IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH [29TH] DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.P.No.18899 of 2003 Between: Turbo Machinery, G.T. Industries Ltd., rep. by its M.D., T.Subbarayudu & another … Petitioners And: The Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act Hyderabad & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY W.P.No.18899 of 2003 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G.V.Seethapathy) This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2003 in L.G.C.No.1 of 1999, on the file of the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, holding the same as illegal, unjust and contrary to the evidence on record and to declare the petitioners as the absolute owners of the land of an extent of Ac.6-00 in Sy.No.309 of Bachupalli Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which was purchased by them under different registered sale deeds from Respondents 21 to 29 and to further declare that petitioners are not land grabbers as declared by the first respondent-Special Court. 2. Heard Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri K.G.K.Prasad, learned counsel for Respondents 2 to 15. Perused the record. 3. The averments of the affidavit filed by the second petitioner, Managing Director of the first petitioner, in support of the petition, in brief, are as follows: Respondents 2 to 15 herein filed L.G.C.No.1 of 1999 on the file of the first respondent-Special Court under Section 8(1) of A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’) alleging in brief as under:- K.Venkat Reddy, K.Raghava Reddy, K.Malla Reddy, K.Krishna Reddy and K.Muthyam Reddy were the original owners of the land situate in Sy.Nos.308 and 309 of Bachupalli village. They obtained lay out for the entire land in the above survey numbers measuring Ac.26-00 from Bachupalli Gram Panchayat in 1973-74. Layout comprising 918 plots was named as Maheshnagar Colony. The applicants in L.G.C.No.1 of 1999 purchased plots under various registered sale deeds from the above named owners in the years from 1989 to 1991. As the value of the land tremendously boosted up, the original owners i.e., R-21 to R-29 herein colluded with the writ petitioners and others in order to grab the land and executed sale deeds in respect of some of the lands in the year 1996 over an extent of Ac.6-00 suppressing the earlier alienation of the plots in favour of the applicants i.e., R-2 to R-15 herein. It was further alleged in the L.G.C that the petitioners herein have removed the boundary stones and constructed the industry in question over the said land by grabbing the land without any lawful entitlement. Respondents 2 to 15 herein, applicants in L.G.C.No.1 of 1999, sought a direction from the Special Court for eviction of petitioners herein from the land over an extent of 15,242 sq.yards by demolishing the existing structures and to deliver possession of the vacant land of about 7000 sq. yards and also to punish the petitioners herein under the Act. 4. The first respondent-Special Court took cognizance and issued notices to the petitioners herein and also Respondents 16 to 29, the original land owners. The petitioners herein filed a counter in the LGC denying the allegations in the application and contending that they are the bona fide purchasers of Ac.6-00 of land in Sy.No.309 for a valuable consideration under registered sale deeds. The particulars of the said sales are as follows: - Sl. No. Date of registration of sale deed Names of vendors Sy.Nos. Extent & Place Remarks 1. 19-07-1996 Sri Ch.Harinath Sri I.Krishna Rao Sri A.Dharma Rao (Respondents 18 to 20 in WP) (Respondents 5 to 7 in L.G.C.1/1999) Sy.No.309 1 acre Bachupalli village Ex.B-2 2. 01-08-1996 Gaddam Venkataramana Reddy (R-16 in WP) (R-3 in LGC 1/1999) Sy.No.309 0-20 guntas Bachupalli village Ex.B-6 3. 01-08-1996 Khaja Venkata Rajendra & others (R- 17 in WP) (R-4 in LGC.1/1999) Sy.No.309 0-20 guntas Bachupalli village Ex.B-4 4. 11-09-1996 2 documents K.Venkat Reddy & others (R-21 to R-29 in WP) (R-8 to R-16 in LGC.1/1999) Sy.No.309 2 acres Bachupalli village Ex.B-7 & B-9 5. 12-09-1996 2 documents K.Venkat Reddy & others (R-21 to R-29 in WP) (R-8 to R-16 in LGC.1/1999) Sy.No.309 2 acres Bachupalli village Exs.B-8 & B-10 The petitioners herein further contended in LGC that they obtained and verified the encumbrance certificate for the entire land of Ac.6-00 and perused the pahanies for the last thirty years prior to purchase of the land and also verified the link documents and published general notice in the newspapers calling for objections and no objection was received from anyone, including Respondents 2 to 15 herein for the purchase of the land by the petitioners. Possession of the land was also delivered to the petitioners under the sale deeds. The petitioners applied for mutation and the same was effected in their names on 05-11-1996. The petitioners obtained permission from Bachupalli Gram Panchayat for establishing the factory under the proceedings dated 15-01-1997. The approval of building plan from HUDA was also obtained under the proceedings dated 16-03-1998. As the land was reserved for public and semi public use, the petitioners got the land converted to industrial use from the Government under its proceedings dated 04-03-1997. The petitioners constructed the factory by obtaining huge amount of loans from the banks. Telephone and electricity connections were also given and construction of the factory was completed in October, 1999 itself and ever since the factory is functioning. There was no layout plan in existence and the property was not mutated in the names of Respondents 2 to 15 and there is no colony by name Maheshnagar. Respondents 2 to 15 created false documents, particularly lay out plan, for the purpose of filing the LGC against the petitioners. The allegations made in L.G.C.No.1 of 1999 do not constitute act of land grabbing and hence the application itself is not maintainable. Apart from that, common application by several applicants in respect of different extents of land is also not maintainable. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the applicants i.e., Respondents 2 to 15 herein, before the Special Court does not even establish a prima facie title in their favour. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Qutubullapur who was examined as C.W.1 before the Special Court filed his report-Ex.C-1 and deposed that there was no approved layout obtained by the applicants i.e., Respondents 2 to 15 herein and the alleged layout filed by the applicants is not an approved layout and their names were not recorded in any of the revenue records either as pattadars or possessors. He also deposed that it is not possible to identify the plots in the absence of approved layout plan and it was not approved by any competent authority. The layout was for the entire extent of land in Sy.Nos.308 and 309 and it is not possible to locate the plots allegedly purchased by Respondents 2 to R-15 herein. 5. By the impugned judgment dated 23-07-2003, the first respondent–Special Court allowed L.G.C.No.1 of 1999. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Special Court framed the following issues: i) Whether the applicants are the owners of the application schedule property? ii) Whether the rival title set up by the respondents is true, valid and binding on the applicants? iii) Whether the respondents or any of them are land grabbers within the meaning of Sections 2(d) and (e) of the Act in respect of any portion of the application schedule property? iv) To what relief? 7. During enquiry, the father of applicant No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and 9th applicant was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A-1 to A-44 were marked on behalf of the applicants. The 3rd respondent before the Special Court was examined as R.W.1 and one T.Madhu was examined as R.W.2 and Exs.B-1 to B-54 were marked on behalf of the industry. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Qutubullapur was examined as C.W.1 and his report was marked as Ex.C-1. 8. On issue No.1, the Special Court held that the applicants are owners of the schedule property as claimed by them under Exs.A-1 to A-14 and shown in Ex.A-26 plan. On issue No.2, the Special Court held that the rival title set up by the respondents therein (petitioners herein) and Respondents 16 to 29 herein is not true and valid and is not binding on the applicants. On issue No.3, the Special Court held that all the respondents therein i.e., petitioners herein and Respondents 16 to 29 herein are land grabbers within the meaning of Sections 2(d) and (e) of the Act in respect of schedule property. Accordingly, the petitioners herein and Respondents 16 to 29 were declared as land grabbers and they were directed to vacate the schedule land covered by Exs.A-1 to A-14 and deliver vacant possession of the same to the applicants i.e., R-2 to R-15 herein within two months failing which the Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to initiate steps as contemplated under Rule 15(2) of the Rules for eviction of the petitioners and Respondents 16 to 29 herein and submit compliance report. Aggrieved by the above said judgment, the present writ petition is filed. 9. R-14 herein filed counter-affidavit on behalf of herself and on behalf of other respondents virtually reiterating the averments contained in the application filed by them in L.G.C.No.1 of 1999 and further contending that the general notice by way of publication in newspapers was effected subsequent to the execution of the sale deeds Exs.B-2, B-4, B-6 to B-10 in favour of the petitioners and respondents herein sent their objections by registered post in reply to the paper publication and the same is suppressed by the petitioners. The title over the land was already conveyed by Respondents 16 to 20 in favour of Respondents 2 to 15 under valid sale deeds and hence the subsequent sale deeds alleged to have been executed by Respondents 16 to 29 in favour of petitioners herein are not valid and binding. Even as per the evidence of C.W.1, the M.R.O., the pahanies for the year 1993-94 showed existence of a road and plotting in Sy.No.309, which supports the claim of Respondents 2 to 15 herein. The petitioners herein who are mighty land grabbers grabbed small extents of land purchased by Respondents 2 to 15 herein. The presumption contained in Section 10 of the Act also operates in favour of Respondents 2 to 15 herein throwing burden of proving that land has not been grabbed on the petitioners. As per the lay out plan-Ex.A- 26, there existed plots, boundary stones and roads. The alleged sale deeds obtained by petitioners also showed existence of the roads. Ex.A-26 plan was obtained by the vendors of Respondents 2 to 15 in the year 1973-74 regarding Sy.Nos.308 and 309. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court may not sit in appeal against the judgment of the Special Court under the Act. The petitioners failed to establish that the Special Court committed any error apparent on the face of record or misconducted its proceedings. In the absence of any such allegation, this Court may not re-appreciate the evidence on record and disturb the findings of the Special Court, in exercise of its power under judicial review. 10. The petitioners filed reply affidavit virtually denying the allegations in the counter and reiterating the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the ingredients of the definition of land grabbing as defined under Sections 2(d) and (e) of the Act are not satisfied and Respondents 2 to 15 failed to prove that petitioners are in possession of land without any lawful entitlement and with a view to take such possession of land illegally and so the application before the Special Court is not maintainable and consequently the order of the Special Court is liable to be set aside. He would further contend that Respondents 2 to 15 herein, the applicants in L.G.C.No.1 of 1999, failed to discharge the initial burden as required under Section 10 of the Act in proving the title and possession over the land in question, as except the sale deeds Exs.A-1 to A-14 nothing else is filed in support of their claim and neither the vendor nor any person connected with the document is examined to prove the genuineness of the sale deeds. It is further contended by the petitioners that the alleged rough sketch layout plan- Ex.A-26 which was relied on by the Special Court is neither signed by the vendor nor approved by the competent authority. No proceedings of the layout have been filed including the original layout till today and hence Ex.A-26 has no legal sanctity as pointed out by the M.R.O- C.W.1 in his report Ex.C-1. Even according to the respondents, the petitioners are subsequent purchasers and so without seeking cancellation of sale deeds standing in favour of petitioners, no relief can be granted, much less eviction of the petitioners by branding them as land grabbers. He would further contend that the pahanies from 1968-69 to 1995-96 would show that the petitioners’ vendors are the owners and possessors of the land. The petitioners were given physical possession of the land in 1996, whereas respondents 2 to 15 were never in possession of the land, as can be seen from the recitals in Exs.A-1 to A-14. As Respondents 2 to 15 were never in possession of the land, the L.G.C itself is not maintainable. He would further contend that in view of the evidence of M.R.O-C.W.1 and his report- Ex.C-1, no reliance can be placed on Ex.A-26 which was not an approved layout plan and the land claimed by the petitioners cannot be identified due to non-production of the original layout plan approved by the competent authority and hence granting the relief relying on Ex.A-26 is unsustainable. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the scope of judicial review in a petition filed seeking Writ of Certiorari is limited and the petitioners cannot seek re-appreciation of the evidence on record and this Court would not sit in appeal over the judgment of the Special Court. He would contend that the judgment rendered by the Special Court cannot be interfered with unless the petitioners establish beyond reasonable doubt and there is error apparent on the face of the record. He would further contend that the sale deeds Exs.A-1 to A-14 in favour of the respondents herein remained unrebutted, as the sole surviving original vendor K.Venkat Reddy, who is Respondent No.21 herein, was not examined. Respondents 9 to 16 before the Special Court i.e., Respondents 16 to 29 herein have not denied the execution of the sale deeds Exs.A-1 to A-14 in favour of Respondents 2 to 15 herein. 13. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, first and fore- most question, which arises for consideration, is whether the Special Court had jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute? 14. It is not disputed that the special Court is clothed with exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a dispute arising out of any land grabbing and to that extent, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is taken away. 15. In ‘Mohd. Siddiq Alikhan vs. Shahsun Finance Limited, Chennai[1]’, a full bench of this Court, held as follows: “The Special Court is required to carefully scrutinize the allegations made in the application, in order to satisfy itself that the allegations made in the application reveal and attract the ingredients of land grabbing. Mere statement or assertion that the respondents have grabbed the land is not enough.” It was further held as follows: “Unless the allegations made in the application satisfy and attract the ingredients of "land grabber" and "land grabbing" as provided for under Section 2 (d) and (e) of the Act, mere repetition of words "land grabbing" would not be enough for taking cognizance of a case, unless that statement or allegations satisfies both the ingredients - the factum as well as the intention. Act of land grabbing involves "taking of any land belonging to Government, etc., or any other private person unauthorisedly, unfairly, greedily, either forcibly, violently, unscrupulously or otherwise but without any lawful entitlement. Taking possession of the land without any lawful entitlement thereto is the sine qua non to hold a person to be a land grabber. It may be noted, to make out a case that a person is a land grabber the applicant must aver and prove both the ingredients - the factum as well as the intention. Unless a person unauthorisedly and without any lawful entitlement thereto enters or intrudes into a land forcibly or otherwise, he cannot be held to be a land grabber. The emphasis is on taking possession without any lawful entitlement." It was further held as follows: “The mere repetition of expression "land grabber" and "land grabbing" by themselves would not be enough for taking cognizance of a case, unless the averments and the allegations made in the concise statement attract the ingredients of "land grabber" or "land grabbing".” 16. The above full bench decision has been followed by this Court in ‘Azizunnisa Begum vs. Basheeruddin Babu Khan[2]’. 17. In ‘State of A.P., vs. P.V.Hanumantha Rao[3]’, the Apex Court held as follows: “With the growing menace of land grabbing, the Act of 1982 constitutes Special Courts and ousts jurisdiction of the regular civil courts in respect of land alleged to have been grabbed. Where the regular remedy provided by general law is ousted by special law, the provisions of the latter deserve to be construed strictly.” 18. In ‘Gouni Satya Reddi vs. Government of A.P.,[4]’, the apex Court held as follows: “From a reading of the definitions of the phrases land grabber” and “land grabbing” it is clear that the grabbing of any land must be without any lawful entitlement and with a view to take possession of such lands illegally. That is to say the land grabber must be aware of the fact that he is entering into the possession illegally and without any lawful entitlement. If such elements as indicated above are missing, it would not be a case of land grabbing”. It was further held as follows: “Mere fact of not being lawfully entitled to enter into possession by itself would not lead to the inference of land grabbing unless possession is illegally taken with that view in mind. It is a necessary ingredient of land grabbing i.e., the person taking possession must know it that he is acting illegally while taking possession”. 19. Section 2 (d) of the Act defines “Land Grabber” as follows: “Land Grabber” means a person or a group of persons who commits land grabbing and includes any person who gives financial aid to any person for taking illegal possession of lands or for construction of unauthorized structures thereon, or who collects or attempts to collect from any occupiers of such lands, rent, compensation and other charges by criminal intimidation; or who abets the doing of any of the above mentioned acts; and also includes the successors in interest”. 20. Section 2(e) defines the expression “Land grabbing” as under. “Land grabbing” mean every activity of grabbing of any land (whether belonging to the Government, a local authority, a religious or charitable institution or endowment, including a wakf, or any other private person) by a person or group of persons, without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking possession of such lands or enter into or create illegal tenancies or lease and licence agreements or any other illegal agreements in respect of such lands, or to construct unauthorized structures thereon for sale or hire, or give such land to any person on rental or lease and licence basis for construction, or use and occupation, of un- authorised structures; and the term “to grab land” shall be construed accordingly.” 21. The above definitions of the crucial expressions ‘Land grabber’ and ‘land grabbing’ coupled with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the definitions referred to supra would make it clear that the special Court would have jurisdiction to take cognizance and adjudicate upon the dispute only when it pertains to an act of land grabbing as defined under the Act. When it is said that even at the threshold stage while taking cognizance itself existence of prima-facie case of land grabbing is necessary and mere statement or assertion that the respondents are land grabbers is not enough, such requirement is all the more necessary before the relief prayed for by the applicants can be granted and the applicants shall establish that the respondents in the LGC are land grabbers as defined under the Act, having committed the act of land grabbing as defined under the Act. Under Section 2(d) of the act, the expression ‘land grabber’ is defined as meaning a person or group of persons, who committed land grabbing and it is an inclusive definition where under certain other classes of persons aiding and abetting the act of land grabbing are also brought in. Section 2(e) of the Act defines the ‘land grabbing’ as meaning inter-alia, every activity of grabbing of any land by a person or group of persons without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking possession of such lands. Thus, a person can be said to have committed an act of land grabbing within the meaning of the Act only when it is shown that they had grabbed the land without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking possession of such lands. Mere entering upon the possession without lawful entitlement is not sufficient to bring such act within the fold of act of land grabbing and it must be with a view to illegally taking possession as held by the Apex Court in ‘Gouni Satya Reddi’s case (4th supra). Thus, the two elements existence of which is sine quo non to constitute act of land grabbing within the meaning of the act are, that the person who is accused of such act is shown to have entered upon possession of the land without any lawful entitlement and that he is also aware of the fact that he is entering upon the possession illegally and had necessary animus to that effect. 22. In the back drop of the above legal position, it is now to be considered as to whether the dispute raised before the Special Court falls within the ambit of “land grabbing” so as to enable the Special Court to exercise its jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same? 23. According to the respondents 2 to 15 herein, who are the applicants before the Special Court, they purchased certain plots of land covered by lay out Ex.A.26 from the original owners or their successors as the case may be i.e., Respondents 21 to 29 herein under registered sale deeds Exs.A.1 to A.14 during the period 1989- 1991. Exs.A.1 and A.12 were executed on 24.10.1989 in favour of the respondents 2 and 13. Exs.A.2 to A.9, A.11 and A.14 were executed on 14.03.1990 in favour of 8th respondent-K.Venkatareddy & others and Exs.A.10 and A.13 were executed in favour of K.Kistareddy and R.Muthyam Reddy. The said extents of land covered by Exs.A.1 to A.14 varying from 400 to 800 square yards are said to be situate in Sy.No.309. Respondents 2 to 15/applicants contend that they were put in possession of the respective plots on the date of sale deed itself and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same ever since. They allege that subsequently in view of steep raise in prices of land, R.16 to R.29 original owners or successors in interest as the case may be, colluded with the petitioners and brought into existence the sale deeds Exs.A.15 to A.21 to defeat the rights of the respondents 2 to 15 and