IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 10870 of 2009 Between: 1. Vedula Govinda Sarma, S/o. late Lakshmi Narasimham, Retired Principal, M.R.G.S.College Vizianagaram, R/o. Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram. 2. Vedula Adilakshmi, W/o. late Butchi Kameswara Rao, R/o. Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram. 3. Vedula Suryanarayana Sarma, S/o. late Butchi Kameswara Rao, R/o. Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram. 4. Akundi Satya Venkata Hema Lakshmi Annapurna, R/o. Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Special Tribunal Under A.P Land Grabbing(Prohibition) Act 1982 Cum District Judge rep. by its Presiding Officer, Visakhapatnam 2 Komanapalli Jevan Reddy S/o.Krupanandam,Kondala Agraharam(Via) Markavarapalem,Visakhapatnam District 3 Dr.Nalini Katta W/o. Jeevan Ray Makvarapalem,Visakhapatnam District 4 Gnana Soundaryam Katta W/o. Sambayya Kondala Agraharam Bapatla Guntur District 5 Dr.Karyavardhana Rao Katta S/o. Sambayya Kothadudem,Khammam District 6 Namburi Venkata Ramanamma W/o Late Ranga Rao D.No.14-1-1 Nowroji Road Maharanipeta Visakhapatnam 7 N.V. S.V.Ramakrishna Rao S/o. Ranga Rao (Adopeted) Son D.No.14-1-1 Nowroji Road Maharanipeta Visakhapatnam 8 Gompa Dalinaidu(Died) Gompa Ramalakshmi W/o. Late Dalinadu Naidu Films Visakhapatnam 9 Gompa Ramalakhmi S/o Late Dalinadu Naidu Filims,Visakhapatnam 10 Gompa Surya Prakash Rao S/o Late Dalinadu Naidu Films, Visakhapatnam 11 Gompa Mangala Chandra Sekhara Rao S/o Late Dalinadu Naidu Films, Visakhapatnam 12 Varaha Venkata Satya Bhanu S/o Late Dalinadu Naidu Films, Visakhapatnam .....RESPONDENTS 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 writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of CERTIORARI calling for the records pertaining to the decree and judgment dt.9-9-2008 in L.G.C No.3 of 1998 on the file of the 1st Respondent and quash the same as illegal arbitrary bad in law violative of Art 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Judgment of the Apex Court and consequently allow the L.G.C No.3 of 1998 on the file of the 1st respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the decree and judgment dated 9.09.2008 in L.G.C No.3 of 1998 on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Judgment of the Apex Court. Initially, the petitioners approached the Special Tribunal, Hyderabad, constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1982, (for short ‘the Act’) by filing LGC No.140 of 1995. Subsequently, the same was made over to the Special Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and was numbered as LGC No.3 of 1998. The petitioners filed the above application under Sections 7 & 8 of the Act in respect of an extent of Ac.25.05 cents situated in R.S.No.7/4A of Narava village, to declare them as the absolute owners and the respondents as land grabbers, for awarding compensation of Rs.20 lakhs and for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property. According to them the land comprised in T.D.No.3072 of Narava Village was an inam land of 9 vruthis, out of which, Vedula Narayana Murthy, the paternal grandfather of the first petitioner, is entitled to half share, while Namburi Suryanarayana, the father-in-law of the fifth respondent and the paternal grandfather of the sixth respondent are entitled to the remaining half share. The lands have been demarcated in S.Nos.7/1 to 8. Out of the total extent, each of them are entitled to Ac.120.00. The petitioners wanted to have their half share separated in the extent of Ac.64.00 of land in R.S.No.7/4, and the husband and the alleged adopted father of the sixth respondent claimed half share. There was a separation of half share by the first petitioner and his brother. While so, the State Government acquired an extent of Ac.2.75 cents of land from out of the share of the petitioners for Raiwada Channel and the compensation was paid to the first petitioner and his brother. Thereafter the first respondent filed an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C., before the Revenue Divisional Officer in M.C.No.57 of 1993 claiming that he has purchased the said land. The Revenue Divisional Officer without giving any opportunity passed order against the petitioners. Hence they filed the present application contending that since the predecessors of their vendors alienated the total extent of Ac.120.00 of land, and Ac.32.00 of land got under the partition was also sold under five registered sale deeds to each person, the respondents 1 to 4 do not derive any rights. Respondents 1 to 4 filed counter affidavit stating that the land of Ac.25.05 cents comprised in S.No.7/4A was purchased by them; that the sales were preceded by an agreement of sale dated 26.10.1992; and that possession was also delivered to them and they have been in enjoyment of the property by developing the same. Respondents 5 and 6 also filed counter affidavit contending that the land grabbing Court has no jurisdiction and there are no bona fides in the case. On the basis of the above pleadings the Tribunal framed necessary issues. It has also framed additional issues on 25.04.1997, 16.01.2001 and 15.10.2001. The Tribunal while considering the rival submissions made by both the parties, relied upon the judgment of this Court in Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Hyderabad v. Special Court (Constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982), Hyderabad and others[1], wherein it has been held that attempt to grab the land would not come within the purview of the provisions of the Act and when the Act is not applicable, the Court lacks jurisdiction. The Tribunal also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gourni Satya Reddi v. Govt. of A.P. and others[2], wherein it has been held that in order to attract the jurisdiction, grabbing of any land must be without any lawful entitlement and with a view to take possession of such land illegally, that is to say, the land grabber must be aware of the fact that he has entered into the possession of such land illegally and without any entitlement. If such elements as indicated above were missing it would not be a case of land grabbing. The Tribunal further relied upon the similar views taken by this Court in Mohd. Siddiq Ali Khan v. M/s. Shahoun Finance Limited, Chennai[3] and State of Andhra Pradesh v. Prameela Modi and others[4]. The Tribunal after relying upon the above judgments held that it has no jurisdiction since the factum of enjoyment and the fact that whether the petitioners are the lawful owners or not has to be decided by a civil Court. It also held that the respondents cannot be called as land grabbers and accordingly rejected the application as not maintainable and for presentation before the proper Court. Hence the present writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. Having perused the judgment of the Supreme Court and this Court and after going through the impugned order, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any jurisdictional error since the element of land grabbing is missing and mere attempt of grab the land would not come within the purview of the Act in view of the decision rendered by the Larger Bench as referred to supra. Therefore, we do not see infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ________________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.) ___________________________ (VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR, J.) 4th June, 2009 [1] 2004 (6) ALT 772 (L.B.) [2] (2004) 7 SCC 398 [3] 2005 (2) ALT 503 (F.B) [4] 2005 (3) ALT 379 (D.B.)