of the 1st respondent, was the predeceased eldest son of Mysaiah and became the owner of the land by virtue of oral partition took place in the year 1994 after the demise of Mysaiah. The 1st respondent further alleged in his application that when he visited the property, he noticed that a compound wall and partly constructed rooms and a school were found in it. The petitioners, denying the 1st respondent’s claim before the Special Court, stated that Mysaiah was the owner of 312 sq. yards including the plot admeasuring 230 square yards, and he had entered into an agreement of sale which was executed on 8.9.1968 and Mysaiah also executed General Power of Attorney in favour of the 2nd petitioner on the same day appointing him as his agent, and subsequently, constructed a compound wall, rooms and a school in the name and style of St.Anthony’s Public School and since then the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The Special Court, after analyzing the evidence both oral and documentary, allowed the L.G.C. declaring the petitioners as land grabbers and further directed them to vacate the application schedule land and hand over vacant possession of the same to the 1st respondent. Now, the petitioners in the writ affidavit assert that the Special Court, before taking cognizance of the L.G.C. ﬁled by the 1st respondent called for a report from the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer concerned as to the possession of the property in question, then the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer gave a report to the eﬀect that the petitioners are in possession of the property in question. The writ petitioners’ main grievance is that though the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer submitted a report stating that the land is in their possession, the Special Court decreed the case holding that the 1st respondent is the owner of the property and further called upon the petitioners to vacate the property within a period of two months from the date of the judgment delivered by it. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the 1st respondent did not ﬁle any link documents to prove his right, title or interest over the property in question. It is his further contention that Mysaiah executed an agreement of sale dated 8.9.1968 which is marked as Ex.B27 and also Ex.B28, G.P.A. on the same day in favour of the 2nd petitioner. He has further contended that in Ex.B47, the approved layout of the Secunderabad Cantonment, there is no mention with regard to Plot No.50/1, and all the plots are of 300 square yards, where as the schedule Plot is 230 square yards and thus, the 1st respondent failed to establish his title and also as to how he acquired the property in question. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent has contended that the 1st respondent’s grand father Mysaiah purchased the property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 29.8.1962 marked as Ex.A1 from the original owner, J.Narasimhulu, and after his demise, his sons and the 1st respondent were in continuous possession of the schedule property. But the petitioners are claiming the land without any manner of right, which amounts to land grabbing and hence they are liable for eviction from the schedule property and accordingly, the Special Court has rightly held ordering eviction of the petitioners from the schedule property. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. According to the 1st respondent, his paternal grand father, Mysaiah, purchased the land admeasuring 230 square yards bearing Plot No.50/1 situated in S.Nos.61 and 62 of Trimulgherry village, Trimulgherry Mandal, Secunderabad by virtue of a registered sale Deed dated 29.8.1962 under Ex.A1 from the original owner, J.Narasimhulu and that plot is situated in Sardar Vallabhai Patel Poor Class Colony. Mysaiah passed away on 9.1.1992. After his demise, his four sons got an oral partition of the property of Mysaiah in the year 1994 and the schedule land fell to the share of the 1st respondent’s father, who is the predeceased son of Mysaiah, and it was a vacant Plot. Ex.A1, registered sale deed dated 29.8.1962 relied on by the 1st respondent, reveals that Mysaiah, the grand father of the 1st respondent, purchased an extent of 230 square yards in Plot No.50/1 situated in S.Nos.61 and 62 of Trimulgherry village from J.Narasimhulu, who in turn got the property in O.S.No.593 of 1958 which is also referred to in Ex.A1 and the 1st respondent also ﬁled certiﬁed copy of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.593 of 1958, which clearly establishes the title of the vendor, J.Narasimhulu. Further, in the reply notice as well as in the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the petitioners in L.G.C., it is categorically mentioned that Mysaiah sold the said plot to the 2nd petitioner for a total consideration of Rs.2,500/- by virtue of Agreement of Sale dated 8.9.1968, which was marked as Ex.B27, but the recitals of Ex.B27, nowhere establishes the title of the 2nd petitioner. Further Ex.B27 and Ex.B28, the G.P.A. executed by Mysaiah in favour of Mary Philomena, the 2nd petitioner on 8.9.1968, reveal that they bear the stamp of one Kishan Prasad, the stamp vendor, whose licence number as per the endorsement shows 11/1990. Therefore, the said vendor could not have issued the stamp papers on 8.9.1968, the day on which Exs.B27 and B28 were executed. Thus, this fact clearly gives an irresistible inference that Exs.B27 and B28 were brought into existence in the year 1990. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Mysaiah executed agreement of sale and G.P.A. in favour of the 2 nd petitioner on 8.9.2008 is unsustainable and cannot be accepted and Exs.B27 and B28 and Ex.B29, the plan attached to Ex.B28 are fabricated one. For the foregoing reasons, we concur with the ﬁndings arrived at by the Special Court in the judgment dated 16.11.2005 delivered in L.G.C.No.7 of 1999 which need no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioners are hereby directed to vacate the schedule land in question and handover the possession of it to the 1st respondent within a period of four months from today. No costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 25th August, 2008 ______________________ C.V. RAMULU, J. bcj