THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.27741 of 2008 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu) 1. Leave granted. 2. This Writ Petition is filed by the third parties seeking a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 4 to 6 in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective premises in pursuance of the Judgment dated 10.08.2001 in L.G.A. No.11 of 1998 on the file of the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, Hyderabad (first respondent herein), whereunder and whereby the order dated 19.12.1997 passed in L.G. O.P.No.138 of 1984 on the file of the Special Tribunal under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-cum-District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam (third respondent herein), was reversed, as being illegal and contrary to law. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition may be stated as follows: The petitioners are third parties to the proceedings said to have been initiated by the second respondent herein, in respect of land measuring Ac.1.87 cents in N.T.S. No.713, Ward No.25 of Revenue Ward No.8, Vijayawada, and the second respondent is trying to dispossess them purported to be in execution of the orders obtained by him in the proceedings under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. The petitioners approached this Court questioning the Judgment dated 10.08.2001 passed by the first respondent, in L.G.A. No.11 of 1998, contending that the premises number, the ward number and the block number of the petitioners, are different and distinct, and therefore, the said order cannot be executed. 4. The second respondent society filed L.G.O.P. No.138 of 1984 before the third respondent contending that, the society purchased an extent of Ac.1.87 cents of land, out of Ac.4.87 cents in N.T.S. No.713, Ward No.25, Revenue Ward No.8 situated at Vijayawada, on 22.3.1980 from Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam, Kothapeta, Vijayawada; that, earlier, the society entered into an agreement on 26.2.1980 and by virtue of the said agreement of sale, the property was delivered to the society; that, the society, without specifying the individual extents along with boundaries, in form-I attached to the application, filed the L.G.O.P. No.138 of 1984, stating that the respondents therein were trying to grab the land and seeking declaration that the respondents therein were land grabbers and sought for their eviction; that, the premises number, the ward number and the block number of the petitioners, are different and distinct, than that of the door numbers, ward numbers or block numbers mentioned in the L.G.O.P.; that, the petitioners are in possession of the property in their own right and paying municipal taxes; that, the third respondent Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the second respondent society failed to establish that the respondents therein were land grabbers and the society is a bogus society; that, aggrieved by the said judgment, the second respondent society filed L.G.A.No.11 of 1998 before the first respondent, which was allowed by the impugned judgment, and therefore, the matter is carried before this Hon’ble Court; that, Rule 15 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, has not been followed; that, the petitioners cannot approach civil court questioning the orders passed by the Special Tribunal and the Special Court. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. Now, the points that arise for consideration in this Writ Petition are: (i) Whether a third party can question the order passed by the Special Court constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 ? and (ii) what is the remedy available to a third party against the orders passed by the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 ? 7. The Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Land Grabbing Act’) came into force with effect from 6.9.1982. The Act is enacted to prohibit the activities of land grabbing in the State of Andhra Pradesh and to provide for matters connected therewith. Whereas, there are organized attempts on the part of certain lawless persons operating individually and in groups to grab either by force or by deceit or otherwise lands belonging to the Government, a local authority, a religious or charitable institution or endowment, including wakf, or any other private person, who are known as land grabbers. 8. The word ‘land grabber’, as defined under Section 2(d) of the Land Grabbing Act, reads thus: “2(d) ‘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 unauthorised 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 the doing of any of the above mentioned acts, and also includes the successors in interest.” 9. Similarly, the word ‘land grabbing’, as defined under Section 2(e) of the Land Grabbing Act reads thus: 2(e). ‘Land grabbing’ means 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 licences agreements or any other illegal agreements in respect of such lands, or to construct unauthorized structures thereon for sale or hire, or give such lands to any person on rental or lease and licence basis for construction, or use and occupation, of unauthorized structures; and the term “to grab land” shall be construed accordingly.” A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the person, without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking possession of the lands, commits any other acts mentioned in clause (e), is said to be a land grabber. By virtue of the Land Grabbing Act, land grabbing in any form is declared unlawful and any activity connected with or arising out of, land grabbing, shall be an offence punishable under this Act. 10. The word ‘unlawful entitlement’ means, “it must have some foundation in a legal right to possess the property, which cannot be equated with temporary right to enforce recovery of the property, in case a person is wrongfully or forcibly dispossessed from it”. So, ‘lawful possession’ must mean legal possession with a right to enjoy the property in his own interest and manner. Such lawful entitlement should not be forbidden by law. Therefore, every activity of grabbing of any land by a person without any lawful entitlement, is the first sine qua non for bringing the same within the purview of the land grabbing. The second requirement is that, with a view to illegally taking possession of such lands, which would necessarily mean that the act is contrary to the principles of law. ‘With a view to illegally taking possession’ would necessarily mean, unauthorized entry or against law, or not authorized by law. When the two requirements of clause (e) of Section 2 of the Land Grabbing Act, are fulfilled, the Special Court constituted under the Act, will get jurisdiction. 11. Under Section 8(6) of the Land Grabbing Act, every finding of the Special Court with regard to any alleged act of land grabbing shall be conclusive proof of the fact of land grabbing and of the persons who committed such land grabbing, and every judgment of the Special Court with regard to the determination of title and ownership to, or lawful possession of, any land grabbed shall be binding on all persons having interest in such land. Third proviso thereto, provides that, the Special Court shall cause a notice of taking cognizance of the case under the Act, served on any person known or believed to be interested in the land, after a summary enquiry to satisfy itself about the persons likely to be interested in the land. 12. Admittedly, such notice is not served on the present petitioners. The claim of the petitioners is that, they have interest on the land, and that, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property in their own right by paying necessary taxes to the Municipality. The third parties, in the absence of service of any notice as provided under the Act, can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, provided the necessary ingredients of appropriate Writ have been fulfilled. 13. The petitioners in the Writ Petition are seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, which literally means, ‘a command’. The object of mandamus is not to review or control the action of an inferior Tribunal, but merely to compel it to act. It will lie to any person, who is under a duty imposed by the statute or by common law to do a particular act. In order to obtain a writ or order in the nature of mandamus, the petitioners must satisfy the following conditions viz. (i) The petitioners must show that they have a legal right to the performance of a legal duty, by the party against whom the mandamus is sought, and such a right must be subsisting on the date of petition; (ii) secondly, the duty that may be enjoined by the mandamus, may be one imposed by the Constitution, a statute, common law or by rules or orders having force of law. None of the conditions, which requires for issuance o f mandamus, is fulfilled in this case. Therefore, the question of issuing mandamus does not arise. 14. But, the third party to the proceedings invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian, can as well show that the order of the Special Court has been obtained by fraud or collusion, or the Court has acted without its jurisdiction. Before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a third party must show that he has got right, title and interest in the land in question, and the party obtained the order from the Special Court has no right, title and interest in the property. Therefore, we are of the opinion that, in certain circumstances, third party can invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the orders passed by the Special Court under the Land Grabbing Act. Therefore, the first point is answered accordingly. 15. Coming to the second point, the case of the petitioners herein is that they have been paying municipal taxes as assessed by the municipal corporation and that they are residing in the respective buildings, as owner and possessor of the same for the last 30 years without any complaint from any others. The petitioners have not shown their prima facie right, title and interest in respect of the land in question. It is not the case of the petitioners that the orders passed by the Special Court is without jurisdiction or that the order was obtained by the second respondent herein by playing fraud. 16. As seen from the impugned order, the Special Court gave a finding that there was no notification declaring the petition schedule property as slum under the A.P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956, and that, there was no evidence on record to question either title of the Devasthanam or title of the second respondent herein in respect of the petition schedule property which it got under Ex.A2-registered sale deed executed by Burramukka Dharma Reddy, E.O. of Venkateswara Devasthanam, in favour of the second respondent, and that, the society was not a bogus one, and that, Ex.A2- registered sale deed is found to be true and valid and the second respondent acquired title. That part, it is clear that the respondents in the Special Court admitted that the property originally belonged to Sri Venkateswaraswamy Devasthanam, and that the Endowments Department, after following prescribed procedure, sold the property to the second respondent herein under the registered sale deed. As a matter of fact, Ex.A2-sale deed was executed and registered by the Endowments Department, after following prescribed procedure, in favour of the second respondent herein. Therefore, it cannot be said that the findings are prima facie incorrect and not based upon any evidence on record. On the other hand, none of the respondents in the Special Court filed any document to show about their title in respect of petition schedule property. Similarly, petitioners herein, who are third parties, have not filed any documents to show that they are the lawful owners and they have got right, title and interest in the property. 17. The main contention raised in this Writ Petition is that the premises number, ward number, block number of the petitioners’ land are entirely different and distinct, with that of the petition schedule property. That aspect of the case cannot be gone into, by this Court, exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, because it is a disputed question of fact. Normally, this Court cannot be determine and resolve the disputed questions of fact basing on the pleadings. Unless it is prima facie shown that the second respondent is the ‘land grabber’ within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Land Grabbing Act or that the Special Court exceeded its jurisdiction or that the second respondent played fraud on the Special Court in obtaining the order and decree, the same cannot be resolved by this Court. The Special Court cannot decide title and possession of the rival claimants, unless an act of allegation of land grabbing is subsisting. Since the petitioners are not parties to the Land Grabbing Case, it cannot be said that they have no right to file a civil suit before the proper court, for declaration of title and recovery of possession, even if they are illegally dispossessed. Therefore, the case does not fall within the parameters of certiorari jurisdiction and so, we have no hesitation in dismissing the Writ Petition, leaving open the remedies available to the petitioners under common law. 18. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioners can invoke remedies available to them under common law. Considering the fact that the petitioners said to be in possession of the property since long time, status quo as on today shall be maintained for a period of four weeks from today. If any suit is filed by the petitioners, the same may be disposed of in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order as well as the Order of the Special Court. No costs. ------------------------ (V.Eswaraiah, J.) ------------------------ (K.C.BHANU, J.) .12.2008 DRK