C.Vidya Sagar vs The Special Court Under A.P Land ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 461 Tel

Telangana High Court

C.Vidya Sagar vs The Special Court Under A.P Land ... on 9 June, 2025

Bench: T.Vinod Kumar, P.Sree Sudha

                                1




        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
                         AND
        THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

             IA.No.1 of 2019 & C.C.No.1751 of 2017
                              in/and
                     W.P. No.24864 of 2008

COMMON ORDER:

(per TVK,J)

Since, the interlocutory application, Contempt Case are

arising out of the writ petition vide W.P.No.24864 of 2008, they

are taken up for hearing together and being disposed of by this

common order.

2. Heard Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of Sri S.V.Ramana, learned counsel for writ

petitioner/respondent in the contempt case, Sri Meher Chand

Noori, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.L.Raju,

learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6 in the writ

petition/petitioners in the Contempt Case, and Sri M.Surender

Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for proposed respondent

Nos.9 to 11, in the writ petition, and perused the record.

3. This Writ Petition is filed being aggrieved by the order of

the Special Court, dt.15.09.2008 in LGC.No.41 of 2002 under

the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing

(Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act').

4. The petitioner herein is the 1st respondent in the LGC

before the Special Court. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein are the

applicants, and respondent Nos.7 & 8 herein are respondent

Nos.2 & 3 before the Special Court.

5. The respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein as applicants have filed

the underlying LGC under Section 8(1) of the Act to declare

them as owners of the application schedule land and to declare

the respondents therein as land grabbers and to recover

possession from the respondents and to hand over the same to

the applicants.

6. This application is filed seeking impleadment in the writ

petition as party respondent Nos.9 to 11 claiming that the writ

petitioner/1st respondent in LGC had gifted the subject property

admeasuring 1,000 sq. yards, cumulatively in favour of the

proposed respondents under three separate gift deeds,

dt.16.03.2000.

7. The parties are referred to as per their position before the

Special Court.

8. The applicants filed the underlying application before the

Special Court claiming that the land to an extent of 1,202 sq.

yards covered by plot Nos.3, 1, 2 & 4 in survey Nos.49 &

47(part) admeasuring 277.7 sq. yards, 284.5 sq. yards, 250 sq.

yards and 390 sq. yards, respectively, situated at Madhapur

Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District, have been

purchased by them under registered sale deeds bearing

document Nos.12745/1990, dt.19.09.1990, 12732/1990,

dt.19.09.1990, 2592/1990, dt.30.07.1990 and 6790/1990,

dt.13.08.1991 from respondent Nos.2 & 3 therein represented

by their registered General Power of Attorney(GPA) Holder.

9. It is the further case of the applicants that respondent

Nos.2 & 3 have appointed one K.Nagendra Prasad, as their GPA

Holder by executing a registered GPA in his favour vide

document, dt.23.07.1991; and that from the date of their

purchase of the application schedule land they are in possession

and enjoyment of the same have also raised basement to the

land purchased by them individually.

10. The applicants further aver that the respondent Nos.2 & 3

are true owners of land to an extent of Acres 2.03½ guntas

situated in survey Nos.45, 46, 47 & 49 of Madhapur Village,

Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having

succeeded to the aforesaid extent of land by virtue of judgment

and decree, dt.08.09.1988 in OS.No.312 of 1985 on the file of

the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

11. The applicants further contended that on receiving a

message from the neighbours that 1st respondent along with

antisocial elements was trying to encroach upon the application

schedule land and has taken measurements of the same, the 5th

applicant had lodged a complaint with the police authorities of

Madhapur. However, as no action was taken thereon, the 5th

applicant had lodged a complaint with the Municipality,

Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District, on behalf of the

applicants and thereafter gave another complaint to police

authorities on 24.02.2000.

12. The applicants further contend that the 1st respondent

had dumped construction material in the application schedule

land and tried to level the same to make construction.

13. It is the further case of the applicants that they had learnt

that the 1st respondent having filed a suit vide O.S.No.67 of

2000 on the file of the Principal Senior Judge, Ranga Reddy

District for perpetual injunction and obtained an ad-interim

injunction in I.A.No.158/2000 against the GPA holder of

respondents No.2 & 3, through whom the application schedule

plot of lands have been purchased by the applicants.

14. The applicants further contend that the GPA Holder of

respondent Nos.2 & 3 on being served with the summons in the

aforesaid suit filed by the 6th respondent had filed a petition for

appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to note down the

physical features of the suit land and the trial Court by allowing

the aforesaid petition appointed one T.Ramesh, as Advocate-

Commissioner to note down the physical features of the land,

who thereafter filed his report, dt.02.03.2000, along with

photographs.

15. The applicants contend that though they have initially

filed LGC Nos.16 to 19 of 2000 and also filed interim

applications therein for grant of injunction in the meantime,

wherein notices have been ordered, the 1st respondent in

collusion with respondent Nos.2 & 3 had grabbed the entire land

of the applicants and constructed a room and compound wall

thereto.

16. The applicants further contend that LGC Nos.16 to 19 of

2000, which were pending for trial were returned due to

technicalities, to be presented before the proper Court.

17. It is the further case of the applicants that since, the 1st

respondent by colluding with respondent Nos.2 & 3 had grabbed

application schedule land, the applications have preferred the

underlying application before the Special Court.

18. The applicants further aver that the acts of the

respondents in interfering with the plots of land purchased by

them being plot bearing Nos.3, 1, 2 & 4, on which they have

constructed a basement, is without any lawful entitlement; and

that the 1st respondent is a land grabber, who on grabbing the

plot of land of the applicants had constructed a wall and room

therein, without any valid and legal entitlement.

19. On the applicants filing the aforesaid application and

complying with the procedure prescribed under the Act and

Rules made thereunder, the Special Court took cognizance of

the application and issued notices to the respondents.

20. The 1st respondent on being issued with notice by the

Special Court has filed his counter resisting the application

contending that respondent Nos.2 & 3 are the owners and

possessors of land admeasuring Acres 2.03 ½ guntas of land in

survey Nos.45, 46, 47 & 49 of Madhapur Village,

Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by virtue of

judgment and decree, dt.08.09.1988 in OS.No.312 of 1985 on

the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy

District; that the 1st respondent had purchased land to an

extent of 1000 sq. yards out of land in survey No.49(part) from

respondent Nos.2 & 3 under simple Sale Deed, dt.16.02.1990,

for a sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-; and that respondent

Nos.2 & 3 had delivered physical possession of the said land to

him on the date of sale i.e., 16.02.1990 and since, then he is in

possession and enjoyment of the application schedule property

in his own name.

21. By the counter affidavit, 1st respondent further claimed

that on being delivered with physical possession of the land by

respondent Nos.2 & 3, he had raised a compound wall around

the said property, constructed two rooms and dug a bore-well

therein; that he also obtained electricity connection to the said

property; and that the said property is also assessed to tax by

Serilingampally Municipality, since, the same bears door No.1-

103/B/4.

22. The 1st respondent, by the counter affidavit, further

claimed that the applicants did not obtain possession of the

application schedule land pursuant to the registered sale deeds

executed by one K.Nagendra Prasad, as a GPA holder of

respondent Nos.2 & 3; that the claim of the applicants of having

purchased plots bearing Nos.3, 1, 2 & 4 is also incorrect, as

there was no approved layout for survey Nos.47 and 49; that in

the absence of approved layout, the plot of the applicants cannot

be identified on ground; and that since, the applicants claim to

have purchased application scheduled plots, which are not

identifiable on ground, the applicants cannot claim any right or

title in respect of said plots.

23. The 1st respondent further contended that since, he had

obtained the possession of the application schedule land from

respondent Nos.2 & 3 on execution of sale deed, dt.16.02.1990,

the question of respondents attempting to grab the application

schedule land by dispossessing the applicants, does not arise.

24. The 1st respondent further claimed that when the

applicants in collusion with the 2nd respondent tried to interfere

with his possession, he had filed a suit vide O.S.No.67/2000 on

the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, and

obtained an ad-interim injunction vide order in IA.No.158/2000,

dt.11.08.2000, restraining the 2nd respondent and his GPA

Holder-K.Nagendra Prasad from interfering with his possession

over the suit schedule property.

25. The 1st respondent by the counter affidavit further claimed

that the Commissioner appointed in the said suit at the behest

of the GPA Holder of the 2nd respondent, filed his report to the

effect that the 1st respondent is in possession of the said land

and that the said injunction order is subsisting.

26. The 1st respondent also contended that he has been in

effective possession of the application schedule property from

the date of its purchase and had constructed compound wall

and raised structures in the land, much prior to the applicants

filing the initial LGCs vide LGC.Nos.16 to 19 of 2000 before this

Court; that his possession over the application schedule land is

lawful; and that the applicants have no semblance of right

whatsoever to the application schedule land.

27. The 1st respondent by contending as above claimed that

the application as filed by the applicants is frivolous in nature

and the applicants are strangers to the application schedule

land, and sought for dismissal of the application.

28. The 2nd respondent filed separate counter affidavit denying

all the allegations made by the applicants. The 2nd respondent

by the counter affidavit claimed that he is the absolute owner of

the property admeasuring Acres 2.03½ guntas in survey Nos.45,

46, 47 & 49(part) situated at Madhapur Village, Serilingampally

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; that the land in survey Nos.45,

46, 47 & 49(part) has fallen to his share and the share of the 3rd

respondent in terms of the judgment and decree, dt.08.09.1988

in OS.No.312 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Subordinate

Judge, Ranga Reddy District; and that neither he nor his GPA

holder namely Nagendra Prasad obtained any layout for plotting

the land in the aforesaid survey numbers at any point of time till

the date of LGC proceedings.

29. The 2nd respondent further contended that upon passing

of the judgment decree and the land in survey Nos.45, 46, 47

and 49(part) being partitioned between the parties to the suit,

the 2nd respondent had sold land admeasuring 1000 sq. yards

from the extent of land falling to his and 3rd respondent's share

to the 1st respondent herein by receiving the consideration in the

year 1990 and delivered vacant possession on the date of

execution of the sale deed.

30. The 2nd respondent by the counter affidavit filed claimed

that he is not aware whether the applicants have purchased the

application scheduled plots; and that respondent Nos.2 & 3

have given GPA to K.Narendra Prasad to sell the remaining land

in survey No.49(part) having already sold 1000 sq. yards of land

to the 1st respondent.

31. The 2nd respondent further contended that as per Clause

5 of the GPA, the GPA holder is required to deposit the sale

proceeds to his and 3rd respondent's account; that their GPA

holder, K.Narendra Prasad did not bring to his notice of any

transaction nor deposited any sale proceeds to his account; and

that for the said reason, he was compelled to cancel the GPA

under Deed of Cancellation, dt.21.02.2000, and also issued legal

notice to GPA holder calling him to account for the transactions.

32. The 2nd respondent by the counter affidavit further

claimed that the 1st respondent after purchase of the property is

in continuous physical possession of the application schedule

property from 1990 till date without interference and hindrance;

that the 1st respondent also constructed a compound wall and

rooms therein; and that the 3rd respondent resides nearby to the

plot of land sold to the 1st respondent; and thus, finally prayed

to dismiss the application.

33. The Special Court by considering the pleadings of the

applicants in the application and the counters filed by

respondents No.1 & 2, had framed the following issues for trail

and determination:

"1) Whether the applicants have title to the application schedule property?

2) Whether the rival title set up by respondents is true, valid and binding?

3) Whether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of Act XII of 1982?

4) To what relief?"

34. Before the Special Court, on behalf of the applicants, PW1

to PW5 were examined and Exs.A1 to A24 were marked. On

behalf of the respondents, RW1 to RW4 were examined and

Exs.B1 to B19 were marked.

35. The Special Court had examined CW1 and CW2 i.e.,

Finger Prints Experts and marked Exs.C1 to C6 through them.

36. The Special Court by considering the evidence adduced

before it in relation to the issues framed, had noted that while

the applicants claim to be absolute owners of plot Nos.3,1,2 & 4,

under registered sale deeds marked as Exs.A1, A7, A8 & A13,

dt.19.09.1990, dt.30.07.1991, dt.30.07.1990 and

dt.19.07.1990, respectively, in all admeasuring 1202 sq. yards

cumulatively, the 1st respondent on the other hand is claiming

to have purchased plot of land admeasuring 1000 sq. yards of

land in survey No.49(part) from respondent Nos.2 & 3 under

Sale Deed, dt.16.02.1990(Ex.B5) for a consideration of

Rs.40,000/-.

37. The Special Court however, noted that the sale

dt.16.02.1990(Ex.B5) is a simple Sale Deed, which was

revalidated on 05.10.1999 by the District Registrar, Ranga

Reddy District, nearly after 9 years of execution of the simple

sale deed.

38. The Special Court further noted that the applicants having

purchased the property under valid registered sale deeds from

the GPA holder of respondent No.2 & 3, the claim of the 1st

respondent that the GPA Holder namely K.Nagendra Prasad,

was not empowered to make the land into plots and sell the

same, to be contrary to Clause 4 of the GPA marked as Ex.A11,

and also the further claim of respondent Nos.2 & 3 that the said

GPA Holder did not pay the consideration to respondent Nos.2 &

3, also to be contrary to Clause 5 of the said GPA.

39. The Special Court also noted that respondent Nos.2 & 3

though claim of the GPA Holder not adhering to the covenants of

GPA(Ex.A11), did not give any notice at any point of time after

execution of the Sale Deeds(Exs.A1, A7, A8 & A13) by the GPA

Holder in favour of the applicants stating that the sale amount

was not paid and entered into their account.

40. The Special Court also noted that respondent Nos.2 & 3

had executed GPA, dt.23.07.1991, in favour of K.Nagendra

Prasad, who in turn had executed the sale deeds in favour of the

applicants in the year 1990-91, prior to the cancellation of GPA

by respondent Nos.2 & 3 on 21.02.2000 i.e., after a decade.

41. The Special Court by noting as above, observed that, if

only the GPA Holder did not pay the sale consideration received

by him, the respondent Nos.2 & 3 would have issued notice and

would have cancelled the GPA and would not have waited for 10

years for cancellation of the GPA.

42. The Special Court further noted that the GPA Holder,

pursuant to the power conferred on him under the GPA, has

sold plots not only to the applicants but also to some others.

43. The Special Court also noted that the GPA Holder, who

was examined as PW4 had claimed that he along with

respondent Nos.2 & 3 made the land to an extent of Acres

2.03½ guntas into a layout of plots according to sizes and later

applied for permission on 28.07.1990 with HUDA authorities

and pending grant of said permission had sold plots in favour of

the applicants.

44. The Special Court while dealing with the claim of the

respondents, that the land being claimed by the applicants is

not identifiable on ground as the boundaries mentioned in

respect of land purchased by the 1st respondent under sada Sale

Deed, dt.16.02.1990(Ex.B5) records the boundaries as survey

No.15 on North, road & land in survey No.49 (part) on the

South, vagu and land in survey No.50 & 51 on the East, and

land in survey Nos.47 & 48 on the West, while no such

boundaries were depicted in any one of the sale deeds of he

applicants, and thus, the applicants have failed to establish that

their plots fall in the land, which came to the respondent Nos.2

& 3 in the partition, however, noted that the 1st respondent had

mentioned those boundaries in the suit filed for injunction in

respect of 1000 sq. yards forming part of land in survey

No.49(part), while for the plots purchased by the applicants,

boundaries of each plot are mentioned in the sale deed.

45. The Special Court also noted that in the suit filed by the

1st respondent, a Commissioner was appointed for identification

of the application schedule land; the 1st respondent gave a work

memo to identify and demarcate the land admeasuring Acres

2.03½ guntas in survey Nos.45, 46, 47 & 49(part) situated at

Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District, which

has been fallen to the share of respondent Nos.2 & 3 as per the

decree and judgment in OS.No.312/1985; and that the

Commissioner in his report has stated that the Mandal Surveyor

expressed his inability to measure the entire land in survey

Nos.45, 47, 47 & 49(part) and the work memo submitted by the

respondents was not within the scope of warrant issued to him,

and therefore could not file the report.

46. The Special Court also noted that the Commissioner was

appointed to measure the land as per the measurements given

in the sale deeds of both the parties; that the Commissioner

along with his report, enclosed a sketch prepared by the Mandal

Surveyor; that as per the report of the Commissioner the Mandal

Surveyor has stated that the application schedule property is

situated in survey No.49 only.

47. The Special Court further noted that the extent of land

admeasuring Acres 1.20 guntas in survey No.49 fell to the share

of respondent Nos.2 & 3, out of which the applicants are

claiming land to an extent of 1,202 sq. yards as having been

purchased by them under registered sale deeds and that it is

situated in survey No.49.

48. The Special Court by noting as above held that the claim

of the respondents that the land is not identifiable is not

tenable.

49. Though on behalf of the 1st respondent it has been

contended before the Special Court that respondents No.2 & 3

having executed a GPA in favour of K.Nagendra Prasad(PW4),

excluding the land of 1,000 sq. yards sold to the 1st respondent

under sada Sale Deed, dt.16.02.1990(Ex.B5), the Special Court

noted that since, in the GPA(Ex.A1) executed by the respondents

there is no mention about sale of 1,000 sq. yards to the 1st

respondent, there is every doubt as regards genuineness of sada

Sale Deed (Ex.B5) executed on 16.02.1990.

50. The Special Court by observing as above noted that the

contention of the applicants that the 1st respondent in collusion

with the 2nd respondent brought into existence Ex.B5 and filed

the suit to obtain injunction to grab their land.

51. The Special Court also took note of the contention of the

respondents that there was no lay out and sale deeds are

created by the applicants for the purpose of filing the application

before it, had observed that PW4 admitted that layout plan is

not filed. Though PW2 admitted that they have not filed layout

plan, however gave an explanation that application made by him

to HUDA seeking permission was returned with objections and

later he addressed a letter fulfilling the objections and to release

the layout.

52. The Special Court further noted that before executing the

sale deeds, PW4 made an application on 28.07.1990 (Ex.A9) to

the concerned authority and that even by the date of order in

LGC, the said layout is not approved, and thus, it is clear from

the evidence of PW4 that land was divided into plots and sold to

intending purchasers, and hence, held that PW4 made a layout

and sold plots before the obtaining lay-out approved from the

HUDA and that for not filing of approved layout cannot be said

that sale deeds are invalid.

53. Insofar as the claim of the 1st respondent that he having

filed a suit vide O.S.No.67/2000 against the 2nd respondent and

the GPA Holder, and obtaining an ex-parte ad-interim injunction

initially and thereafter the same having been decreed in favour

of the 1st respondent, the Special Court noted that if the claim of

the 1st respondent of he having purchased the land under Ex.B5

from respondent Nos.2 & 3 is to be accepted as correct, there is

no need to make the 2nd respondent as 2nd defendant in the suit,

and that the 2nd defendant, K.Nagendra Prasad, the GPA Holder

of respondent Nos.2 & 3 having remained ex-parte, as they are

no way concerned with the suit schedule land, shows that the

1st respondent only to get an ex-parte decree filed the suit. The

Special Court in fact had noted that the filing of the suit against

the owner of the property from who the 1st respondent claims to

have purchased itself shows that it is a suit filed by the 1st

respondent in collusion with the 2nd respondent.

54. As the recitals of the sale deed clearly show that the 2nd

respondent on receiving full sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-

had delivered physical possession of the land on execution of the

alleged sale deed, dt.16.02.1990(Ex.B5), and thus, it cannot be

inferred that there can be any threat from the 2nd respondent to

interfere with the suit schedule property.

55. Since, the applicants question the genuineness of

execution of Ex.B5/Sale Deed in favour of the 1st respondent in

the year 1990 and claim the same having been regularized in

the year 1999, the Special Court had sent Ex.B5 viz., sada Sale

Deed, and Ex.A11 is the executed by respondent Nos.2 & 3, to

Finger Print Bureau for comparison with the admitted thumb

impression of respondent No.3 thereon., and the report/opinion

furnished to the Special Court was marked as Ex.C1.

56. The Finger Print Expert was also examined as CW1, who

deposed before the Special Court and stated that the thumb

impression on Exs.B5 and A11 are not identical and no common

characteristics are found.

57. The Special Court by taking note of the aforesaid opinion

of the Finger Print Expert held that Ex.B5/sale deed purported

to have been executed in favour of the 1st respondent does not

contain the thumb impression of the 3rd respondent, and

therefore there is every force in the contention of the applicants

that the 1st respondent in collusion with the 2nd respondent had

created Ex.B5.

58. The Special Court further noted that Ex.B5 is originally an

'agreement of sale' executed and later it was converted into

'Deed of Sale' for the purpose of revalidation on 05.10.1999; that

wherever the word "agreement" is typewritten in Ex.B5 was

either scored out or erased, and at more than one place, the

word 'deed' was typewritten.

59. The Special Court also noted that if really respondent

Nos.2 & 3 executed sale deed on 16.12.1990 in favour of the 1st

respondent after full payment of sale consideration of

Rs.40,000/-, the 1st respondent would not have kept quiet for

ten years for getting it revalidated by paying deficit stamp duty

and penalty, that too when the GPA Holder executed the sale

deeds.

60. The Special Court by noting as above, held that the 1st

respondent did not get valid title to the application schedule

property as the sale deed was not executed by Fatima Bee, the

3rd respondent, who had got right and title to the property

covered by Ex.B5 as per the judgment and decree in OS.No.312

of 1985.

61. The Special Court further noted that though the 2nd

respondent had claimed of the GPA Holder not entering the sale

amount into the account of respondent Nos.2 & 3 on affecting

sale of plots as a GPA Holder, the 2nd respondent did not initiate

any action for recovery of the amount, which was not paid to

him as alleged.

62. The Special Court also took note of the fact that the GPA

does not mention of the 2nd respondent selling the application

schedule property of 1,000 sq. yards under Ex.B5 Sale Deed in

favour of the 1st respondent and the GPA holder being permitted

to sell the remaining extent of land, it is also observed in the

GPA that respondent No.2 & 3 having made a statement that

they being owners of land admeasuring Acres 2.03½ guntas and

not in a position to supervise or administer the property, having

appointed K.Nagendra Prasad as GPA Holder.

63. Before the Special Court one Khaza Bee filed an

application in IA.No.959/2006 seeking to implead herself as

party respondent claiming that she had executed Ex.B5 along

with her husband and that her share of consideration was not

paid.

64. Though the said petition was dismissed, the Special Court

in order to compare her thumb marks in the affidavit and the

Vakalat, with that of the thumb marks in Ex.B5/deed of sale

sent the same to Finger Print Expert for his opinion.

65. The Finger Print Expert, who was examined as CW2, gave

his opinion, marked as Ex.C3, stated that none of the admitted

thumb impressions which were marked as Exs.A2, A4, A5 & A6

tallied with the disputed thumb impressions marked as Exs.D1,

D2 and D3, and the Special Court by considering the evidence of

CW2 had held that the thumb marks on Ex.B5 is not that of

Khaza Bee.

66. The Special Court considering in detail the evidence

adduced by the parties and the contentions advanced, had held

that the applicants have got title to the application schedule

property, while the rival title set up by respondents is not true,

valid and binding on the applicants.

67. The Special Court by holding as above further held that

since, the respondents are in possession of the application

schedule property, which does not belong to them, having no

legal entitlement, declared the respondents as land grabbers

within the meaning of Act XII of 1982, with a consequential

direction to respondents to put the applicants in possession of

the application schedule property within a period of two (02)

months from the date of the order in LGC, dt.15.09.2008.

Consideration by the Court:

68. At the outset, insofar as the power of High Court under

Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to examine the

correctness or otherwise of the order of the Special Court is

concerned, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in State of A.P. v. Prameela Modi & Others 1,

wherein it was held that the High Court in exercise of its power

(2006) 13 SCC 147

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot convert

itself into the Court of Appeal and cannot indulge itself in re-

appreciation or evaluation of evidence on record.

69. Further, the Apex Court in State Of Andhra Pradesh vs

P.V. Hanumantha Rao (D) Thr. Lrs. and Anr., 2 held that

against the decision of the Special Court, no appeal is provided

and only remedy of aggrieved party is to approach the High

Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. It

is further held that remedy of writ petition available in the High

Court is not against the 'decision' of the subordinate court,

tribunal or authority, but it is against the 'decision making

process'. It is also held that right of the High Court to interfere

in orders of sub-ordinate courts and tribunals, is limited, where

- (i) there is an error manifest and apparent on the face of the

proceedings, such as when it is based on clear misreading or

utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice

or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

70. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in Smt.

Y.Amruthabai, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and Anr. vs. The

(2003) 10 SCC 121

Spl. Court under A.P. Land Grabbing Proh. Act and Ors. 3 by

referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in P.V.

Hanumantha Rao's case(2 supra) held that the scope of

extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India is very limited. The High Court, in

exercise of Certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction, cannot convert

itself into a Court of appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or

evaluation of evidence. The High Court can interfere with the

decision of the Special Court only where there is an error

manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings and where

it resulted in grave injustice or gross failure of justice.

71. Keeping in view the law as enunciated above, let us

examine the facts of the present case.

72. Though before us it is vehemently contended by the

petitioner/1st respondent that the applicants having filed LGC

Nos.16 to 19 of 2000 initially and on the same being rejected by

the Special Court, cannot file a consolidated application after six

months by clubbing all the extents of land covered by (04)

earlier LGC cases, and as such, the underlying LGC is not

maintainable, as the Special Court had entertained the said

Order dt.28.09.2022 in W.P.No.3320 of 2006

application, and the petitioner/1st respondent having

participated in the proceedings before the Special Court, it is not

open for the petitioner/1st respondent to raise the plea now

before this Court in the Writ Petition.

73. Petitioner contends that though the applicants claim to

have purchased the application schedule property under sale

deeds, dt.19.09.1990, dt.30.07.1991, dt.30.07.1990 and

dt.19.09.1990, respectively, as he is claiming title to the

property on the basis of sada Sale Deed executed by

respondents No.2 & 3, dt.16.02.1990(Ex.B5) being prior in point

of time and also put in possession of the said land on its

execution, it is to be noted that the Special Court having stated

that the subject land in survey Nos.45, 46, 47 & 49(part) having

fallen to the 2nd and 3rd respondents' share, pursuant to the

decree & judgment in OS.No.312/1985, dt.08.09.1988, and a

partition between the parties to the suit having taken place only

on 23.06.1990 as per Ex.A12, identifying the land fallen to their

share, particularly, in respect of land in Sy.No.49 admeasuring

Acres 1.20 guntas, and the same could not have found mention

in the sada Sale Deed(Ex.B5), dt.16.02.1990, stated to have

been executed in favour of the 1st respondent, even before being

partitioned.

74. Thus, the fact of mentioning of details of partition deed,

dt.23.06.1990 in the sada sale deed, dt.16.02.1990, itself goes

to show that Ex.B5 was not executed on the date it is stated to

have executed and was in fact executed subsequently by way of

collusion between respondent Nos.1 & 2 in order to defeat the

claim of the applicants, and as such, the findings of the Special

Court that the rival title set up by the respondents is not true,

valid and binding on the applicants, in the considered view of

this Court, cannot be said as either erroneous or perverse.

75. Further, on behalf of the 1st respondent though it is

contended that the respondents being in possession of the

application schedule land, unless the grabbing is alleged and

proved, the application under Section 8(1) of the Act is not

maintainable, it is to be noted that the applicants by filing the

application before the Special Court had pleaded that the 1st

respondent by grabbing their land had not only constructed a

compound wall and room therein, but also started dumping

construction material in the site, which entitles them to

maintain the application under Section 8(1) of the Act.

76. Further, the 1st respondent by his own admission in the

suit filed by him had claimed that he being in possession of the

land and having constructed a compound wall and a room

therein on the basis of Ex.B5, stated to have executed by

respondents No.2 & 3, which document the Special Court had

found as not having been executed by the 3rd respondent, who

has right, title and interest to the land, the claim of the 1st

respondent being in possession, would not confer any valid title

in his favour.

77. The Apex Court, in a recent decision in V.S.R. Mohan Rao

vs. K.S.R. Murthy & Ors. 4 held that possession without legal

right still constitutes land grabbing.

78. Thus, the claim of the 1st respondent of being in

possession of the land pursuant to the sale deed,

dt.16.02.1990(Ex.B5), execution of which itself is in question,

possession of the respondents would have to be only held as by

way of grabbing without any valid title or lawful entitlement.

79. Though on behalf of the petitioner/respondent it is

contended that the Special Court having not adverted to the

issue of identity of the property and possession, it is to be noted

that the Special Court had made reference to the report filed

along with sketch of the Advocate Commissioner and the

Mandal Surveyor in the suit filed by the respondents herein vide

2025 INSC 708

O.S.No.65/2000, identifying the lands of the applicants as

falling in survey No.49, in the considered view of this Court, it is

not open for the respondents to allege that the Special Court

having not adverted to the issue with regard to the identity of

the property and possession, and for the said reason, the order

of the Special Court cannot be held as either being vitiated or

suffering with any infirmity.

80. Further, the respondents though claim to be in possession

and having filed a suit vide O.S.No.67/2000 and the said suit

being decreed in his favour, it is to be noted that the said suit is

only a simple injunction suit, and not a title suit wherein the

Court could have examined as to whether the applicants or the

respondents have title to the application schedule land.

81. It is also to be noted that the 1st respondent has filed the

aforesaid suit against the 2nd respondent, from whom he had

claimed to have purchased the application schedule land under

Ex.B5 and against the GPA Holder of respondent Nos.2 & 3, and

did not choose to make the applicants as parties to the said suit,

while the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and their GPA, who had

executed the Sale deed in favour of the applicants remained ex-

parte therein, the said decree passed in the simple injunction

suit cannot bind the applicants herein, who are claiming title to

the application schedule land under registered sale deeds

executed by the GPA holder of respondent Nos.2 & 3 during its

currency.

82. Further, it is also to be noted that the applicants have

made claim to the subject land under registered sale deed, while

the 1st respondent is laying claim to the application schedule

land on the basis of a sada Sale Deed/Ex.B5, which was

validated nearly after a decade. The affect of validation only for

being marked as exhibit in evidence, while on the other hand,

the execution of registered sale deed being notice to the world

as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp &

Industries Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Vs. State of Haryana

& Others 5, the respondents cannot claim that the Special Court

having erred in holding that they have failed to establish rival

title set up by them. On the other hand, the Special Court

rightly held that the said rival title set up is not true, valid and

binding on the applications, and thus declaring the

petitioner/respondent as grabber of the land belonging to the

applicants before the Special Court.

2012(1) SCC 656

83. Though on behalf of the petitioner/respondent it is

contended that it is only after the jurisdiction and

maintainability issues are decided, examination of documents as

to whether the same is forged or otherwise, would arise and not

before and since, the essentials of 'grabbing' as defined under

Section 2(e) of the Act is missing, as the applicants only alleged

of the respondents attempting to grab, which does not fall within

the scope of land grabbing, it is to be noted that even the

allegation of grabbing is sufficient to maintain the application

before the Special Court, and once the application is

maintained, the act of grabbing or not is to be proved.

84. In the facts of the case, as noted in detail by the Special

Court, the 1st respondent had laid claim to the land belonging to

the applicants on the basis of a document i.e., Ex.B5, stated to

have been executed by respondent Nos.2 &3, which the Special

Court had found to be of not having executed on the date it is

stated to have been executed or by the persons i.e., the 3rd

respondent, who has right, interest and title to the land along

with respondent No.2, the 1st respondent cannot claim of he

having set up valid rival title.

85. Thus, this Court is of the view that the present Writ

Petition as filed against the order of the Special Court is devoid

of merit and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

86. In view of the discussion made as above, since the 1st

respondent/writ petitioner is held to be not having any valid title

to the subject property under the sada Sale Deed, dt.16.2.1990,

executed by respondent Nos.2 & 3, and as the proposed parties

claim title under separate Gift Deeds executed in their favour on

16.03.2000 by the 1st respondent, in all admeasuring 1000 sq.

yards cumulatively, and since, the gift is only pendent lite, this

Court is of the view that the proposed parties are not necessary

parties to be impleaded in the present Writ Petition.

Accordingly, IA.No.1 of 2019 is dismissed.

87. This Contempt Case is filed aggrieved by the actions of the

respondents in not obeying/violating the orders of status quo

granted by this Court, dt.13.11.2008 in WP.MP.No.32462 of

2008 in W.P.No.2484 of 2008.

88. However, this Court by order, dt.28.09.2022 in

W.P.No.24864 of 2008, vacated the said status quo order noting

that the petitioner is not ready and not proceeding with the

matter in spite of granting several opportunities.

89. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that nothing

survives in the present Contempt Case.

90. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. No order as to

costs.

91. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall

stand closed.

_____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J

___________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J

9th June, 2025.

gra

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

IA.No.1 of 2019 & C.C.No.1751 of 2017 in/and

9th June, 2025.

gra