Smt. Basheerunnissa Begum, ... vs Hameeduddin Khan Died ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5004 Tel

        THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
                          AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

              WRIT PETITION No.3864 OF 2006

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble Dr.SA,J)

      This Writ Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, is filed by the writ petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 12, 14

to 28 and 30 to 32, challenging the judgment dated 21.10.2005

passed in L.G.C.No.55 of 2000 by the Special Court under A.P.

Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, at Hyderabad (for short, 'Special

Court'), wherein the subject L.G.C. filed by the respondent Nos.1

to 6/applicants under Section 8(1) of A.P. Land Grabbing

(Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short "the Land Grabbing Act"), was

partly allowed by the Special Court directing the writ petitioners

herein/respondent Nos.1 to 12, 14 to 28 and 30 to 32 to

handover possession of their occupations in Sy.Nos.194/1, 194/2

and 194/8/1, situated at Begumpet Village, to the Collector

(acting as Court of Wards) as they were in illegal occupation,

without any legal entitlement, within a period of two months from

the date of the impugned judgment and in default thereof, the

concerned R.D.O shall take possession of the said extent of land

and deliver the same to the Collector (Court of Wards) and Dr.SA,J & EVV,J

submit compliance report to the Special Court under Rule 15(2)

of the A.P Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988, within two

months there-from. Further, the Special Court held that the

respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein/applicants are not eligible for other

reliefs prayed for but they were at liberty to approach the

appropriate authority to agitate their claim.

2. The petitioners herein are the respondent Nos.1 to 12, 14 to

28 and 30 to 32 in LGC No.55 of 2000; the respondent Nos.1 to 6

herein are applicants in LGC No.55 of 2000; and the respondent

No.7 herein is the respondent No.29 in LGC No.55 of 2000 before

the Special Court. The respondent Nos.12 and 13 in the subject

LGC is one and the same. Hereinafter, the parties are referred to,

as they were arrayed in the subject L.G.C.

3. Heard the submissions of Sri M.P.Chandramouli, learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, Sri P.Shiv

Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 6, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for

respondent No.7 and perused the record.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners

would contend that the impugned judgment dated 21.10.2005 Dr.SA,J & EVV,J

passed by the Special Court, is contrary to law and facts. The

conclusions reached by the Special Court are inconsistent with the

findings recorded by it in the impugned judgment. It is

vehemently contended that consequent to abolition of inams, the

pre-existing right, title and interest of the inamdar or any person

having occupation of the inam lands stood divested and vested in

the State until re-grant is made. The inamdar loses the pre-

existing right, title and interest in the land. The subject property

is inam land and it is covered under A.P (Telangana Area)

Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (as amended in 1967) (for short

"Inams Abolition Act"). Once the property is vested in the State

Government, the applicants cannot file an application under

Section 8(1) of the Land Grabbing Act, before the Special Court.

The Special Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the subject

L.G.C, determine the issues in between the parties and pass the

impugned judgment. The Special Court having held that

possession of the application schedule land is with the Court of

Wards, ought to have dismissed the subject L.G.C. It is settled

law that in regard to finding of fact recorded by the Special Court,

a Writ of Certiorari can be issued, if it is shown that in recording

the said finding, the Special Court had erroneously refused to Dr.SA,J & EVV,J

admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously

admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the

impugned findings. The impugned judgment of the Special Court

suffers from infirmities. The writ petitioners cannot be termed as

land grabbers. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior

counsel relied upon the decision in Lokraj and others vs.

Kishan Lal and others1 and ultimately prayed to allow the Writ

Petition, as prayed for.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent

Nos.1 to 6/applicants would contend that originally, the

application schedule property admeasuring Ac.4-20gts in

Sy.Nos.194/1, 194/2 and 194/8/1, situated at Begumpet Village,

Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, besides other properties

belonged to Lady Vicar and she died before issuance of

Munthakab. So the control and supervision of the subject property

was handed over to the Court of Wards, which was subsequently

released in 1961 by Gazette dated 26.01.1961 and was again

taken over by the Court of Wards as per A.P Gazette dated

27.02.1964. It is submitted that as the applicants have

substantial interest in the subject matter of the property, invoking

(1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 291 Dr.SA,J & EVV,J

the jurisdiction of the Special Court under Section 8(1) of Land

Grabbing Act, to remove the illegal encroachments, cannot be

faulted. It is further submitted that as per Section 8(1) of Land

Grabbing Act, the Special Court may, either suo motu or on

application made by any person, officer or authority take

cognizance of and try every case arising out of any alleged act of

land grabbing or with respect to the ownership and title to, or

lawful possession of, the land grabbed, whether before or after

the commencement of this Act, and pass such orders (including

orders by way of interim directions) as it deems fit. There is

prohibition of land grabbing under Section 4 of Land Grabbing Act.

The questions relating to the facts that are already determined by

the Special Court cannot be revisited and re-appreciated in a writ

petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The

facts and circumstances of the decision in Lokraj's case (supra)

relied upon by the petitioners are distinct from the facts and

circumstances of the case on hand and therefore, the said

decision has no application to the case on hand. There is no

perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the

Special Court and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

Dr.SA,J & EVV,J

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue,

appearing for the respondent No.7 supported the impugned

judgment dated 21.10.2005 passed by the Special Court and

submitted that there are no circumstances to interfere with the

impugned judgment by exercising jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 227 of Constitution of India, and ultimately prayed to

dismiss the writ petition.

7. In view of the above rival contentions, the following

points have come up for determination in this writ petition:

1) Whether the impugned judgment, dated 21.10.2005 passed in L.G.C.No.55 of 2000, by the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, is liable to be set aside by exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?

2) Whether the writ petitioners are entitled for the relief sought for?

POINTS:

8. The case of the respondent No.1 herein/applicant is that he

is the grandson of Sultan Ul Mulk and great grandson of Sir Vicar

and Lady Vicar. The property admeasuring Ac.82.00, in

Sy.Nos.194/8/1, 194/2 and 194/1, situated at Begumpet village,

is part of Estate of Lady Vicar and he is one of the direct

descendants of the said Lady Vicar. After the death of Sir Vicar Ul

Umra in 1902, the management and control of the Estate of Late Dr.SA,J & EVV,J

Sir Vicar was handed over to his son Nawab Sultan Ul Mulk.

Consequent upon declaring Nawab Sultan Ul Mulk as insane, the

supervision and control of the Estate of Sir Vicar was transferred

to Lady Vicar. Lady Vicar filed a suit in O.S.No.60 of 1342 Fasli

before the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, against her

son Nawab Sultan Ul Mulk Bahadur, seeking rendition of

accounts, mesne profits and restoration of the properties held in

trust. The said suit was disposed of on 27.04.1930 and several

properties were released in favour of Lady Vicar. However,

Maktha Begumpet was not released in favour of Lady Vicar and

she was directed to approach Inams authorities for settlement of

her claim. Accordingly Lady Vicar approached inam authorities

and through Munthakab No.9 dated 16.10.1950 the said land

was declared as inam land of Lady Vicar but before issuance of

said Munthakab, Lady Vicar died and succession was granted in

favour of her heirs vide Nizam Atiyat Judgment dated 30.07.1959

and ultimately, the control and supervision of said property was

handed over to the Court of Wards, which was subsequently

released in 1961 by Gazette dated 26.01.1961 and was again

taken over by the Court of Wards as per A.P Gazette, dated

27.02.1964. The respondents 1 to 4 in collusion with others sold Dr.SA,J & EVV,J

the subject property admeasuring Ac.4.20gts in Sy.Nos.194/8/1,

194/2 and 194/1, situated at Begumpet Village, Balanagar

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to respondents 6 to 28 and they

have illegally grabbed the lands. Therefore, the applicant filed

the subject L.G.C before the Special Court seeking to declare the

respondent Nos.1 to 12, 14 to 28 and 30 to 32 as land grabbers

in respect of subject property; to award compensation at the rate

of Rs.1000/- per sq.yard for wrongful possession; to evict the

respondents from the subject property and deliver vacant

possession of the land to the applicant and to award profits at

the rate of Rs.3000/- per sq.yard per month from each of the

respondent; and to punish the respondents, under the provisions

of the Land Grabbing Act. The Special Court took cognizance of

the subject L.G.C and published the same in A.P Gazette No.91

dated 31.07.2000. During the pendency of proceedings before

the Special Court, sole applicant died and applicant Nos.2 to 6

were brought on record as L.Rs of sole applicant vide order dated

24.02.2005 passed in I.A.No.124 of 2005.

9. The case of the respondent Nos.6, 7, 18, 20, 22 and 23 is

that the property admeasuring Ac.82-00, in Sy.Nos.194/8/1,

194/2 and 194/1, situated at Begumpet Village, belongs to Sir Dr.SA,J & EVV,J

Vicar Ul Umra but not the Estate of Lady Vicar. After the death of

Sir Vicar Ul Umra, the Begumpet properties situated in

Sy.Nos.194/1 to 194/2 were divided into two branches viz.,

Sultan Ul Mulk Branch and Waliuddowla Branch and those

properties were under the control of Court of Wards. In

O.S.No.47/1965 filed by Mohd.Basheeruddin Khan Nawab

Basheer Yar Jung for partition, the Civil Court held that it has no

jurisdiction in respect of inam lands and directed the parties to

approach Inams Tribunal. After dismissal of suit in

O.S.No.47/1965, all the inamdars, possessors and tenants filed

application before the Inams Tribunal and the same was disposed

of on 25.10.1997 vide File No.L/3842 & 3843/82. Challenging the

same, Writ Petition No.199/1998 was filed before the Hon'ble

High Court of A.P and the same was allowed on 08.06.2001

setting aside the orders passed in L/3842 and 3843/1982 holding

that the said lands are non-agricultural lands and they fall under

Section 9 of Inams Abolition Act and that the Inams Tribunal was

not empowered to pass any order vesting the property to the

Government and as such, the property does not belong to

Government. Smt.Sonabai got 13 Acres of land from Late Nawab

Sir Vicar Ul Umra by the order of Special Officer of Paigah. Late Dr.SA,J & EVV,J

Gulam Hussain purchased Ac.3-00 of land in Sy.No.194/8/1 from

said Sonabai and these respondents purchased plots situated in

Sy.No.194/8/1 of Begumpet Village, from the L.Rs of Gulam

Hussain under registered sale deeds and also under agreement of

sale dated 04.01.1994 and they were in possession and

enjoyment of the same. It is submitted that a suit in

O.S.No.353/1978 was filed before the V Addl. Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad, seeking injunction and cancellation of sale

deeds, dated 29.06.1971 and 03.09.1965 executed by Sona Bai

in favour of Gulam Hussain and K.Sambasiva Rao and the said

suit was dismissed upholding the sale deeds. Challenging the

same, the Estate of Paigah Sir Vicar UI Umra filed CCCA

No.59/1981 before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P and the said

appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment passed in

O.S.No.353/1978. It is submitted that these respondents

constructed pucca buildings and have been paying municipal and

other taxes and they have got right, title in respect of schedule

property and they were not land grabbers and ultimately, prayed

to dismiss the subject L.G.C.

10. The respondent Nos.5, 10, 11, 16, 19 and 25 filed a memo

adopting the counter filed by respondent Nos.6, 7, 16, 18, 20, 22 Dr.SA,J & EVV,J

and 23.

11. The case of the respondent No.12 is that Smt.Sonabai, was

the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.13.00 in

Sy.No.194/8, situated at Begumpet village, and that she sold

3.00 Acres of land to Gulam Hussain Ali Khan and 10 Acres of

land to Sri Sambasiva Rao. After the demise of Gulam Hussain Ali

Khan, his wife and children i.e, respondents 1 to 3 sold the land

through their G.P.A-R.4 to respondent Nos.5 to 28 and 30 to 32

under various sale deeds and agreements of sale and ultimately

prayed to dismiss the subject L.G.C.

12. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed a memo adopting the

counter filed by respondent No.12 except with regard to the

proceedings in Courts referred in the application.

13. The respondent Nos.8, 17, 21, 24, 26, 30 to 32 also filed a

memo adopting the counter filed by respondent No.12.

14. The case of respondent Nos.14 and 15 is that land

admeasuring 82 Acres, in Sy.Nos.194/8, 194/1 and 194/2,

situated at Begumpet, does not form part of the Estate of Lady

Vicar. One D.Yadagiri, who was in possession of 460 sq.yards in

Sy.No.194/1, since long time, approached Mohd. Naseeruddin Dr.SA,J & EVV,J

and Mohd. Abdul Masjid, to convey rights of the said land,

offered to pay Rs.37,000/- as sale consideration and entered into

an agreement dated 27.01.1993. The said Yadagiri along with

Mallaiah, conveyed the said land to M.T.Rajaram, father of

respondent Nos.14 and 15 under an agreement dated

23.08.1995. M.T.Rajaram, gave the lands admeasuring 105

sq.yds each to respondent Nos.14 and 15 and they constructed

houses in their respective portions and residing therein and they

also applied for regularisation paying necessary fees to M.C.H. in

the year 1996 and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the L.G.C.

15. The case of the respondent No.29-M.R.O, Balanagar

Mandal, is that the subject land was declared as Government

land as per the proceedings No.L/3842/82 dated 25.10.1997

issued by the Inams Tribunal and the claims and counter claims

over the subject lands were rejected by the Inams Tribunal and

there were no encroachments over the subject lands. Neither

the applicants nor the other respondents have any right over the

subject lands and the applicants filed the subject L.G.C

suppressing the facts in order to grab the valuable Government

land and ultimately prayed to dismiss the subject L.G.C.

Dr.SA,J & EVV,J

16. Basing on the above pleadings, the Special Court framed

the following issues for determination.

(1) Whether the applicant is the owner of the application schedule property?

(2) Whether the rival title set up by the various contesting respondents is true, valid and binding on the applicant?

(3) Whether the respondents or any of them can be treated as land grabbers in respect of any portion of the application schedule land under the provisions of the Act?

(4) Whether the application schedule land is inam land vested in the Government as claimed by the Government (Respondent No.29)?

(5) To what relief?

17. On behalf of the applicants, Sri Naseeruddin Khan, GPA of

the 1st applicant, was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.14

were marked. On behalf of respondents, the respondent No.12

was examined as R.W.1, respondent No.20 was examined as

R.W.2, respondent No.14 was examined as R.W.3, respondent

No.15 was examined as R.W.4, M.T.Rajaram, father of

respondent Nos.14 and 15 was examined as R.W.5 and Sri

B.V.Ratan Kumar, M.R.O, Balanagar Mandal, was examined as

R.W.6 and Exs.B.1 to B.78 were marked.

18. The Special Court, after adverting to the pleadings of the

respective parties and elaborately discussing the entire oral and

documentary evidence on record, partly allowed the subject Dr.SA,J & EVV,J

L.G.C vide impugned judgment dated 21.10.2005, as indicated

above.

19. The main contention of the writ petitioners is that the

subject property is inam land and it is covered under Inams

Abolition Act. Once the property vested in the State Government,

the applicants cannot file an application under Section 8(1) of the

Land Grabbing Act, before the Special Court. The Special Court

has no jurisdiction to entertain the subject L.G.C, determine the

issues in between the parties and pass the impugned judgment

20. Here, it is apt and appropriate to extract, Section 8(1) of

the Land Grabbing Act, which reads as follows:

"8. Procedure and powers of the Special Courts:--

(1) The Special Court may, either suo motu or on application made by any person, officer or authority take cognizance of and try every case arising out of any alleged act of land grabbing or with respect to the ownership and title to, or lawful possession of, the land grabbed, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, and pass such orders (including orders by way of interim directions) as it deems fit;

(2) xxxx....

A bare reading of the above provision of law makes it clear that

the Special Court, either suo motu or on application made by any

person, officer or authority, take cognizance of and try every case Dr.SA,J & EVV,J

arising out of any alleged act of land grabbing or with respect to

the ownership and title to, or lawful possession of, the land

grabbed and pass such orders as it deems fit. In the instant

case, the respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein/applicants filed an

application under Section 8(1) of the Land Grabbing Act before

the Special Court. The Special Court, after hearing the learned

counsel for the applicant and also considering the location, extent

and the substantive nature of evil involved, took cognizance of

the case and published the same in A.P.Gazette No.91 dated

31.07.2000 calling for objections from the persons interested in

the schedule land. However, no objections were received

pursuant to the said Gazette. Further, a memo was also called for

from the MRO concerned and the MRO filed statutory verification

report. Therefore, taking cognizance of the subject LGC by the

Special Court, cannot be faulted.

21. The Special Court after examining the oral and

documentary evidence on record, arrived at a conclusion that the

writ petitioners do not have lawful title to the property in

question and was pleased to hold that Lady Vicar was Inamdar

and before issuance of Munthakab in favour of Lady Vicar, she

died and succession was granted in favour of her heirs vide Dr.SA,J & EVV,J

Nizam-E-Atiyat Judgment dated 30.07.1959 and ultimately, the

control and supervision of the said property was handed over to

the Court of Wards, which was subsequently released in 1961 by

Gazette dated 26.01.1961 and was again taken over by the Court

of Wards as per A.P Gazette dated 27.02.1964. The Special Court

further observed that the respondents/applicants certainly are

interested parties in this case and their claim was recognized by

Civil Courts and the Government; it was however, a fact that

their shares were not determined; but that does not preclude

them from exercising their right as co-owners over the joint

property if only to protect the same. Observing so, the Special

Court held that there is no transfer of title and lawful possession

in favour of the writ petitioners. The findings recorded by the

Special Court are supported by oral and documentary evidence

on record. This Court has no power to revisit and re-appreciate

the factual aspects and determine them. Since the respondents/

applicants have joint interest in the subject property and when

the same is not protected by Court of wards, certainly, the

respondents/applicants have the right to protect the property and

resort to legal course, as the subject property is Inam property.

Therefore, nothing de horse the Special Court to exercise the Dr.SA,J & EVV,J

jurisdiction and determine the act of land grabbing. Further, the

question as to whether the subject land vested in the

Government in terms of Section 3 of Inams Abolition Act or

whether the applicants are entitled for the relief under Section 9

of the said Act, is not yet determined. That apart, since the

subject property is with the Court of Wards and since the

respondents/applicants have substantial right over the subject

land, the Court of Wards is required to protect the said land in

terms of Section 2(d) and (e) of Land Grabbing Act. It failed to do

so. The respondents/applicants, by placing cogent oral and

documentary evidence on record, substantially proved that the

subject lands were grabbed by the writ petitioners.

22. The decision in Lokraj's case (supra) relied upon by the

writ petitioners relates to adjudication of rights in a partition suit

without there being any grabbing in terms of Section 9 of the

Inams Abolition Act. There is no dispute with regard to the

conclusion reached in the aforementioned decision. But in the

instant case, as indicated above, the respondents/applicants have

absolute right to protect the property and invoke the jurisdiction

of the Special Court. Further, though in the instant case, there is

no re-grant of subject land in favour of the applicants, that would Dr.SA,J & EVV,J

not disable them to institute proceedings before the Land

Grabbing Court, so also for the Land Grabbing Court to exercise

power under Section 8 of Land Grabbing Act and determine the

act of alleged land grabbing. Therefore, the said decision has no

application to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.

23. Here, it is appropriate to refer the decision in Surya Dev

Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai2, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court

summarized various circumstances under which the High Court

can exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution, which are as under:

1. Amendment by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 1-7-2002 in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot and does not affect in any manner the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

2. Interlocutory orders, passed by the courts subordinate to the High Court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by CPC Amendment Act 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject to, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.

3. Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction i.e. when a subordinate court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction--by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction--by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice.

4. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has assumed a

(2003) 6 SCC 675 Dr.SA,J & EVV,J

jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.

5. Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

6. A patent error is an error which is self-evident i.e. which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view, the error cannot be called gross or patent.

7. The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred thereagainst and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis.

8. The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.

9. In practice, the parameters for exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari and those calling for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction are almost similar and the width of jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in India unlike English courts has almost obliterated the distinction between the two jurisdictions. While exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari, the High Court may annul or set aside the act, order or proceedings of the subordinate courts but cannot substitute its own decision in place thereof. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court may not only give suitable directions so as to guide the subordinate court as to the manner in which it would act Dr.SA,J & EVV,J

or proceed thereafter or afresh, the High Court may in appropriate cases itself make an order in supersession or substitution of the order of the subordinate court as the court should have made in the facts and circumstances of the case.

24. Bearing in mind the aforementioned decision, it is apt to

state that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to see that

a Court or Tribunal subordinate to it functions "within the bounds

of their authority" and to ensure that law is followed by such

Court or Tribunal by exercising jurisdiction vested in them and

not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them.

Apart from the above, High Court can interfere in exercise of its

power of superintendence, when there has been a patent

perversity in the orders of the Courts or Tribunal subordinate to it

or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or

the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. It is

also relevant to state that in the instant case, though the writ

petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 12, 14 to 28 and 30 to 32 have

claimed title to the subject property contending that they have

purchased the subject property and other properties in

Sy.Nos.194/1, 194/2 and 194/8/1, situated at Begumpet Village,

under different documents, the oral and the documentary

evidence adduced on their behalf do not substantiate that they Dr.SA,J & EVV,J

are legally entitled to the property in question or they have lawful

title and that they are not in unlawful occupation of the subject

property. The conclusions reached by the Special Court to that

effect are based on oral and documentary evidence adduced on

behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein/applicants and also

respondent No.7 herein/ Government. The Special Court, while

reaching to its conclusions, neither refused to admit admissible

and material evidence nor had erroneously admitted inadmissible

evidence, which has influenced the impugned findings. Further,

there is nothing on record to substantiate that Special Court has

acted in flagrant disregard of the rules of procedure or violated

the principles of natural justice. Further, the Special Court

neither acted without jurisdiction nor acted in excess of it or

failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. The Special Court

discussed the material on record at length and rightly directed

the writ petitioners herein/respondent Nos.1 to 12, 14 to 28 and

30 to 32 to handover possession of their occupations in

Sy.Nos.194/1, 194/2 and 194/8/1, situated at Begumpet Village,

to the Collector (acting as Court of Wards) as they were in illegal

occupation, without any legal entitlement, assigning number of

reasons. There are no circumstances to interfere with the Dr.SA,J & EVV,J

impugned judgment by exercising jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 227 of Constitution of India. This Writ Petition is devoid of

merit and is liable to be dismissed.

25. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition,

shall stand closed. No costs.

______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J

____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Date: 11.10.2022 scs