HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P. NO. 2217 OF 2009 Wednesday, the Twenty First day of September, Two Thousand and Eleven Between Cholleti Yashoda Devi Petitioner AND Smt. Vetamary and others Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The petitioners 1 and 2 herein question the order of the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, dated 9.1.2009 in L.G.A. No.10 of 2004. The petitioners herein are the respondents 1 and 2 in the L.G.A. and the applicants in the L.G.C. No.1 of 1993 on the file of the Special Tribunal under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act-cum-District Judge, Warangal. The petitioners herein filed the said applicantion under Sec.7-A of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for brevity the Act) to declare them as the absolute owners and possessors of the application schedule property and to declare the respondents 1 to 3 therein as the land grabbers of the property. The first respondent in the L.G.C. is the first respondent herein and the second respondent in the L.G.C. Mr. Luther died and his legal representatives are the respondents 1 to 5 herein. The third respondent in the L.G.C. namely Cholleti Ram Reddy died and his legal representatives are the respondents 6 to 8 herein. The Special Tribunal by judgment dated 3.11.2003 allowed the L.G.C. declaring the petitioners herein – applicants in the L.G.C. as the owners of the property and the respondents herein as the land grabbers of property and directing them to vacate and deliver the possession of the same. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondents 1 to 5 herein alone filed L.G.A. No.10 of 2004 on the file of the Special Court under the Act and the Special Court by the impugned judgment dated 9.1.2009, without going into the merits of the case, allowed the appeal on the ground that the under Rule 6(2) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 (for brevity the Rules) was not called for from the Tahsildar concerned and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Special Court are unsustainable and the same were accordingly set aside remitting the matter to the Special Tribunal for disposal afresh by taking cognizance of the L.G.C. as required under the provisions of the Act and by giving opportunity to both the parties in accordance with law for complying with the mandatory requirement under the said Rule 6(2) of the Rules framed under the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Heard both the counsel. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pesara Pushpamala Reddy Vs. G.Veera Swamy and others ([1]). The Tribunal held that Rule 6 of the A.P. Land Grabbing Prohibition Rules, 1988 is happened to be mandatory in nature. Rule 6 is extracted as follows: " Verification of Application: - (1) Every application filed under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act or every case taken cognizance of suo motu by the Special Court or an application filed under sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of the Act, before the Special Tribunal, may be referred for local inspection or verification or both by the Mandal Revenue Officer having jurisdiction over the area or by any other Officer of the Government authorized by the Court in this behalf. (2) The Mandal Revenue Officer or the other Officer to whom the application has been referred under sub-rule (1) shall make or cause to be made an inspection or verification or both, as soon as may be practicable and shall submit a full and complete report within two weeks from the date of receipt of order with reference to Revenue Records and facts on ground as to the following – (i) the correctness of the statements made in the application with regard to columns 1 to 15 and 19 in Form-I; (ii) the facts relating to ownerships, actual possession and use of the land concerned ; and (iii) such other particulars and information as would be useful to the Court to arrive at a correct decision on the claims made in the application. [Provided that the said report is not required to be submitted in respect of the application filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer] (3) The Mandal Revenue Officer or the other Officer to whom the application has been referred under sub-rule (1) shall also furnish copies of the extracts of the Government records to show the survey number and sub-division number and proof of possession, ownership and use of the land and the payment of dues to the Government. (4) A copy of the report referred to in sub-rule (2) may be furnished to the applicant, to the respondents and other persons, if any having interest in the land on payment of copying charges. In fact, the Tribunal held that Rule 6 happened to be mandatory based on the Full Bench judgment of this court in Mohd. Siddiq Ali Khan and Others Vs. Shashun Finance Limited, Chennai and another (2005(2) ALD 675 (FB). After considering the above Full Bench judgment of this Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para No.13 held as under: “…We are thus of the considered opinion that the object of Rule 6 of the Rules is to assist the Special Tribunal or the Special Court to arrive at a correct decision on the claims and allegations made in the application under sub-section (1) of Section 7-A and sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act to the Special Tribunal or the Special Court and if this very object can be achieved without referring the application of the case to the Mandal Revenue Officer, it may not be necessary for the Special Tribunal or the Special Court to make a reference to the Mandal Revenue Officer and therefore there is no compelling duty on the Special Tribunal or the Special Court to refer the application under Section 7-A (1) or under Section 8 to the Mandal Revenue Officer. In other words, under the Act and the Rules, it is not mandatory for the Special Tribunal or the Special Court to call for a report of the Mandal Revenue Officer. We, however, hasten to make it clear that while there is nothing in the statutory provisions in Section 7-A or Section 8-A of the Act or Rule 6 of the Rules to indicate that the power vested in the Special Tribunal or the Special Court is coupled with a duty to refer the application filed before it to the Mandal Revenue Officer, the facts of a particular case before the Special Tribunal or the Special Court may cast a judicial duty on the Special Tribunal or the Special Court to refer the application filed before it to the Mandal Revenue Officer for the purpose of verifying the truth of the statements made in the application and deciding the land grabbing case before it in a just and reasonable manner…” Therefore, it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said Rule is not mandatory and it is to be ascertained whether verification report of the Mandal Revenue Officer is necessary or not to ascertain the truth of the statement made in the application and to arrive at a just decision. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we set aside the order passed by the Special Court and the matter is remitted back to the Special Court for consideration afresh on the merits of the case as well as whether the verification report from the Mandal Revenue Officer is required to ascertain the truth of the statement in the application to arrive at a just decision. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah ______________________________ Justice G.Krishna Mohan Reddy September 21, 2011 MAS [1] 2011(3) Scale 253