Arif Noorul Hassan Rep. by Gpa Holder, Mehdi Ali and ors. Vs. State of A.P., Revenue and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- orderb. prakash rao, j.1. since all these matters involve the same subject matter and commonly touching questions, they are taken up together for disposal.2. in w.p. no. 28470 of 1995, which was filed on 15-12-1995, the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of abdul basith, seek a writ of certiorari assailing the orders in l.g.c. no. 46/89, dated 30-10-1995 on the file of the special court under the a.p. land grabbing (prohibition) act at hyderabad, dismissing their application filed under section 8(1) of the a.p. land grabbing (prohibition) act, 1982 (for brevity the 'act') to declare the respondents as land grabbers and seek eviction and consequent reliefs in respect of the property admeasuring acs.6.34 guntas in sy. no. 129/51 (old) new sy. no. 328 situated in shaikpet village, golconda.....

Judgment:
ORDER

B. Prakash Rao, J.

1. Since all these matters involve the same subject matter and commonly touching questions, they are taken up together for disposal.

2. In W.P. No. 28470 of 1995, which was filed on 15-12-1995, the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of Abdul Basith, seek a Writ of Certiorari assailing the orders in L.G.C. No. 46/89, dated 30-10-1995 on the file of the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad, dismissing their application filed under Section 8(1) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for brevity the 'Act') to declare the respondents as land grabbers and seek eviction and consequent reliefs in respect of the property admeasuring Acs.6.34 guntas in Sy. No. 129/51 (old) new Sy. No. 328 situated in Shaikpet Village, Golconda Revenue Mandal, Hyderabad District. These proceedings are filed against the respondents, who include the Government as the first respondent and V.R.K. Sastry as fifth respondent and M/s. Kaushik Co-operative Housing Society (for brevity 'Kaushik Society') as the sixth respondent apart from the other respondents 7 to 57 and Sri Sai Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for brevity 'Sai Nagar Society') is the 58th respondent.

3. In W.P. No. 9931 of 2006, the petitioner is the Sai Nagar Society, which was filed on 22-5-2006, seeks a Writ of Certiorari assailing the orders in L.G.C. No. 29 of 1992, dated 28-4-2006 on the file of the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad, dismissing the similar application filed under Section 8(1) of the Act along with another L.G.C. No. 15 of 1996, which was filed by the State Government. In L.G.C. No. 29 of 1992, the petitioner was claiming an extent of Acs. 8.18 guntas in R.S. No. 129/52 correlated to part of T.S. No. 11, Block 'H', Ward No. 10 of Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad whereas in the connected L.G.C. No. 15/96 the property involved is Acs.16.09 guntas in Sy. No. 403 correlated to part of T.S. No. 1/p, 4/p, 11/p and 12/p, Block 'H', Ward No. 10 of Shaikpet village. In the Writ Petition, respondents 1 to 6 are the contesting respondents, 7lh respondent is V.R.K. Sastry, 8th respondent is Kaushik Society, respondents 9 to 27 are the purchasers, respondents 28 to 31 are the legal heirs of the fourth respondent, who died subsequently.

4. In W.P. No. 21130 of 2006, which was filed on 29-9-2006, the petitioner is the State Government through its Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad District, who seek similar Writ of Certiorari as against the orders dated 28-4-2006 in L.G.C. No. 15 of 1996, dismissing their application filed under Section 8(1) of the Act in respect of the land to an extent of Acs. 16.09 guntas admeasuring 78,529 sq. yards in T.S. No. 1/p, 4/p, 11/p and 12/p. Block 'H', Ward No. 10 corresponding to Sy. No. 403 of Shaikpet village. Apart from contesting respondents 1, 4 to 24, the 2nd respondent is V.R.K. Sastry and the third respondent is Kaushik Society.

5. In W.P. No. 25636 of 2006, the petitioner is the 6th respondent in L.G.C. No. 15 of 1996, which was dismissed as per the orders dated 28-4-2006 on the file of the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad. The petitioner as aggrieved against the findings therein against him and the legal heirs of Mulla Abdul Basith, filed this Writ Petition on 7-12-2006 and sought for declaration that they are the owners of the land in Sy. No. 129/51, situated at Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. In the said Writ Petition, the State Government is added as the first respondent, the 2nd respondent is another contesting party, the third respondent is V.R.K. Sastry and the fourth respondent is Kaushik Society.

6. In W.P. No. 25734 of 2006, which was filed on 8-12-2006, the petitioner is deceased Mehidi Ali, who is represented by the second petitioner i.e., one of the legal heirs and also the respondents 25 to 27 are the other legal heirs where a Writ of Certiorari was sought for assailing the orders dated 28-4-2006 in L.G.C. No. 29 of 1992, which was dismissed along with another L.G.C. No. 15 of 1996, and the petitioner was arrayed as 29m respondent in L.G.C. No. 29 of 1992. The petitioner claimed to be the G.P.A. holder of the 6th respondent in L.G.C. No. 15 of 1996. The first petitioner died on 30-7-2006 and the petitioner sought to assail only the findings given against them holding that the land, which is claimed by the petitioner is covered by Sy. No. 129/68/paiki situated in Shaikpet, Hyderabad. In this Writ Petition, the first petitioner is the Sai Nagar Society, respondents 2 to 4 and 7 to 9 are the other contesting respondents, the fifth respondent is V.R.K. Sastry and the 6th respondent is the Kaushik Society.

7. In W.P. No. 1673 of 2007, which was filed on 29-1-2007, the petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari as against the orders of dismissal of the Review Applications purported to have been filed under Section 17(a) of the Act and Rule 18 of the Rules framed there under in L.G.C. No. 29 of 1992 and 15 of 1996 on the file of the Special Court under the A.P Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad as being not maintainable and also in view of the pendency of the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 26734 of 1996 which was filed as against the orders in L.G.C. No. 29 of 1992.

8. Similarly in W.P. No. 1706 of 2007, the petitioners are the same petitioners as in W.P. No. 25734 of 2006 as mentioned above and they seek to assail by way of a Writ of Certiorari the orders dated 10-7-2006 dismissing the Review Applications in L.G.C. No. 29 of 1992 on the file of the Special Court under the A.P Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad. This Writ Petition and the earlier Writ Petition in W.P. No. 25734 of 2006 are against the said common order. In the Writ Petition, the first respondent is the Sai Nagar Society whereas the respondents 2 to 4, 7 to 29 are the contesting respondents. Respondents 25 to 27 are stated to be the legal heirs of the first petitioner, who died on 30-7-2006. Respondent No. 5 is V.R.K. Sastry and respondent No. 6 is the Kaushik Society.

9. Heard Sri Mahmood Ali, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 25636 of 2006,28470 of 1995,1673 of 2007 and 25734 of 2006, Sri. E. Manohar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 9931 of 2006, learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 21130 of 2006, Sri D. Prakash Reddy and Sri Vilas V. Afzul Purkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the supporting respondents and Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing forthe main contesting respondents namely M/s. Kaushik Society, which is added as respondent No. 67 in W.P. No. 21130 of 2006, respondent No. 4, in W.P. No. 25636 of 2006, respondent No. 6 in W.P. No. 25734 of 2006, 1673 of 2007 and 1706 of 2007, Sri Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, who are the purchasers from Kaushik Society and Sri Y. Ashok Raj, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 9 to 27, who are also the purchasers of Kaushik Society in W.P. No. 9931 of 2006.

10. At the out set, it is to be taken note of the fact that initially L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989 filed by the petitioners in W.P. No. 28470 of 1995 was dismissed as per the order dated 30-10-1995 by the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad and as against which, the Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 28470 of 1995 was filed and the same was disposed of initially as per the orders dated 19-9-2002 remanding the case to the Special Court to be disposed afresh along with L.G.C. Nos. 15 of 1996 and 29 of 1992 and as against which, some of the aggrieved parties including Kaushik Society filed appeals in the Supreme Court in C.A. No. 4251,4252 and 3860 of 2003 and the same were disposed of as per the orders dated 16-11-2005 remanding the matters to this Court for fresh disposal of the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 28470 of 1995 to the following effect:

After having heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, we find that the proper course would be to remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh consideration, as it appears that apart from the issue of res judicata on which the High Court has recorded its finding, other issues as to the maintainability of the proceedings before the Land Grabbing Tribunal and competence of the person making the application for initiation of proceedings were involved. The High Court has not dealt with those issues. One of the factors which seems to have weighed with the High Court is the pendency of two other matters, i.e., L.G.C. 15/96 and L.G.C. 29/92. L.G.C. 15/96 was not pending when the Tribunal disposed of the present dispute in L.G.C. 46/89. Therefore, the order of the High Court is set aside. The High Court shall hear the matter afresh on all issues and dispose of the Writ Petition filed in accordance with law.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the cases.

It is also made clear that our remitting the matter to the High Court shall not stand in the way of the disposal of L.G.C. No. 15/96 and 29/92 by the concerned court.

The High Court is requested to dispose of the Writ Petition as early as practicable.

The appeals are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

11. Subsequently, L.G.C. Nos. 29/92 and 15/96 were disposed of by the Special Court on 28-4-2006 and against the same, W.P. Nos. 9931 and 21130 of 2006 are filed by the respective applicants. Thereafter, in the very same proceedings as against the orders dismissing the Review Applications filed as per the orders dated 10-7-2006 by the Special Court, the petitioners therein filed two other Writ Petitions in W.P. Nos. 1773 and 1706 of 2007. Having regard to the commonness in the questions arising in all these cases, as stated earlier at the request of the counsel on all the sides, all these Writ Petitions are taken up and disposed of by this common order.

12. Before entering into the controversy, it necessitates to refer to the allegations and the case as set up in these applications, which are filed under Section 8(1) of the Act namely L.G.C. Nos. 46 of 1989, 29 of 1992 and 15 of 1996 and also the contents of the Review Applications. It is this foundation on the basis of which the respective applicants sought to invoke the jurisdiction of the Special Court under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. Instead of extracting the entire petition as such in the format as contemplated under the said Act and the Rules made thereunder, the principal allegations as made in brief concise statement in each of these cases requires to be referred. In L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989 filed by the petitioners in W.P. No. 28470 of 1995, it reads as follows:

10. Survey No. and Survey No. 129/51/Old Revised Survey No. 328,

Sub-Division No. Town Survey No. 11 /ward 10/Block.

11. Extent Ac.6034Gts = 33, 154 sq.yards

= 27729 sq.meters

12. Boundaries of North: Vallery

survey No. of South: Road No. 12

adjacent lands: East : Survey No. 129/52

West : Survey No. 129/50

Survey No. 129/76

13. Value of the land: Rs. 600/- per each sq.yard.

Total value of the land Rs. 198,92,400/-

14. Whether there are House Under Construction:

any houses or -------------------------

structures on the 1. Gopal Reddy-R-12

land and to whom 2. G. Sudhir R-8

they belong and how 3. Smt. K. Subhashini Reddy R-5

they are acquired 4. Smt. Pushpa R-14

and market value Compound Walls under Construction:

of the land: ----------------------------------

1. Madan Gopal Byas R-22

2. Bharath Bhusan Byas R-30

3. Satish Kumar R-38

4. Smt. Prema Rathi R-37

5. Smt. A. Ananthalakshmi R-16

6. Smt. K.V. Arundhati R-27

7. K.V. Anupama R-23

8. Anuradhika Reddy R-24

9. Sri T. Rakesh Reddy R-34

Other respondents grabbed the land and have

stored the construction materials on the site

as mentioned below:

1. Area of 927 sq.yards grabbed by Resp. No. 5

valued at Rs. 5,56,200/-

2. Area of 328 sq.yards grabbed by Resp. No. 6

valued at Rs. 2,02,800/-

3. An area of 1196 sq.yards grabbed by Resp. No.

7 valued at Rs. 7,17,600/-

4. An area of 489 sq.yards grabbed by Resp. No. 8

valued at Rs. 2,93,400/-

5. An area of 472 sq.yards grabbed by Resp.Nos.9

and 10 valued at Rs. 2,83,200/-

6. An area of 473 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 11

valued at Rs. 2,83,800/-

7. An area of 461 sq.yards grabbed by resP. No. 12

valued at Rs. 2,76,400/-

8. An area of 444 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 13

valued at Rs. 2,66,400/-

9. An area of 405 sq.yards grabbed by; resp. No. 14

valued at Rs. 2,43,000/-

10. An area of 489 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 15

valued at Rs. 2,93,400/-

11. An area of 531 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 16

valued at Rs. 3,18,600/-

12. An area of 452 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 17

13. An area of 400 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 18

valued at Rs. 2,40,000/-

14. An area of 375 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 19

valued at Rs. 2,25,000/-

15. An area of 375 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 20

valued at Rs. 2,25,000/-

16. An area of 500 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 21

valued at Rs, 3,00,000/-

17. An area of 400 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 22

valued at Rs. 2,40,000/-

18. An area of 394 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 23

valued at Rs. 2,36,400/-

19. An area of 378 sq.yards grabbed by resP. No. 24

valued at Rs. 2,26,800/-

20. An area of 715 sq.yards grabbed by resP. No. 25

and 26 valued at Rs. 4,29,000/-

21. An area of 525 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 27

valued at Rs. 3,15,800/-

22. An area of 369 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 29

valued at Rs. 2,21,400/-

24. An area of 629 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 31

valued at Rs. 3,00,000/-

25. An area of 489 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 32

valued at Rs. 2,93,400/-

26. An area of 489 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 32

valued at Rs. 2,93,400/-

27. An area of 489 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 33

valued at Rs. 2,93,400/-

28. An area of 447 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 34

valued at Rs. 2,68, 200/-

29. An area of 343 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 35

valued at Rs. 2,05,800/-

30. An area of 378 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 36

valued at Rs. 2,26,800/-

31. An areaof 973 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 37

and 38 valued at Rs. 5,83,800/-

32. An area of 356 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 39

valued at Rs. 2,13,600/-

33. An area of 306 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 40

valued at Rs. 1,83,600/-

34. An area of 500 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 40

valued at Rs. 3,00,000/-

35. An area of 500 sq.yards grabbed by resp. No. 42

and 43 valued at Rs. 3,00,000/-

They got into the land as Trespassers. The Respondents

are only trespassers as they are on the land without the

consent of the owners, who are the petitioners herein.

These constructions and illegal occupation were done in

spite of our protects and also in spite of our number

of applications presented to the Chief Secretary to

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretary, Revenue

Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. The special

Officer and

Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, Collector,

Hyderabad District, Commissioner Municipal Corporation

Hyderabad we also made an application to the Municipal Corporation

Hyderabad questioning the very layout made illegally by Mohd.

Kashim and others with no response till this day from Municipal

Corporation of Hyderabad by the Chief City Planners sent a letter

dated 8-9-1988 to the Assistant City Planner, Circle IV, MCH, with

a copy to Sri Arif Noorul Hassan who is the Petitioner No. 1

stating that survey No. 129/68 (paiki) for which the layout was

sanctioned is not at all existing at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

The layout permission obtained by Sri Mohd. Khasim and others it

is learnt that the layout made by them is tentative only later

it was found that the land bearing survey No. 129/68 (paiki)

does not exist is Shaikpet village and in the Government circle

it is moved to cancel the said lay out as being obtained fraudulently.

In this regard, it may be necessary that records from the office

of the Commissioner, Municipal corporation of Hyderabad, Town

Planning Section in letter No. 45 E1/21/31/ 26/88 from the Office

of the Special Officer Competent Authority, urban Land Ceiling,

Hyderabad be summoned. Further, the officer of the Commissioner

Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad also issued a letter dated

25-5-1988 addressed to Arif Noorul Hassan, the first petitioner

to the effect that the action is being taken for the cancellation

of the layout permission obtained by Mohd. Khasim and others at

Banjara Hills, Road No. 12, Shaikpet village, but so far no action

has been taken. Also the suit property being survey No. 129/51,

the respondent cannot take advantage of the said layout being

only for Sy. No. 129/68 (paiki). Thus, the entire acts of the

respondent are inspired by motives to grab the land of the

petitioners under the false guise of the layout and other

documents which only pertain to Sy. No. 129/68 (paiki), where

as the property belonging to the petitioner is of Sy. No. 129/51

which is entirely different one. The petitioner submits that the

respondent in the said layout have made a false representation

showing the boundaries of 129/51 as the boundaries of Sy. No.

129/68 (paiki) which is an apparent fraud.

The market value of the land is Rs. 600/- per square yard. Further

the applicants are entitled to the higher value than the amount the

market value that shall prevaii at the time of handing over the

possession.

15. A concise statement The petitioners herein are the sons and daughter of late

of all relevant facts Abdul Basith who was the petitioner of the suit land of an extent

as to the claim and of 6 acres 34 guntas at Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Sahikpet Village,

provision under which Hyderabad District. Being a pattedar, he was the owner and possessor

it is preferred: and in enjoyment of the said property as absolute owner. Also his name

shown as the Pattedar in all the Revenue Records. He died in the year

1966. After his death his five sons and one daughter succeeded to the

entire property of 6 acres 34 guntas who are the petitioners herein.

Succession was granted to the petitioners/applicants is legal heirs

of the said late Abdul Basith. The mutation proceedings was sanctioned

in file kl No. D/657/82 of Shaikpet village. These applicants are in

continuous possession and enjoyment of this property during the life

time of their father and continued to enjoy the same till the illegal

trespass was made, by the respondent.

Subsequently the Kaushik Co-operative Housing Society entered into an

agreement of sale during the year December, 1981 under the agreement

of sale dated 9-12-1981 for the purchase of this property with the

petitioners. Subsequently the respondent No. 1 Mohd. Khasim was trying

to trespass into the petitioner's land since 1983. The petitioners

herein made an application complaining the respondent No. 1's interference

and the attempt to trespass and encroach over the suit land by Mohd. Khasim

and thereon the State initiated the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.

in Misc. Case No. B/64/83 which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated

1 -5-1987 in favour of the applicants who are in possession and enjoyment of the

land.

During the pendency of these proceedings, appears that the Society mentioned

above without any initimation to the applicant or their General Power of Attorney

and also in breach of the agreement of sale dated 9-12-1981 in between the said

Society and the applicants, switched on to Mohd. Khasim (2) V.R.K. Sastry. Who

are the respondents 1 and 2 and latter on false and collusive sale deeds were

effected by the said Mohd. Khasim Ameena Begum and V.R.K. Sastry and also the

Society in favou r of the other respondent herein. The entire basis of the sale

deeds is with respect to the land belonging to Sy. No. 129/68 (paiki) which is

not at all the suit property, so called alleged purchasers have no right to get

into the suit property being of different survey No. 129/51.

Further all the dealings between the said Mohd. Khasim Society, Ammena Begum

and V.R.K. Sastry are in respect in ifie S. No. 129/68 (paiki). Even the

layout that the obtained is only with respect of non-existing Sy. No. 129/68

paiki and not for the suit property which is S. No. 129/51. Even the office

of the Chief City Planner have found that the survey No. 129/68 (paiki) is

not at all existing at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and layout could not have

been sanctioned at all. The said department communicated a letter dated

8-9-88 to the Assistant City Planner to the said effect. Further the Collector,

Hyderabad district in latter No. F4/ 2391/85 issued a letter dated 1-4-1988 to

Sri Arif Noorul Hassan the petitioner No. 1 herein that survey No. 129/51 as a

patta land in Shaikpet village, Golconda Mandal and also the S. No. 129/68

(paiki) is never existing in Shaikpet Village and further Memo given on 7-8-1984,

the office of the Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad District. Gave a memo to the

effect that in L. Dis. G/TS/170/64 that Survey No. 129/68 (paiki) does not exist

at all in Shiakpet village, Golconda Mandal of Hyderabad District. The said

Memo was given in pursuance of the applicant made by the petitioners dated

18-7-1984. The Memo was issued to Sri Inayat Ali who is General Power of

Attorney for the petitioner's herein. The respondents Nos. 1 to 43 got into

possession of the suit property as encroachers and trespassers since the year

1986 being fully abetted by Sri Mohd. Khasim, Ammena Begum, V.R.K. Sastry and

society. It is learned that the society by respondents Nos. 1 to 2 purchasers

made by Mohd. Khasim, Ammena Bee and the said purchaser were represented as

nominees of Sri D. Sreenath Reddy, S/0 D. Laxmareddy President of Kaushik Coop.

Housing Society, acting as a power of attorney of Sri V.R.K. Sastry, S/o

Anjaneya Sastry. Thus, the entire dealings are with the connivance of

abetting of all these persons.

The respondents being purchaser have alleged sale deeds in favour of them

separately and respectively by Mohd. Khasim, the respondent No. 1 and Smt.

Ammena Begum, R-2 and said Ammena Begum represented by her G.P.A. Sri Mohd.

Khasim R-1, as if being nominated by Sri D. Sreenatha Reddy, S/o D. Laxma

Reddy, President of Kaushik Cooperative Housing Society, Hyderabad as the

power of attorney for Sri V.R.K. Sastry, S/o Anjaneya Sastry and the said

persons are respondents Nos. 5 to 43, the purchasers being the respondents.

Also G.O. Ms. No. 523, dated 26-3-79 granting exemption Under Section 20(1)(b)

of the Urban and Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976 for land of Sy. No. 129/68 (Paiki)

to the extent of 48,564 sq. meters granted by the government is required to be

cancelled as the exemption is taken only for the purposes of taking registered

sale deed by V.R.K. Sastry from Mohd. Khasim and Ammena Begum. The said exemption

was not used at all for the said purpose and by the abuse of the process of law

and playing fraud the respondents are using the said exemption as a shelter for

their illegal and fraudulent activities. So the exemption is required to be

cancelled. The respondents are also under the guise of exemption are acting

criminally and trespassing, encroaching upon the suit property which never

belonged to them.

A survey was conducted with respect to the suit property by the office of the

Deputy Director, Survey Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad Urban District

in file No. B-1/ 1691 /83 by the said Sy No. 129/51 /old revised Survey No.

328 was demarcated. At the time a regular panchanama was also conducted and

Panchanama report was taken on 24-1-1984 on the spot which is also the suit

land of Sy. No. 129/51 /old. As per the revised Town Planning Survey, the

suit property comes under R.S. No. 328 and part of T.S. No. 11 Ward No. 10,

Block 'H'.

The Sub-Registrar, Registration is in collusion and having his hands in-glove

with others and registered made more than 35 sale deeds without observing the

candidates stipulated in G.O. Ms. No. 523 RU 3, U.L.C. II Department and also

Government Memo No.,1457/12/31986 without any clearance of any notice Under

Section 26 of the U.L.C. Act 1976 and also already in contravention of Section

28 of the Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976. This respondent has notight

or business to register any document by way of sale, mortgage, gift or lease

without the proof of obtaining permission Under Sections 26 or 27 of the urban

Land Ceiling Act, 1976. Further, it is learnt that he was taken up for explanation

by his higher authorities and he was sufficiently warned by the higher authorities

not to continue in his nefarious activities to contravene the law and the

directives given in this regard. The said respondent even after the issue of

warning by him higher authorities is still continuing in his illegal activities

of registering the sale deed documents in violation of Section 28 of the Urban

land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976 and also the Government orders with respect

thereto.

13. Similarly in L.G.C. No. 29 of 1992 filed by the applicants, who are the petitioners in W.P. No. 9931 of 2006 namely Sai Nagar Society, which reads as follows:

10. Survey No. and Revenue Survey No. 129/52, Correlated to part of T.S. No. 11,

Sub-Division No. Block H Ward No. 10, Shaikpet village, Golconda Revenue Marsdal,

Hyderabad.

11. Extent 8 Acres and 18 guntas (Eight Acres and Eighteen guntas)

12. Boundaries of North: Valley called Nala.

S. Nos. of adjacent South: Road No. 12, Banjara Hills,

lands. East: Revenue S. No. 129/53

West: Revenue S.No. 129/51

13. Value of land: Rs. 600/- per square yard, as per basic value fixed by the

government 40,898 sq.yards. (Rs. Two crores forty five lakh

Thirty eight thousand and eight hundred = Rs. 2,45,38,800/-.

14. Whether there are Now a vacant land,

any houses or structures

on he land and to whom

they belong and how they

are acquired and market

value ot the land.

15. Aconcisestatement of 1) The appellant is a purchaser of a vacant land admeasuring

all relevant facts as 34,196.48 (Thirty Four thousand one hundred and ninety six

to the claim and decimal forty eight) square Meters in Town Survey No. 11, Block-H

provision under which Ward No. 10 of Shaikpet Village, Revenue Mandal. Golconda, Hyderabad

it is preferred. District, Corresponding to Revenue Survey No. 129/52, under a Regd.

Sale Deed, dated 6-11 -1982, read with Registered Deed of rectification

dated 3-8-1991; for a consideration of Rs. 6,83,929.60 (Rupees Six lakh

eighty three thousand nine hundred and twenty nine and paise sixty only),

executed by Smt. P. Padmavathamma, W/O. Sri P. Ramachandra Reddy, and Sri.

M. Mahadeva Reddy, S/o Sri Chenga Reddy, after duly obtaining an exemption

from the State Government under G.O.Ms. No. 1114, Revenue (UC.II) Department,

dated 11-8-1982, in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 4270, Revenue Department, Dated :

10-9-1980. The vendors of the applicants could obtain such exemption only

after they filed their declaration Under Section 6(1) of the urban Land

(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The special officer and competent Authority,

Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad, even published declaration Under Section 10(3)

of the said Act vesting excess land in the Government. The said vendors of the

applicant purchased the said land under a Registered Sale Deed, dated; 9-6-19678,

Executed by Digamber, S/o. Namdev and Mumtazu! Haqkhan, S/o. Hassan Ali Khan, for

consideration of Rs. 30,000/-, who in turn purchased the said land under a Registered

Sale Deed dated 6-3-1965, executed by Abdul Razak S/o. Abdul Khader, for a

consideration of Rs. 6,000/-. the applicant was placed in quiet possession of the

said land on 29-10-1980, on the date on which an Agreement of sale was executed

between the applicant and their vendors, Mrs. P. Padmavathamma and Sri. M. Mahadev

Reddy, which fact is borne out by the said Agreement under its concluding para.

The applicant in view of the correction of Revenue Survey No. 129/23, as Revenue

Survey No. 129/52, by the year Collector, Hyderabad, in the year 1965, in Vassol

Baqiof Shaikpet Village for the year 1352 Fasli corresponding to 1942 A.D. roughly,

got a Deed of Rectification executed on 3-8-1991 by their vendors, Smt. P.

padmavathamma and Sri. M. Mahadeva Reddy, correcting old Survey No. 129/52, in the

body of the said Original Registered Sale Deed, dated: 6-11-1982, wherever it occurred,

so as to straighten the record and to avoid any confusion in future. The applicant

immediately after being placed in possession of the said land erected its sign board

at the threshold of the said land and also fixed boundary stones around the land and

further raised a watchman quarter thereon to an extent of basement level. With a view

to cause the ouster of the applicant, the respondent No. 1 in collusion with one Abdul

Qayurn, s/o. Abdul Rub, who is since deceased, and the respondent No. 8 came to the

site of the said a land on 22-10-1985, and tried to interfere with the possession of

the applicant in respect of the said land on the ground that it is their land. The

said respondents, in spite of being told that they have no business to interfere

with the possession of the applicant, stated poising threats at the office bearers

of the applicant and eventually the applicant and to take recourse to law and filed

O.S. No. 1376 of 1985, on the file of the court of the I Additional Judge, C.C.C.,

Hyderabad, for a perpetual Injunction against the said persons and obtained an

ex-parte Interim Injunction on 8-1-1985 in I.A. No. 935 of 1985 in the said suit,

and the said Court after hearing all the parties to the said suit ultimately passed

a status Quo Order on 7-12-1988, directing all the parties to the said suit and any

person claiming through them should maintain status quo regarding the title, possession

and enjoyment of the said property pending finality of the suit without in any way

alienating or transferring or encumbering the said property or changing its physical

state or nature in any manner, which order became final having not been challenged by

the said persons, the said suit was coming up for trial when the said Abdul Qayyum died.

A petition to bring L. Rs. of the said deceased person has been filed before the said

court and a notice to the proposed L. Rs. has been ordered by the said court. The

proposed L. Rs. are Mehdl. Ali S/o. Late Abdul Rub, Noorjahan Begum, D/o. Abdul Rub and

Batool Shahazadi D/o. Abdul Rub, whop are the respondents 4, 5, and 6 herein respectively

. When the applicant purchased the said property there was no tampering of the revenue

record, as the purchase was made only after inspecting the same.

2) Even earlier to the filing of the above suit by the applicant, the respondent No. 9,

Akbar Khasim, s/o Abdul Razak, filed O.S. No. 1399 of 1984, on file of the II Additional

Judge, C.C.C.,

3) Hyderabad, on 19-11-1984, fora declaration of title and Perpetual Injunction against

the applicant herein, who is the defendant No. 16 against the vendors of the applicant

herein, who are the defendants 17 and 18, against the legal heirs of Abdul Rub S/o.

Abdul Haq, Viz., Noorjahan Begum and Battol Shahzadi, who are the defendants 1 to 5,

against the legal heirs of Mulla Mohd. Abdul Basith, S/o. the said late Abdul Qayum,

who are the defendants 6 to 11., against 4 other persons, who are the defendants 12 to

15, and against the Government of A.P., which is the defendant No. 20, in the said suit.

The said suit is in respect of both Revenue Survey Nos. 129/51 and 129/52 admeasuring 6

acres and 34 guntas and 8 acres and 18 guntas respectively, both covered by T.S. No. 11,

Block H, Ward No. 10 of Shaikpet Village, Golconda Revenue Mandal, Hyderabad District.

The respondent No. 9, who is the plaintiff in the said suit, mentions the boundaries of

the said two lands as here-under.

North: Road No. 10, Banjara Hills,

Revenue survey East: S.No. 129/52 belonging to the plaintiff.

No. 129/51; West: S.No. 129/50 at Banjara Hills.

Revenue Survey North: Road No. 10, Banjara Hills,

No. 129/52 South: S.No. 129/127, Banjara Hills.

East: S.No. 129/54, and 53 at Banjara Hills.

West: S.No. 129/51 belonging to the plaintiff.

The respondent No. 9 claims both the said lands on the ground that his father Abdul Razak

and his paternal Uncle, Abdul Basith, purchased them from the then secretary Sarfekhas

Mubarak in the year 1339 Fasli and deposited the sale consideration into the Treasury

under a challan; thereafter the District Collector, Afrafbalda, Sarfekhas Mubarak, wrote

a letter No. 111/113, dated 13,h day 1339 Fasli (Corresponding to 8th Nov., 1929) to the

Tahsli, Taluk West, District Atraf Balda, directing him to determine ther land bearing

S.No. 129/51, sold to Abdul Basith, and deliver possession of the same to him the

Tahsildar directed the concerned Revenue Inspector through his letter dated 20th dai

1339 Fasli to measure the land and demarcate it by boundary stones and deliver possession

of the same to Abdul Basith; accordingly the concerned Inspector demarcated the land in

the presence of the Village patwari and tow other respectable persons and fixed boundaries

as per the plan of 1336 Fasli and Tippan for 1332 Fasli and delivered possession to Abdul

Basith under a panchanama together with the touch plan then prepared on 2nd Bahman 1339

Fasli the very same collector wrote another letter 114/116 dated 13th Dai 1339 Fasli

directing the Tahsildar, Taluk West, District Atraf Balda, to demarcate S. No. 129/52

and deliver possession of it to Abdul Razak and to effect mutation of it in the name of

Abdul Razak; in pursuance of the orders of the Collector, Tahsildar in his letter No.

216/218 dated 20 dai 1339 Fasli directed the Revenue Inspector, Golconda Fort Circle, to

demarcate the land; on 2nd Bahman 1339 Fasli the Revenue Inspector demarcated the said

land as per the plan of 1336 Fasli and Tippan of 1332 Fasli and delivered possession of

that land to Abdul Razak under a panchanama; since then the plaintiff's father Abdul

Razak and his paternal uncle, Abdul Basith, were in possession and enjoyment of the said

land as owners thereof paying the land Revenue due thereon; there after the name of the

plaintiff's father Abdul Razak and the name of the plaintiff's paternal uncle, Abdul

Basith, were entered in all the Revenue records as pattedars for S.No. 129/51 and

129/52, situated in Road No. 10, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Village, the plaintiffs paternal

uncle, Abdul Basith orally gifted the land bearing S.No. 129/51, admeasuring 6 Acres 34

guntas in favour of the plaintiff on 25 Meher 1356 Fasli in consideration of natural

love and affection for him; the names of the plaintiff and his father were entered in

the Town Surve V Register of 1966 as Pattedar, but the situation of the lands is wrongly

shown at Road No. 12. The said suit is at the stage of settlement of issues and in the

mean time the defendant No. 1, Abdul Qayum and the defendant No. 2, Inayat All, died,

but no steps have been taken by the respondent No. 9 herein to substitute the Legal

Representatives in place of the said deceased, with the result that the said suit as

against the said deceased has abated. The non-effective persecution of the said suit by

the respondent No. 9 herein has resulted in one of the said lands bearing S.No. 129/51

being trespassed upon and illegal Sale Deeds coming into existence and permanent

structures being raised thereon. There is already L.G.C. No. 46, of 1989., filed before

this Honourable court in respect of one of the said lands bearing S.No. 129/51 by the

heirs of late Mulla Mohd. Abdul Basith S/o. late Abdul Qayum S/o. late Abdul Rub, through

the G.P.A. Mehdi Ali S/o. Abdul Rub who is the respondent No. 4 herein. The said suit is

at the stage of trial. The plaintiff does not seem to be interested in persecution of

the said suit. The applicant is of firm belief that the respondent No. 9 herein is in

cleat collusion with all the respondents herein and that is the reason why he has allowed

the land in S.No. 129/51 being used for raising permanent structures thereon and now

aiming at doing the same thing in respect of the other S.No. 129/52 without pressing for

adjunction of his said suit bearing O.S.No. 1399 of 1984 and the sole mention of all the

respondents including the respondent No. 9 is to grab the land bearing Section No. 129/52,

which is the land purchased by the applicant herein under a Registered Sale Deed, stated

herein above, and in respect o which there is already a Government order, stated supra,

permitting the vendors of the applicant to alienate the same to the applicant, which is

a registered co-operative Housing Society. This Honourable Court has therefore to decide

not only the title in respect of the said land but also its geographical locations. It

is also submitted respectively that the plaintiff in the said suit, i.e. the respondent

No. 9 herein did not comply with any provisions of the said Urban Ceiling Act, 1976

making his claim to be a doubtful claim.

(III) One Abdul Qayum, S/O. late Abdul Rub, made an application to the Director, survey

and land Records, A.P., Hyderabad, on 18-1 -1982, for rectification of the Town Survey

Records Under Section 87 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (Act No.

8 of 1317 Fasli). This application was forwarded by the Director Survey and land Records,

A.P., Hyderabad, to the joint Collector, Hyderabad District, for enquiry and report. The

Joint Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad initiated an enquiry under Section 87-A

of the said Act and issued notices to the said applicant and all other interested parties.

The said enquiry report bears No. B1/162/82 (S & LR) dated 3-10-1983, which inter alia

discusses that there in an enmass tampering of the Revenue records as shown in pages 20

to 24 thereof, which was erroneously treated as an order and an appeal was filed by the

said applicant, Abdul Qayum, Inayat, Ali, Mehdi Ali, the respondent No. 4 herein,

Noorjahan Begum, the respondent No. 5 herein, Batoolshazadi, the respondent No. 6 herein,

all the heirs of late Abdul Rub and Arif Noorul Hussan, Omar Abdul Hameed, Sadiq Abdul

Mazeed, Hyder Abdul Mateen, Rasheed Qayum Siddi Qui Farooqui, all heirs of late Mulla

Mohd. Abdul Basith, before the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records, A.P.,

Hyderabad, under Section 158 of the said Act, which was numbered as p5/861/89. That

appeal was directed against the Government of A.P., Akbar Khasirn s/o. Abdul Razak,

and the vendors of the applicant, i.e., P. padmavathy Devi and M. Mahadeva Reddy.

The Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and land Records, A.P., Hyderabad, by his order

dated: 6-4-1990, passed in the said appeal approved of the order passed by the Collector,

Hyderabad, in his file No. G1/220/64, dated 20-5-1965, rectifying the mistakes crept

into the Vasool Baqi and other records and correction the same from S.No. 129/23 as

S.No. 129/52 admeasuring 8 acres and 18 guntas and S.No. 129/52 as 129/72 admeasuring

5 acres and 4 guntas, and summarily holding that the said appeal in effect is allowed

and the orders of the Joint collector, Hyderabad, issued in B1/162/82, dated 3-10-1983,

in respect of S.No. 129/52, New S.No. 129/327 are set aside. The said vendors of the

applicant being aggrieved by that order of the commissioner, survey, settlement and

Land Records, A.P., Hyderabad, filed a Revision petition before the Honourable Minister

for revenue, Government of A.P., Hyderabad, under Section 166-B of the said Act, on

28-7-1990, which has been numbered as C/72687/Assn.111(1 )/90 and which is still

pending decision of the Government, even though arguments were addressed long ago

in the year 1991. The appellants in the said appeal were claiming patta rights

under an alleged Sanad dated 25th Azur, 1340 Fasli/20-10-1930 A.D. through Abdul

Rub, the father of the appellants 1 to 5, and the great grandfather of the

appellants 6 to 11, which Sanad is a squrious document which did not see the light

of the day all along this period of about 54 years, and further on the basis of mass

tampering of the Revenue records. The said Commissioner overlooked the mass tampering

of the Revenue records and without verifying the position of law in regard to the

rectification of the errors in settlement records. Section 87 of the said Act

contemplates applications for correction of the settlement records to be made with in

two years after the introduction of the settlement for the correction of any wrong

entry of pattedars name in the settlement register, whereas the appellant No. 1 in

the said appeal, made his application for correction of town survey Records on

18-1-1982, after a lapse of about 14 years after the Town Survey record was finalized

which fact can be seen from the said order of the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and

Land Records, A.P. Hyderabad, dated 6-4-1990, stated supra, but the Commissioner

straight away allowed the said appeal without a reasonable cause being shown by the

appellant for such long delay and without obtaining sanction of the government as

required to be corrected was the Town Survey Recorded which was prepared under the

A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (Act No. 8 of 1923), which was made applicable to

the Telangana Area in the year 1958, and Section 14 of the said act contemplates a civil

suit being filed within 3 years from the date of the notification Under Section . 13 of

the said act to set a side or modify the said record, but the appellants did not file

any said suit. The Town Survey Register for the Survey conducted in the year 1966, shows

the name of Abdul Razak as the Registered Holder of S.No. 10, Block, H, of Shaikpet

Village. The applicant has challenged the said order of the Commissioner on the factual

position that it is not Abdul Rub, who is the pattedar of the said land, but it is Abdul

Razak who is shown to be the pattedar of the said land in the unhampered three years

pahani patrika for 1955-56, 1956-57, and 1957-58 and also the vasool Baqi for the year

1332 Fasli (1942 A.D.). The said Abdul Qayyum or any of his brothers, Inayat Ali or Mehdi

Ali did not comply with any provisions of the said urban Ceiling Act, 1976 and thus making

their claim to the said Land dubious and unbelievable. (IV) While the Status Quo Order

dated 7-12-1988, passed in I.A. No. 939 of 1985 in O.S. No. 1376 of 1985, by the court of

the I Additional Judge, C.C.C., Hyderabad, is still subsisting in respect of the said land

bearing S.No. 129/52, the only surviving son of late Abdul Rub, Mehdi Ali, who is the

respondent No. 4, herein has now filed O.S. No. 908 of 1992, which is allotted to the

court of the V Additional Judge, C.C.C., Hyderabad, for a perpetual Injunction against

the applicant herein, who is the defendant No. 22 in the said suit, against the

respondent No. 1 and 2 herein, who ate the defendants 19 and 20 in the said suit, against

the respondents 18 and 21 in the said suit and against the respondents 10 to 26 who are

the defendants 1 to 17 in the said suit, laying his claim on the patta rights of his

father late Abdul Rub, based on the alleged Sanad dated 25th Azur, 1340 Fasli,

corresponding to 20-10-1930 A.D., which has been seen the light of the day for the first

time after a lapse of about 54 years, which s spurious document on the face of it. The

respondent No. 4 herein has no independent rights of his won to the said land bearing

S.No. 129/52, when in fact the vendors of the applicant herein here already challenged

the alleged patta rights of late Abdul Rub in respect of the said land in Revision

Petition bearing No. C/72687/Assn. 111(1) 90, filed by them before the Honourable

Minister for Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, on 28-7-1990, which is

directed against all the three sons of late Abdul Rub including the respondent No. 4

herein, and also two daughters of late Abdul Rub and also against all the heirs of late

Mulla Mohd. Abdul Basith, and which is pending decision of the Government. The respondent

No. 4, herein, knowing full well that his father had no patta rights in respect of the

said land, much less ownership rights, in respect of the said land has deliberately

filed the said suit for a perpetual injunction simplicities without paying for a

declaration of title, and also obtained an ex-parte Interim Injunction against the

applicant herein and other respondents stated supra misrepresenting the facts to the

said court and pleading his possession, which is an utter falsehood, in I.A. No. 899

of 1992 in the said suit on 12-8-1992, and taking shelter under that ex parte Interim

Injunction the respondent No. 4 herein is trying to interfere with peaceful possession

of the applicant herein in respect of the said land. The sole intention of the respondent

No. 4 herein is to grab the said land bearing S.No. 129/52, which is the property,

purchased by the applicant under a Registered Sale Deed, stated supra. The other

respondent's 1 to 3 and 5 to 26 are in collusion with each other and their sole

intention is to grab the said land bearing S.No. 129/52. Claiming S.No. 129/68 paiki as

if it is located in place of the said S.No. 129/52. The applicant has seen the hectic

activity on the part of all the respondents 1 to 26 herein to supra the said land by

ousting the applicant herein who is in possession of the said property since the date

of its purchase in the year 1982, as stated supra, and earlier to it from 29-10-1980,

when an Agreement of Sale was executed. There is no survey number as 129/68 paiki in

Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, as it is evident from the Memo L. Dis. G/TS/108/92

dated: 18-8-1992, of the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad District.

Besides that, survey No. 129/69 of Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal,. is located at

Road No. 11 whereas the respondent No. 1,2,3,7,8 and 10 to 26 are mischieously claiming

it to be located at Road No. 12, which is false and cannot be believed for a moment.

There chief motive is to Grab the land bearing S.No. 129/52, by hook or crook. The said

Mehdi Ali being none other than a surviving son of late Abdul Rub and one of the brothers

of the said Abdul Qayyum, his claim to the said land bearing S.No. 129/52 is dubious and

unbelievable. The applicant has already submitted supra that he too did not comply with

any of the provisions of the said Urban Ceiling Act, 1976. Cause of action noted

separately and appended.

14. No-doubt, the said applicants have also filed a rejoinder before the Special Court, which reads as follows:

1. The allegation contained in para 2(a) of the said counter are here by denied. The subject-matter of the above application is revenue Sy. No. 129/52, correlated to part of T.S.No. 11,Block-h, Ward No. 10,ShaikpetViilage,Golkonda Mandal, Hyderabad District, as shown against Clause No. 10 of the Format, Form No. 1, in which the above application is submitted and taken cognizance of by this Hon'ble Court. Even in he prayer portion coming after Clause 20 of the said Format, the said Revenue Sy. No. 129/52 covered by T.S.No. 11, Block-H, Ward No. 10, Shaikpet Village Golconda Revenue Mandal, Hyderabad District, is mentioned. The reference to revenue Sy. No. 129/23 by the Respondent No. 8 is mischievous in character in as-much-as the same was corrected by the Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad in the year 1965 under his reference No. G 1 /220/64 dated 20-5-1965 and on the basis of that the said revenue Sy. No. 129/23 was corrected in the Sale Deed dated 6-11-1982 by a Registered Rectification Deed dated 3-8-1991 as already mentioned in the above application against Clause No. 15 thereof. The contention of the respondent No. 8 is fallacious in character in as-much-as there is no existence of Revenue Sy. No. 129/68 paiki which fact has already been mentioned by the applicant in the above case against clause No. 15 of the said Format on page No. 13 and from the line 14 from the bottom of the said page. The contention of the Respondent No. 8 that the applicant is wrongly identifying the said Revenue Sy. No. 129/68 paiki is absolutely wrong. The applicant is the absolute owner of the said Revenue Sy. No. 129/52 in view of the said Registered Sale Deed in favour of the applicant and also in view of the link documents already mentioned in the above application and in view further of the precise boundaries shown in the said Sale Deeds which in crystal terms mention the southern boundary as Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The Respondent No. 8 is trying to create confusion in regard to the location of the said land and forgetting fully the Town Survey in vogue, which corroborates the contention of the applicant.

2. As regards the allegations contained in para 2(b) of the said counter, it is submitted that Shaikpet Village was Sarfekhas Village that the marger sarfekhas into Diwani took place in the year 1358 Fasii/ 1949 A.D. the initial Survey of sarfekhas village took place in the year 1330 Fasli as contended by the Respondent No. 8. The Teepan Book was prepared in the year 1332 Fasli/ 1992 A.D. and based on that a plan was prepared in the year 1336 Fasli/ 1926 A.D. The Revision Survey took place in the year 1349 Fasli and not in the year 1346 Fasli as contended by the Respondent No. 8. It is also submitted that there was no existence of Revenue Sy. No. 129/52 in the year 1340 Fasli as the sub-division of main Sy. No. 129 took place in the year 1331 Fasli under a supplementary sethwat under which sub-divisions 129/1 to 129/10. The sub-divisions Nos. 129/11 to 129/87 came into existence in the year 1352 Fasli as can be seen from the enquiry report of the Joint Collector Hyderabad District bearing No. B1/162/82 (S & LR) dated 3-10-1983.

3. The applicant denies the allegations contained in para 2 (c) of the said counter. The Respondent No. 8 is making a reference to initial Sy.map which is no more in existence. As submitted supra the survey in vogue is the town survey of Hyderabad District which tool place from the year 1960 onwards under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, came to be applied to Telangana Area under a Amendment Act in they year 1958. According to the said Town Survey there is no existence of Revenue Sy. No. 129/68 paiki and that being the factual position the boundaries of Sy. No. 129/68 paiki mentioned by the Respondent No. 5 are irrelevantand have no existence at all. What exists at Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad is the Revenue Sy. No. 129/52 on whose southern direction the said road exists. The Respondent No. 8 has to show his position with reference to the said Sy. in vogue. It is respectfully submitted that the said Town Survey of Shaikpet Village was completed in 1970s and the same not having been challenged by the Respondent No. 8 or anybody else has become final in terms of Section 13 of the said Act, A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923.

4. The applicant denies the allegations contained in para 2(d) of the said counter. Irrespective of the said allegations, the applicant submits that first of all there is no existence of Revenue Sy. No. 129/68 paiki in the Town Survey and the Revenue Sy. No. 129/68 is shown to be located at Road No. 11 of Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

5. The applicant denies the allegations contained in para 2(e) of the said counter. The applicant is not a party to the litigation referred to in the para under reply and therefore what is decided in that litigation is not binding on the applicant. The Town Survey in respect of Shaikpet Village and the lands under that village having not been challenged as contemplated under Section 13 of the said Act has become final and it cannot now lie in the mouth of the Respondent No. 8 that the location of non-existing Revenue Sy. No. 129/68 paiki is at Road No. 12, BanjaraHills, Hyderabad. The contention of the Respondent No. 8 that the applicant is identifying the location of its Revenue Sy. No. 129/52 with that of Revenue Sy. No. 129/68 paiki is totally incorrect and there is no substance in it.

6. The applicant denies the allegations contained in para 2(f) of the said counter. The applicant is not a party to the litigation in question and therefore what is decided in it is not binding on him.

7. As regards the allegations contained in para 2 (g) of the said counter, it is submitted that the applicant was not a party to C.C.C.A. No. 14/72 before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and therefore what is decided in that appeal is not binding on the applicant. The respondent No. 8 seems to be forgetful of the implications of the provisions contained in the said A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, and thefinal notification in respect of Shaikpet village having taken place long ago, he has no case to urge before this Hon'ble Court.

8. The applicant denies the allegations contained in para 2(h) of the said counter. The applicant is not a party to the proceedings alleged in the para under reply. The applicant-understand s that the G.O. referred in the para under pay is not in regard to Revenue Sy No. 129/68 paiki. The Revenue Sy. No. 129/52 is the absolute and exclusive property of the applicants as submitted supra and there is already a G.O.M. No. 1114, Revenue (UC-II) Department, dated 11-8-1982 under which exemption from the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is granted and the land in question is do it is to the applicant by virtue of the said G.O.

9. As regards the allegations contained in para 2(i) of the said counter, the applicant submits that what is involved is the corrected Revenue Sy. No. 129/23 as 129/52. The Respondent No. 8 is trying to create confusion by harping upon Revenue Sy. No. 129/23 which is not the subject-matter of the above application. The boundaries mentioned by the Respondent No. 8 are in corrected and are not those shown in the link documents of tile, i.e., the Registered Sale deeds dated 6-3-1965 and 9-6-1967. The boundaries mentioned in the said deeds are as follows:

North: Temple land South: Road No. 12East : RoadWest: Sarrfekhas land

As submitted supra the correction of Revenue Sy. No. 129/23 as 129/52 is by a competent authority, the collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. What is the location of the said corrected Revenue Sy. No. 1229/52 is reflected in the latest town Survey of Hyderabad District under the provisions contained in the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act 1923, made applicable to Telangana Area from the year 1958 and that is the survey in vogue as stated supra. The Respondent No. 8 cannot count upon a survey which is no more in force now. Thesubject-matter of O.S. No. 1376fora Perpetual Injunction, filed by the applicant and O.S. No. 908 of 1992, filed by Respondent No. 4 in the above application is one and the same, located at Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The subject matter of O.S. No. 1399 of 1984, filed by the Respondent No. 9 in the above application, is show at Road No. 10, which is not correct. The said Respondent No. 9 in view of his falsity of claim is not contesting the above application and has already been set expanse on 7-1-1993. The applicant has already filed copies of the Sale Deed and Rectification Deed in hisfavourand also copies of the link document and also Extract copy of the Town Survey Register and also a copy of the G.O. permitting the alienation in favour of the applicant, which conclusively establish the ownership rights of the applicant. The Respondent No. 4 in collusion with other respondent including respondents No. 8 has grabbed the said land so as to alienate the same alter making plots so as to enrich him self at the cost of the applicant. The applicant further submits that the Respondent No. 8 herein knowing full well that Respondent No. 4 in the above application along with other Respondents 5 and 6 is a rival claimant of the said land bearing Revenue Sy. No. 129/52 which is location at Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, entered into an Agreement of Sale on 9-3-1982 with legal, representatives of late Abdul Rub, the Respondent 4, herein being his son and the Respondent 5 and 6 herein being his daughters to purchase the said property bearing Revenue Sy. No. 129/52, but the same fizzled out for reasons better known to Respondent No. 8. The said transaction reflects the bad motive of the Respondent No. 8 to grab the said land which in effect accepts the location of the said land at Road No. 12, Banjara hills, Hyderabad. As submitted supra the findings in the said C.C.C.A. No. 14/1972 are not binding on the applicant. The claim of the Respondent No. 8 in identifying the location of the non-existing Revenue Sy. No. 129/68 paiki at Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad is full of malafides and its sole intention is to grab the said land belonging to the applicant and to aggrandize itself at the cost of the applicant.

15. In the same lines in L.G.C. No. 15 of 1996, which is filed by the State Government as an applicant, who is the petitioner in W.P. No. 21130 of 2006, which reads as follows:

10. Sy. No. and Sub-Division T.S.No. 1 Part, 11 Part and 12 Part, Block 'H', Ward No. No. 10 Correlated to Sy. No. 403 Part (129)11. Extent Ac. 16-09 Gts (78529 Sq. yds.12. Boundaries of Sy. Nos. As per the location sketch enclosed.North: T.S. No. 1 Part an 4 Part Block 'H' Ward No. 10(inclusive of Surplus Channel)South: Road No. 12East: T.S. No. 4 Part, 1 part, 12 part, Block 'H'Ward No. 10 West: T.S. No. 11 part, 4 part and 1 part,13. Value of land Block 'H' Ward No. 1014. Whether there are any Rs. 1,96,32,250/- @ Rs. 2,500/- per sq.yard. Vacant houses of structures on land with small structures under construction.the lands to whom they belong. How they were acquired marked, value of land.15. A concise statement of Yes. Concise statement enclosed, all relevant facts as tothe claim and provision under which if is preferred16. Summary of the evidence 1) Documentary proof in KhasraPahani of 1954-55 proposed to be adduced. and Survey maps.2) Location sketch of land grabbed.3) Oral evidence of the field staff will be adduced at the time of evidence.17. True copies of the 1) Documentary proof in KhasraPahani of 1954-55. documents relied on duly 2) Location sketch of the land grabbed. attested 3) Survey Map of 1326 F.4) Revision Survey Map of 1349 F.5) Extract of alleged Tippan Book of 1332 F.6) Extract of Revision Book of 1349 F.7) Copy of Town Survey Land Register.18. Other relevant particulars As shown against in column No. 10 to 12. to identify the property19. A correlation statement Enclosed between the survey and sub-division of the lastre-survey and the Revisions survey.20. Any other particulars As shown in concise statement, which the applicant intend to furnish.The Court fee is exempted as per the guidelines issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

The petitioner, therefore, prays that the Honourable Court may be pleased to:

a) to declare thatthe respondents are Land Grabbers and the structures raised by them in the petition scheduled property are illegal and unauthorized structures.

b) To declarethe scheduled property as Government land and grant an injunction restraining the respondents from changing the nature and character of the property.

c) To award compensation of Rs. 1,96,32,250/- for wrongful possession of the land in question by the respondents.

d) To award profits accrued from the land in question coming to a sum of Rs. 2,82,70,440/- payable by the respondents to the petitioner.

e) Further to pass such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Cou rt deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Sd/-Signature of the Applicant, Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad Division.I hereby declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief that the information and particulars furnished about the enclosures are full and complete and correct.

Sd/-Signature of the Applicant,Revenue Divisional Officer,Hyderabad Division.Place: Hyderabad.

Date:

CONCISE STATEMENT-----------------

1) It is submitted that Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal was a Sarfekhas Village i.e the private property of H.E.H. Nizam the merger of Sarfekhas with Dewani (Government) this village i.e. the private property of the H.E.H. Nizam vested with the State Government as per the Sarrf ekhas Merger Regulation of 1358F.

2) Most of the lands situated in this Village are either Government lands or Government Porambokes. The Village was initially surveyed during the Sarfekhas Regime in 1326 Fasli and Survey Register (Sethwar) was prepared in 1330 F (1920 A.D.). According to this Sethwar there were totally 353 Sy.Nos. in this village. One of these Sy. No. 129 was of the extent Ac. 3288-02 and was registered as Government land

3) During 1331 F one Supplementary Sethwar issued Sub-dividing Sy. No. 129 into (10) Sub-divisions as Sy. No. 129/10. The land bearing Sy. No. 129/1 was of Acs.3097.39 while Sy. No. 129/2 to 129/10 was Acs. 190-03 stood in the name of Syed Mohiuddin. Again in 1334 Fasli (1942) A.D.) one more Supplementary Sethwar was issued, deleting the Sy. No. 352 with Acs. 63-24, since it overlaps the Yeilareddyguda Village, which is adjoining to Shalkpei village. Due to this the total Sy.Nos. o, this village were reduced to 352. Again in 1346 Fasli (1936 A.D) a Supplementary Sethwar was issued, in which ail the Sub-Divisions of Sy. No. 129/1 to 129/1 o were deleted and (52) Mew Sy.Nos. were shown from 353 to 404, the total extent of which is Ac.3288 02, which is the same area of Sy. No. 129/1 to 129/10. Among that 403 an 404 were shown as Government land measuring an extern of Ac.3079-28 and 016 gts. Respectively. After issued of this Supplementary Sethwar Sy. No. 129/1 was correspond to 403 measuring Acs. 3079.37 gts. Again revision survey was taken up during 1349 F. and the same was announced during 1352 F. in which old Sy. No. 129/11 to 129/87 are shown in favour of some persons as per correlation statement (Wasool Bagi) Register.

4) Sy. No. 129/68 admeasuring an extent of Ac.11-16 Gts. Was shown before revision survey of 1349 F. This Sy. No. 129/68 is recorded in the name of one Sri Mouli Ahmed Mirrza even though there is no record of actual assignment of the land by the Sarfekhas. Sy. No. 129/68 is shown with specific boundaries in initial Survey of 1326 F. Thus there can be no dispute about the identify of the property. A perusal of survey Plan, which was prepared on the basis of Survey Record such as Tippon, Touch Plans etc. shows the other Sy.Nos. in and around are specific and it is as follows:

North: Road

South: Govt, land (Anthagani Kunta)

East: 129/70

West: 129/69

5) Again in 1349 F. Survey was undertaken and completed in 1352 F. Since so far Sy. No. 129/68 is concerned, the boundaries are unaltered and new Revision Sy. Number was given as Sy. No. 282. The boundaries are as follows:

North: Road

South: Govt. land (Anthagani Kunta)

East : 283 (Correspond to old Sy. No. 129/70)

West : 281 (Correspond to old Sy. No. 129/69)

The same position was reflected in the Town survey conducted during the years 1964 to 1970 under A.P. Town Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. Boundaries are as follows:

North: Road

South: T.S.No. 4, Ward No. 11, Block 'R' (Anthagani Kunta)

East : T.S.No. 34 and 37/Part, Ward No. 11, Block 'P'

West : T.S.No. 29, Ward No. 11, Block 'O'

Nobody objected to this and the same has become final and binding on all persons.

It is significant to note that the Jubilee Hills Development Plan prepared in the year 1356 F. also establishes that Sy. No. 129/68 is distinct and separate from the alleged Sy. No.129/68 paiki and the boundaries are also unaltered. There is no Survey No.129/68 paiki in any of these Survey Records or Survey Maps Sy. No. 129/68 paiki is a ghost Sy. No. and imaginary.

The Tippan prepared in the year 1332 F does not refer to 129/68 paiki. The entry shown in the Tippan Book of 1332 F. is a manipulated one. The intrinsic examination of this document show that this was prepared to create evidence and absolutely there is no basis to show 129/68 paiki. The parties rely upon the decision of the Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No. 29/65 between Vemuri Radha Krishna Sastry v. Mohd Moulana and Ors. for which the Government is not a party. The records now produced clearly show that there is no such Sy. No. 129/68 paiki at any point of time.

It is submitted that the ultimate decision in O.S.No. 29/65 and the decision of the court in L.G.C. No. 46/89 are not binding on the Government. Firstly the Government is not a party, secondly the documentary evidence was not placed before these courts, and there was no occasion to consider the same. In this connection, the original Khasra Pahani prepared in the year 1954/55 shows that Sy. No. 129/68 paiki was interpolated and tampered. The sale deeds relied upon by 1st respondent show that Sy. No. 129/68 paiki was not mentioned at all. The sale deed was amended from time to time and in any case it is only self-serving document. It is incumbent on Respondent 1to3thatinfactSy. No. 129/68 paiki was not granted by a Competent authority lawfully, there is absolutely no evidence in this regard. The alleged entry in Tippan Book of 1332 Fasli and the authenticity of which is disputed. There is no evidence confirming title in favourof predecessors in interest of respondents 1 to 3. The mere entry in survey register cannot confer title and it is a travesty of fact to suggest that it will confer title. Excluding the tampered survey Register, there is no tangible record about the assignment of confirming title on them. No documentary proof was adduced in any of these proceedings that Sy. No.129/68 paiki was granted by the lawful authorities of Sarfekhas.

There is no positive proof of actual possession either documentary or otherwise. It is submitted that under the guise of Sy. No. 129/68 paiki, the 1st Respondent wants to claim huge Government property the decision of the Land Grabbing Court in L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989dated 30-10-1989dated 30-10-1995. Covers Porambokehugesurplus channel and other Government Porambokes.

It is further submitted that there is no proof about the grant of Sy. No. 129/51 and Sy. No. 129/52 to the predecessors in title of the respondents No. 4, 5 and 6. The land in dispute is rockey and communal in nature and does not confer any title. Further, possession foilow title. There is no proof about actual possession also.

It is further submitted that the respondents wants to grab the Government land shown in the schedule raising false and vexatious claims. They tried to occupy Government property without any lawful title. On the other hand there is 'voluminous and unimpeachable evidence, which is in possession of Government. The decision of the Land Grabbing Court for which Government is nota party is afar reaching character which alters the very survey of entire Banjara Hills. The cause of action arisesforthis when the respondents 1 to 3 wants to demarcate the land recently which is Government property laying claim for the same. In the same circumstances it is prayed to declare that:

a)the Respondents 1 to 6 as Land Grabbers to the property shown in the schedule

b)to declare the scheduled property as Government Land and grant an injunction restraining the respondents from changing the nature and character of the property and pass such other/orders as deemed fit and proper.

SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY-------------------------All that land bearing T.S.No. 1 part, 4 part, 11/Part, Block 'H', Ward No. 10, correlating to Sy. No. 403 (Sy. No. 129) situated in Shaikpet Village, Golcaonda Mandal, Hyderabad District admeasuring Ac.16-09 Guntas (78529 Sq.Yards) which is bounded by:

North: T.S.No. 1/P and 4/Part, Block 'H' Ward No. 10.

South: South Road No. 12

East : T.S.No. 12/Part, 4/Part and 1/Part Block, 'H', Ward No. 10.

West : T.S.No. 11/Part, 4/Part and 1/Part, Block 'H', Ward No. 10.

Sd/-Revenue Divisional Officer,Hyderabad Division.

16. After referring to the above contents in the above applications filed individually in all these L.G.Cs., the case at the first instance filed in L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989 requires to be considered.

17. The applicants in the said L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989 are the children and legal heirs of Abdul Basith, who was stated to be the pattadar of the schedule property which consists of Acs.6.34 guntas equivalent to 27,700 sq.metres covered by Sy. No. 129/51 (old) corresponding to Revision S.No. 328 and further corresponds to Town Survey No. 11, Ward No. 10, Block-H of Shaikpet village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad District and in respect of which, the applicants sought for a declaration that the respondents therein are the land grabbers and for consequent eviction. According to them, subsequent to the death of their father late Abdul Basith, their names were mutated in the revenue records as evidenced by file No. D/657/82 of Shaikpet village and they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. It was further stated that the fourth respondent i.e., Kaushik Society entered into an agreement of sale on 9-12-1981 with the applicants. Since the first respondent in the said L.G.C. Mohd. Khasim tried to trespass into the property in the year 1983, a case under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in M.C.No. B/64/ 83 was initiated where final orders were passed on 1 -5-1987 holding that the applicants were in possession of the schedule property. Yet, it was pointed out that contrary to the terms in the agreement dated 9-12-1981, the Kaushik society in collusion with the first respondent Mohd. Khasim and the second respondent Ameena Begum, who is the wife of Mohd. Ghouse, brought into existence of the sale deeds in favour of other respondents on the ground that the said land is part of Sy. No. 129/68/paiki whereas according to the applicants, the schedule property is only part of Sy. No. 129/51, Further, it was their case that in fact there is no such survey number like 129/68/paiki and it does not exist at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Therefore there could not have been any sanction of layout by the Authorities to the said land. The Deputy Director, Survey Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad, Urban District conducted a survey with respect to the schedule property and demarcated it as Sy. No. 129/51 (old) corresponding to revised Sy. No. (new) and consequently a panchanama was conducted on 28-1-1984 which again corresponds to T.S.No. 11, Ward-10, Block-H of Shaikpet Village. Yet, the 44tn respondent in the said L.G.C. i.e., Sub-Registrar, Khairatabad registered several documents in contrary to G.O.Ms.No. 523, RU 3, ULC, II Department and the Government Instructions in Memo No. 1457/12-3-1986 without any prior permission under Section 26 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. Hence, the application.

18. Contesting the case of the applicants, separate counters were filed. According to the first respondent Mohd. Khasim, it was contended that the application has not been filed properly through a valid G.P.A. holder. There was a revision of settlement under Section 87 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act having regard to certain complaints in File No. 9/87 West of 1353 Fasli by the District Collector, district Atraf Balda and it includes a complaint from Abdul Basith, s/o Abdul Rahim, who sought rectification in regard to land in Sy. No. 129/51, Kancha Tattikhana to an extent of Acs. 6.34 guntas situated at Road No. 10 which was renumbered as Sy. No. 328. According to him, it was not on road No. 12. Similar such complaints from Mulla Abdul Basith, S.o Mulla Babul Qayyum and one M.A. Basith Khan, S/o Abdul Rahim where upon the District Collector after detailed enquiry passed orders on 30-12-1 0*4 that the revision settlement was not proper since it was done at the instance of some of the influential revenue officers and accordingly cancelled the entries made in the revision settlement by order No. 18, dated 21s-1 Azur 1353 Fasli. In those proceedings, it was observed that Sy. No. 129/51 is located in Road No. 10, Sy. No. 129/52 is located in Road No. 10, and Sy. No. 129/53 is located in Road No. 10, Sy. No. 129/68 is located in Road No. 12 and Sy. No. 129/68/paiki is located in Road No. 12. Therefore, it was stated that the petitioners cannot make any claim. When it was further contended that the similar finding has been given in O.S.No. 29 of 1965 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and as confirmed further in appeal in C.C.C.A.No. 14/72 by this Court. The applicants' father was a party to the said proceedings. Therefore, the applicants cannot make any grievance. There has been a publication by the third respondent therein on 26-1 -1964 in Deccan Chronicle Daily to which certain objections were received whereupon the father of the first respondent Mohd. Moulana filed a suit in O.S.No. 31 of 1964 on the file of the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against Abdul Qayyum, Mulla Abdul Basith etc., for permanent injunction and also obtained interim injunction in I.A.No. 22 of 1964 in O.S.No. 31 of 1964. Similarly, the third respondent filed a suit in O.S.No. 29 of 1965 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against Mohd. Moulana and others for specific performance of an agreement of sale executed in his favour dated 29-12-1963 in respect of the land in Sy. No. 129/68 paiki. The applicants herein filed another suit in O.S.No. 1184 of 1979 on the file of the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad against the third respondent and Abdul Qayyum for permanent injunction and the applicants unsuccessfully sought temporary injunction in I.A.No. 945 of 1979. Therefore, the claim of the respondent is perfectly lawful and his possession is based upon lawful claim. Hence he is not a land grabber.

19. The second respondent filed a memo adopting the counter filed by the first respondent. The third respondent i.e., V.R.K. Sastry in his counter-affidavit referred to the proceedings in the suit for specific performance filed by him and contended that as per the judgment of this Court in CCCA No. 14 of 1972 dated 26-10-1976, the present application is barred by Res judicata. He referred to an agreement dated 29-12-1963 executed by Mohd. Moulana, father of the first respondent in his favour for purchase of Acs.12-09 guntas out of Acs.16.09 guntas in Sy. No. 129/68/paiki of Shaikpet village and the said Mohd. Moulana got the said property through a registered sale deed dated 27-3-1963. In pursuance of the said agreement, this respondent filed a suit in O.S.No. 29 of 1965 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for specific performance and the same was decreed and on appeal, this Court called for a finding as to whether Sy. No. 129/ 68/Paiki, Sy. No. 129/51 and 129/52 are one and the same or separate and distinct and in view of the said findings, C.CCA.No. 14 of 1972 was allowed and the orders have become final. Similarly the other respondents filed different counter-affidavits mainly contending to the effect that the schedule property is a part of the land in Sy. No. 129/68/paiki. Therefore, it was their contention in one voice that they cannot be called as land grabbers. In those proceedings, the Sub-Registrar, Khairatabad, was added as 44th respondent and ultimately deleted. The purchasers of the plot were subsequently added as respondents 45 to 52 as per the orders dated 23-11 -1989 in I.A.No. 314 of 1989.

20. With these and several other allegations as contained in their respective pleadings, the Special Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the petitioner is the owner of application schedule property?

2. If so, whether the respondents ate not land grabbers?

3. Whether the application schedule property is in Sy. No. 129/51 (old Sy. No.) and R.S.No. 328 corresponding to T.S.No. 11, Ward No. 10, Block No. H, as alleged by the petitioner or in Sy. No. 129/68 paiki (old) as alleged by the respondents?

4. To what relief?

The following additional issues are framed on 30-1-1990:

1. Whether the sales in favour of the interested persons are invalid in view of the Section 1 of A.P.(TelanganaArea) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and also the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976?

2. Whether the order of the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad dated 1 -5-1987 in file No. B/64/83 in respect of the lands in Sy. No. 129/51 situated atShaikpet is Res judicata?

3. Whether the judgment in C.C.C.A. No. 14/72 operates as Res judicata against the application?

4. Whetherthe applicants have no locus standito file the application?

5. Whetherthe applicants are the heirs of late Mulla Mohd. Abdul Basith?

6. Whether Inayat Alison of Abdul Rub is the G.P.A. of the applicants?

7. Whetherthe application is barred by time?

21. The parties went into regular enquiry where on behalf of the applicants, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-31 were marked whereas on behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-31 were marked apart from Ex.X-1.

22. Taking into consideration the respective pleadings and the material on record, the Special Court, after a detailed consideration, dismissed the application and gave finding to the effect that the proceedings in the suit for specific performance filed by the third respondent and the findings arrived therein to the effect that the schedule property is one covered by Sy. No. 129/68/Paiki and virtually barred by the principles of Res judicata. While arriving at the said finding, the Special Court has taken note of the chequered events and the judgment, which was marked as Ex.B-2. It was further noted that in the execution petition filed in pursuance of the said decree, E.P.11 of 1989 was filed. The very applicants have filed E.A.Nos.31 of 1989 and 94 of 1991 to implead them as parties to the E.P. and the said applications were filed under Sections 47 and 151 C.P.C. read with Order I, Rule 10(2) CPC. Both the applications were dismissed as per the orders dated 31-12-1991, which was marked as Ex.B-12. V. Narasimha Reddy etc., filed I.A.No. 18 of 1988 for recognizing the assignment deed dated 15-1 -1988 assigning the decree passed in CCCA No. 14 of 1972. In respect of the said decree, the third respondent filed E.A.No. 21 of 1989 under Section 47 CPC for declaration. Both the matters were heard together and as per the common order dated 30-4-1992, the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad allowed the E.A.No. 17 of 1988 and dismissed the E.A.No. 21 of 1989 and the said order was marked as Ex.B-13. Having regard to such finding of fact which was already arrived at in those earlier proceedings and in view of the subsequent proceedings under the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act and in pursuance of an application by Abdul Basith, father of the applicants before the Collector, District Atraf Balda seeking and the map for the year 1348 Fasli where orders were passed on 27th Bahman, 1354 Fasli in file No. 9/87/ West-1353 Fasli, it was held that the land in survey number is located at Road No. 10 and not at Road No. 12 and further held that having regard to the subsequent proceedings where it has been categorically found that the Sy. No. 129/68/paiki exists, it is not open to the applicants to contend otherwise. In support, reliance was placed on the evidence of P.W.7, who was appointed as Commissioner to localize the property situated in Sy. No. 129/51 and 129/68/paiki whereupon he has prepared a report which is marked as Ex.A-20 and sketch as Ex.A-21 holding that he has not localized the survey No. 129/68/paiki having regard to the constructions have already been made but placing reliance on the tippan book, he reiterated that Sy. No. 129/68/paiki was very much in existence. He further stated that he has localized Sy. No. 129/68/paiki. The document, which has been relied on by P.W.7, was taken note of and it amply indicates not only of other details but also the boundaries in regard to Sy. No. 129/68/paiki. Further, referring to the other documents, the Special Court by going in depth held that the earlier proceedings to which applicants' predecessors in interest was a party, clearly establish the existence of Sy. No. 129/68/paiki and the said land was in possession and enjoyment of Mohd. Moulana, the father of the first respondent. The applicants without any demur cling the right, title and interest only from their father, who was a party to the proceedings in Exs.B-1 and B-2. Further, it was also noted that in Ex.B-1 proceedings, Mulla Abdul Basith was shown as 4th defendant. No doubt, subsequently legal representatives were not brought on record. However, as per Ex.B-11, Abdul Qayyum brother of P.Ws.1 and 3 and the third defendant in O.S.No. 29 of 1965 though served, did not appear and therefore, it cannot be said that the said judgment would not bind the applicants. Even otherwise, it was also held ultimately that having regard to the very case as pointed out on behalf of the respondents therein and the decree and the proceedings to this Court, it is not a case where it can be said that they are the land grabbers and the applicants can invoke the jurisdiction of the Land Grabbing Court. As against the said judgment, a Writ Petition was filed as stated above in W.P. No. 28470 of 1995 and the Division Bench of this Court allowed the said Writ Petition holding that those earlier proceedings in the Civil Suit and the Appeal would not constitute Res judicata. As against the same, the matter was taken up to the Supreme Court and ultimately the matter was remanded for fresh consideration and disposal on merits to this Court.

23. In regard to the two applications, which have been filed under Section 8 (1) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, in LG.C.Nos.29 of 1992 and 15 of 1996, which have been filed by the petitioners in W.P. No. 9931 of 2006 and the Government which is the petitioner in W.P. No. 2130 of 2006, it requires to refer to the case as set up by them and ultimate conclusions arrived at by the Special Court.'

24. In LG.C.No. 29 of 1992, the applicant is a registered Society under the name and style of Sai Nagar Cooperative housing Society which sought to declare the respondents therein which virtually include the other contesting parties herein especially Mohd.Khasim and others as respondents 1 to 6, V.R.K. Sastry as respondent No. 7 and Kaushik Cooperative Housing Society as respondent No. 8 along with other respondents. The case of the Sai Nagar Society is in respect of Ac.8.18 gts. in R.S.No. 129/52 covered by T.S.No. 11, Block H, Ward No. 10 of Shaikpet village, Golconda Revenue Mandal, Hyderabad District. According to the said society, it had purchased vacant land to an extent of 34,196.48 sq.mtrs., in T.S.No. 11, Block H, Ward No. 10 of Shaikpet village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad District, corresponding to R.S.No. 129/52 under a registered sale deed dated 6-11-1982 from Smt. P. Padmavathamma and Sri M. Mahadeva Reddy. Later, having regard to the mistake which has been occurred in the survey number of the land a rectification deed was executed on 3-8-1991 correcting the number showing the earlier deed from survey No. 129/23 to that of R.S.No. 129/52. According to them, the said vendors of the society purchased the land under a registered sale deed dated 9-6-1967 from one Digamber who had purchased the same earlier under a registered sale deed dated 6-3-1965 from one Abdul Razak, s/o. Abdul Khader. Therefore, it is the claim of the society that they have been put in possession and enjoyment. However, one Abdul Qayyum and the 8th respondent, which is a Kaushilk Society tried to interfere with the said applicants' possession. Hence, it had filed the suit in O.S.No. 1376 of 1985 on the file of I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for perpetual injunction and obtained ex parte interim injunction on 8-11-1985, which was later modified to that of a status-quo order on 7-12-1988. During the pendency of the suit, Abdul Qayyurn died and his legal representatives were brought on record and added as respondents 4, 5 and 6. Prior to the said suit, the 9m respondent herein one Akbar Khasim filed a suit in O.S.No. 1399 of 1984 on the file of II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for a declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the applicant Sai Nagar Society and the vendors of the Sai Nagar Society and Kaushik society, apart from legal heirs of Abdul Rub viz., Abdul Qayyurn, Inayath Ali, Mehdi Ali, Noorjahan Begum and Battool Shahzadi and against the legal heirs of Mulla Mohd. Abdul Basith, s/o. Abdul Qayyurn including the Government and others, in respect of Sy.Nos. 129/51 and 129/52 admeasuring Acs. 6.34 gts., and Acs.8.18 gts. respectively covered by T.S.No. 11, Block H, Ward No. 10 of Shaikpet village. However, the said Akbar Khasim who was the 9th respondent in the said LGC claimed the property on the ground that his father Abdul Razak and his paternal uncle Abdul Basith purchased the same from the then Secretary Sarfekhas Mubarak in the year 1339 Fasli in Sy.Nos.129/51 and 129/52 which were demarcated by the Revenue Inspector as per the orders of the Tahsildar in accordance with the directions by the then District Collector, Atrafbalda, Sarfekhas Mubarak on 13iri Dai 1339 Fasli and delivered possession to Abdul Basith and Abdul Razak under a Panchanama together with the Tonch Plan prepared on 2nd Bahman 1339 Fasli, and accordingly, their names were duly entered in the revenue records. Later, Abdul Basith orally gifted the land in Sy. No. 129/51 admeasuring Acs. 6.34 gts. in favour of the said Akbar Khasim on 25ih Meher 1356 Fasli, and accordingly, their names were duly entered in the Town Survey Register of 1966 as Pattedar, but the location of the land was wrongly shown as Road No. 12. Meanwhile, the first and second respondents Abdul Qayyurn and Inayat Ali died and no steps were taken to bring the legal representatives on record. A reference was made about the pendency of L.G.C. No. 46 of 1986 in respect of Sy. No. 129/51 filed by the heirs of late Mulla Mohd.Abdul Rub through the G.P.A. Mehdi Ali. Therefore, the said 9th respondent Akbar Khasim illegally grabbed the land in Sy. No. 129/51 and further he is trying to grab the other land in Sy. No. 129/52. It was further alleged that in pursuance of an application filed by Abdul Quyyum, s/o. late Abdul Rub to the Director, Survey and Land Records on 18-01 -1982 for rectification of the Town Survey Records, which was forwarded to the Joint Collector, Hyderabad, for enquiry, a report was obtained whereupon an appeal was filed by Abdul Qayyurn, Inayat Ali and all the heirs of late Abdul Rub, all heirs of Abdul Basith before the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records against the Government of A.P., and Akbar Khasim, s/o. Abdul Razak. The Commissioner passed the order on 06-04-1990 approving the order passed by the Collector, Hyderabad, rectifying the mistake crept into the Wasool Baqul and other records and correcting the same from Sy. No. 129/23 as Sy. No. 129/52 and Sy. No. 129/52 as Sy. No. 129/72 both admeasuring Acs. 8.18 gts. and Acs. 5.04 gts. respectively, and thus, set aside the orders of the Joint Collector. Aggrieved thereby, an application has been filed by the vendors of the applicant to the Minister for Revenue on 28-07-1990 which is pending. It was further pointed out that even though a claim was made by the said appellants under the alleged Sanad dated 25th Azur 1340 Fasli through Abdul Rub, the same has not been filed. It has also been pointed out that having regard to the survey correction which has already been made duly, no time has been fixed to file a suit under Section 13 of the Act, and therefore, the said proceedings became final. During the pendency of the suit in O.S.No. 1376 of 1985 by the applicant, one Mehdi Ali who is the son of Abdul Rub filed O.S.No. 908 of 1992 on the file of V Additional Judge, City Civil Judge, Hyderabad, for perpetual injunction almost against all the respondents claiming that Abdul Rub who is father was a pattedar in pursuance of the Sanad dated 25lh Azur 1340 Fasli which was under challenge and which was pending before the Minister for Revenue. Further, it is also pointed out that there is no such survey number as 129/68 paiki in Shaikpet village as evident from the reply given in Memo L.Dis.No. GATS/108/92 dated 18-08-1992 by the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad. It is their case that Sy. No. 129/68 is located at Road No. 11. whereas the other respondents are claiming it to be located at Road No. 12 of Banjara Hills. Therefore, all these respondents therein have grabbed the land. Hence, liable for eviction.

25. Contesting the claim of the said applicant, respondents 4 to 6 therein asserted that the applicant has been claiming only the land in Sy. No. 129/23 but not Sy. No. 129/52 since not only the sale deed but also the other proceedings of Urban Land Ceiling exemption orders etc., only relating to Sy. No. 129/23. Therefore, the rectification deed alleged to have been obtained after ten years of the sale deed in trying to substituting the Sy. No. 129/23 by Sy. No. 129/52 is not valid. Therefore, the applicant cannot make any claim in respect of Sy. No. 129/52, whereas the land in Sy. No. 129/23 is a Government land and nothing has been shown as to how Abdul Razak, the original owner, had obtained the title. Further, even in regard to the boundaries as shown all along will throw light only to that of Sy. No. 129/23 but not that of Sy. No. 129/52. The Government had admitted in the counter-affidavit in W.P. No. 11309 of 1993 that the land claimed by the applicants have no concern whatsoever with the land in Sy. No. 129/52. The orders of the Collector, Hyderabad, dated 20-05-1965 rectifying the mistake was challenged in the appeal before the Board of Revenue on 19-06-1966 by the vendors of the vendors of the applicants, but the same was dismissed. Further, the matter was carried before the Government to the Minister for Revenue and the same was rejected under G.O.Ms.No. 144 dated 14-02-1993 and these proceedings were challenged in W.P. No. 11309 of 1993. It is the further case that the subject matter in O.S.No. 1399 of 1984 has no relevancy and further, the claim has been rightly set up in O.S.No. 908 of 1992 as stated above. Further, it is the specific case in the additional counter that the applicant has totally failed to come out with a case of possession and dispossession and no particulars have been given as to when exactly they lost their possession.

26. In the rejoinder filed to the said counter, the applicants sought to clarify once again that there was a mistake in regard to the Survey number which has been duly corrected and further they say that the old Sy. No. 129/23 corresponds to Sy. No. 327 whereas the said new Sy. No. 327 is only co-related to Sy. No. 129/52 but not Sy. No. 129/23. According to the applicant their land is in Northern direction on Road No. 12 of Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. It has been pointed ouUhat as per the report of the Joint Collector Sy. No. 129/52 did not exist in the year 1340 Fasli as the sub-division of Sy. No. 129 of Shaikpet village came into existence as per the Revision Book of 1352 Fasli as there was a mass tampering of the Revenue Records. It is the case of the applicant that in fact respondents were never in possession of Sy. No. 129/52 but came into possession only under the guise of ex parte interim orders obtained in O.S.No. 908 of 1992. The case of the 8th respondent against the Kaushik Society is once again a reiteration in regard to the plea that the schedule land is in fact in Sy. No. 129/68 paiki, but not Sy. No. 129/23 or even Sy. No. 129/52. Speaking about the antecedents it is stated that the said land in Sy. No. 129/68 paiki admeasures Acs. 16.09 gts. and it originally belongs to Sarfekhas authority which was assigned to Dilawar Ali on payment of market value and possession was delivered. Thereupon, he mortgaged the said property to one Mohd.Ghousuddin. Since Dilawar Ali failed to redeem the mortgage, Mohd.Ghousussin became the absolute owner who in turn sold the same to one Mohd. Moulana under a registered sale deed dated 27-03-1963 and later the said Mohd. Moulana entered into an agreement on 29-12-1963 with one V.R.K. Sastry who filed the suit in O.S.No. 29 of 1965 for specific performance on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the very same question as to the very identity of the property was raised. The matter has come up to this Court in C.CCA.No. 14 of 1972 wherein this Court has remitted the matter for deciding as to the very identity. Accordingly, the Court below appointed a Chief Surveyor as a Commissioner to identify the suit property, who submitted a report after conducting survey stating that the suit land is in Sy. No. 129/68 paiki. The said finding has been accepted and the same was allowed on 26-10-1976, and the same has become final. This land in Sy. No. 129/68 paiki was also exempted from the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act and the said Kaushik Society developed the land by obtaining the layout from Municipal Corporation and executed number of registered sale deeds. Later, in regard to the balance the said rights were relinquished in favour of V. Narasimha Reddy under a deed dated 15-01-1988 and the said assignment was recognized by the Court whereupon they filed E.P. No. 20 of 1991. It was further pointed out that the subject matter in O.S.No. 1376 of 1985 is Sy. No. 129/23, in O.S.No. 1399 of 1984 it is Sy.Nos. 129/51 and 129/52 and similarly in O.S.No. 908 of 1992 it is Sy. No. 129/52. Therefore, the claim of the Kaushik Society is to the effect that they are in possession and enjoyment all along in Sy. No. 129/68 paiki. Again repelling this allegation applicants filed separate rejoinder denying the claim made by the Kaushik Society to the effect that there is no existence of Sy. No. 129/68 paiki and according to them, the boundaries as mentioned by the Society are totally irrelevant and they are not correct.

27. In the further counter-affidavits filed by the other respondents, especially, respondent No. 10 therein before the Special Court, they supported the case of the Kaushik Society as to the land being in Sy. No. 129/68 paiki and referring to all other earlier suits including up to appeal in C.C.C.A.No. 4 of 1972. Respondents 11 to 15 and 17 filed memos adopting the counter filed by the 10th respondent.

28. On these and other allegations as contained in their respective pleadings, the Special Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the petitioner is the owner of the petition schedule land?

2. Whether the petition schedule land is covered by Sy.Nos. 129/23 or Sy. No. 129/52 of Shaikpet village?

3. What is the exact survey number of the petition schedule land?

4. Whether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of the Act 12 of 1982?

5. To what relief?

Additional Issue:

Whether the applicant is entitled for damages?

29. Referring to LG.C. No. 15 of 1996 which is filed by the Government as stated earlier who is the petitioner in W.P. No. 21130 of 2006 where the Government sought to declare virtually the self-same respondents as land grabbers in respect of Acs. 16.09 gts. (78, 529 sq. yards) in T.S. Nos. l/p, 4/p, 11/p and 12/p, Block H, Ward No. 10 correlates to Sy. No. 403 situated in Shaikpet village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad District. The simple case of the Government is that the entire Shaikpet village was a private property of H.E.H. Nizam and after the merger of Surfekhas with Dewani, the said property was vested with the Government and it has been pointed out that as to how the land in Sy. No. 129 was sub-divided and the supplementary Sethwars were issued in Sy. No. 129/1 corresponding to Sy. No. 403 admeasuring Acs.3079.35 gts. In the Revision Survey in the year 1349 Fasli, old Sy.Nos.129/11 to 129/87 are shown to be in the name of certain persons as per the Wasool Baqui Register. According to them, Sy. No. 129/68 admeasuring an extent of Acs. 11.16 gts. was recorded in the name of one Mouli Ahmed Mirza even though there is no such specific assignment shown to exist and the said land in Sy. No. 129/68 is with the specific boundaries even in the initial survey of 1326 Fasli. Therefore, there is no dispute in regard to their identity. Subsequent to the revision survey in the year 1349 Fasli, there was a town survey conducted during the year 1964-1971 underthe provisions of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, where the boundaries of the land in Sy. No. 129/68 remained unaltered and new Revision Survey Number was given as Sy. No. 282 and it has become final. According to the Government, there is no such land or any survey number in Sy. No. 129/68 paiki in any of the Survey Records or Survey Maps etc., therefore, it is a ghost survey number. The Tippon Book prepared in 1332 Fasli which was sought to be relied on is a manipulated one and there is no basis. Further, the Government is not a party in O.S. No. 29 of 1965 on the file of Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and hence, it is not binding by any of those findings or proceedings including L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989. Therefore, according to the Government the land is that of Government and the respondents have grabbed the same and they are liable for eviction. Repelling all these allegations the main contestant in this LGC viz., Kaushik Society who arrayed as respondent No. 3 therein reiterates the very same plea to the effect that there exists a land in Sy. No. 129/68 paiki borne out by Survey and Settlement Records and which has been testified by the Courts from time to time. Further, they place reliance on the judgment in L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989 and again in O.S.No. 29 of 1962 as culminated in the judgment of this Court in C.C.C.A.No. 14 of 1972 where in both the proceedings it has been held that Sy. No. 129/68 paiki exists. According to them, original survey of Kancha Tattikhana village, Shaikpeet, was conducted in the year 1350 Fasli. Later, a Tippon Book was prepared in the year 1332 Fasli and the map was prepared during the year 1356 Fasli. Similarly, the Wasool Baqui and Sethwar were also prepared in the year 1336 Fasli and the second settlement of the village was conducted in the year 1346 Fasli and the map was prepared during the year 1348 Fasli, Wasool Baqui was prepared in 1349 Fasli and Sethwar was completed in the year 1352 Fasli. The Revision Settlement took place on 16th Thir 1352 Fasli. Whereby several new survey numbers were created contrary to the earlier records and maps, therefore, the Minister, Sarfekhas Mubarak, by his order No. 18 dated 21st Azur, 1353 Fasli cancelled the Revision Settlement conducted in the year 1346 Fasli and the previous record in the year 1356 Fasli has been approved and maintained. Therefore, from the initial settlement records it clearly and amply show that there exists Sy. No. 129/68 paiki at Road No. 12. They further reiterated once again that originally the land belonged to Sarfekhas authorities and assigned to one Dilawar Ali, who mortgaged the same to Ghousuddin and the debt not being redeemed, Ghousuddin has become the owner and who in turn sold the property to Mohd. Moulana under a registered sale deed dated 27-03-1963 and later Mohd. Moulana sold the land to V.R.K. Sastry under an agreement of sale dated 29-12-1963 which has been resulted in filing a suit for specific performance in O.S. No. 29 of 1965, and ultimately, culminating the appeal in C.C.C.A.No. 14 of 1972. Meanwhile, an application was filed by Abdul Basith claiming as pattedar of Sy. No. 129/51 seeking correction of Revision Survey Settlement Records saying that Sy.No,129/51 is situated at Road No. 10 whereas it is wrongly shown as Road No. 12 which corresponds to new Sy. No. 328 where there was intervention by Abdul Rub claiming that Sarfekhas authorities have assigned to him the land in Sy. No. 129/52 which is situated at Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The District Collector, Atraf Balda, passed orders by judgment No. 3 of 1954 dated 27th Behman 1354 Fasii rejecting the claim of Abdul Rub and holding that Sy. No. 129/52 is located at Road No. 10, whereas Sy. No. 129/68 is located at Road No. 12. According to the Society, the Government has already exempted the land in Sy. No. 129/68 and thus there is reiteration of the extent, Sy. No. 129/68 paiki in the suit in O.S. No. 29 of 1965, appeal in this Court and L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989. Further, it has been pointed out that even in L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989 nowhere the Government nor the Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records filed the report and apart from the Mandal Revenue Officer and other Government officials having appeared themselves as witnesses never claim that the land belongs to the Government, therefore, the claim of the Government is totally baseless and misconceived and even otherwise the respondents have already perfected their title by adverse possession. The respondents 4 to 6 in the said LGC rejected the claim of the applicant and stated that they being not parties to the proceedings, the proceedings in the civil side are not binding. Similarly respondents 7 to 23 who impleaded themselves supported the claim of the Kaushik Society in regard to the extent of Sy. No. 129/68 paiki and that the proceedings in L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989 and C.C.C.A. No. 14 of 1972 would operate as res judicata. There was no contest from respondents 7 to 23 properly. Respondent No. 24 filed a counter reiterating the claim of Kaushik Society. Thus, on these and other allegations, the Special Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the applicant is the owner oftheapplicationschedule properly?

2. Whether the Order in L.G.C. No. 46/1989 on the file of this Court and the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 29/1965 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, operates as res judicata?

3. Whetherthe Government is estopped from contending that the schedule property is the Government property in view of its contentions in the earlier proceedings viz., L.G.C. No. 46/1989 on the file of this Court and O.S. No. 29/1965 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad?

4. Whether the respondent No. 3 perfected title to the schedu le property by adverse possession?

5. Whether the respondents or any of them are land grabbers within the meaning of A.P. Act XII of 1982?

6. To what relief?

Additional Issue:

Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of Sai Nagar Co-operative Housing Society and others, whose names are given in the counters of R-4 to R-6?

30. Having regard to the fact that the subject matter being virtually same and claims by the respective parties are interconnected, both the LGCs were clubbed together and a regular enquiry was held wherein on behalf of the applicant P.Ws. 1 to 7 were examined and Exs.A-1 to 147 were marked. On behalf of the respondents R.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined apart from examining the Dy. Director, Survey and Land Records as C.W.I and marked Exs.B-1 to 58 apart from Exs.C-1 to C-3 and Exs.X-1 to X-12.

31. After considering the aforesaid evidence and material on record vis-a-vis the respective claims as set forth from ail the sides, the Special Court has considered the case by taking up the individual claims making into four groups viz., first group the claim of the Sai Nagar Cooperative Society in regard to Sy. No. 129/52 of an extent of Acs. 8.18 gts., secondly, the claim of the State in respect of T.S.Nos. 1/p, 4/p, 11/p and 12/p, Block H, Ward No. 10 relating to Sy. No. 403 admeasuring an extent of Acs. 16.09 gts. Thirdly, the claim of the legal representatives of Abdul Rub in R.Sy. No. 129/52 corresponding to new Sy. No. 327 and that of the legal representatives of Abdul Basith in Sy. No. 129/51 corresponding to R.Sy. No. 328 and lastly, the fourth group who are the respondents 1 to 3 in L.G.C. No. 15 of 1996 and other respondents 7 to 20 and 23 in respect of claiming title in Sy. No. 129/68 paiki. After identifying the respective claims and considering the evidence and other documents filed on behalf of both sides the Special Court ultimately on a due appraisal of the documents from both sides and the admissions made by P.W.7' held that the applicant viz., the State Government in L.G.C. No. 15 of 1996 had failed to substantiate its claim and establish '4he title and ownership over the application schedule property. Coming to the other LG.C. No. 29 of 1992 it was held that the schedule property exists in Sy. No. 129/68 paiki and the earlier proceedings in C.C.C.A.No. 14 of 1972 and LG.C.No. 46 of 1989 would come against the applicants on the principles of res judicata and they are estopped from contesting the said finding. On the other issue as to adverse possession, it was found that the plea that they have perfected the title by adverse possession is not available in the present proceedings and further the respondents cannot be treated as land grabbers within the meaning of the Act and ultimately, after a succinct analysis, narrowed down to the findings to the following effect, which have been extracted in the last but one preceding paras in the following paras:

The analysis of the evidence on Record and the documents relied by ail the claimants emerge the following aspects:

a. That Sre Sai Nagar Co-operative Housing Society failed to establish its right, title and possession of the land in Sy. No. 129/23, which is corrected as Sy. No. 129/52.

b. That the documents relied by Sri Sai Nagar Co-operative Housing Society, more particularly the Sale Deed Ex.A-1, is executed without any proper sale consideration. It was established that there is a difference in the area and boundaries between Ex.A-1 Sale Deed and the link documents of their vendors covered under Exs.A-8 and A-9.

c. That the vendors of Sri Sai Nagar Cooperative Housing Society or by themselves never in possession of the schedule land and they failed to produce any documentary evidence to show their possession and they in fact admitted that they are not in possession of the property. The Revenue Records relied by Sri Sai Nagar Co-operative Housing Society render no assistance and thus, failed to prove their ownership and title over the application schedule land and they are not entitled to any relief.

d. It was established that the applicantGovernment in L.G.C. No. 15/1996 has no right or title and possession over the application schedule land. On the other hand, it was proved that the schedule land is a Patta land even accordingtotheirown Records.

e. The very admissions on the part of P.W. 7 the Deputy Collector (Land Protection) that were illustrated in the cross-examination are a positive proof to reject the Government's case. P.W.7 categorically admitted that the schedule land is a private Patta land. It is also a fact that in the previous proceedings in L.G.C. No. 46/1989, the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer, the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records and Survey Inspector were examined and they never claimed the schedule land therein as a Government land.

f. It is also pertinent to note that about five years after filing L.G.C. No. 29/ 1992, the case in L.G.C. No. 15/1996 was filed for better known reasons to themselves.

g. That the Government did not want to take action against the applicant in L.G.C. No. 29/1992, who are claiming the part of the schedule land in L.G.C. No. 15/1996 and also against the respondents 4 to 6 in L.G.C. No. 29/1992. The Revenue records supported by the admissions of P.W.7 categorically establishes the fact that the application schedule land is a private Patta land and did not belong to the Government and the applicant-Government in L.G.C. No. 15/1996 miserably failed to establish its case and it is not entitled to any relief.

h. As far as respondents 4 to 6 in both the case are concerned, it was found that the legal representatives of Abdul Basith and Abdul Rub based their claim on Ex.B-10 Sanad alleged to have been granted to Abdul Rub. That Ex.B-10 Sanad is found to be a bogus document. The other entries in the concerned Revenue Records, on which they are basing their claim, are proved tampered. In the absence of any Record of actual assignment in theirfavour, they cannot legitimately claim the land without showing any iota of evidence of possession and enjoyment and they are not entitled to any relief.

i. It was established that the claim of both the applicants in L.G.C. Nos. 29/1992 and 15/1996 and respondents 4 to 6 in both the cases was hit by principles of res judicata.

j. As faras8lh respondent is concerned, the judicial pronouncements as many as at Additional Chief Judge, Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the E.P. proceedings and their respective judgments O.S.No. 29/1965 Ex.A-135), in C.C.C.A.No. 14/1972(Ex.A-136and Ex.B-45) and L.G.C. No. 46/1989 (Ex.B-44) and E.P.Proceedings in E.P. No. 20/1991 (Exs.B-51 toB-53) repeatedly held that the land in question is situated in Sy. No. 1 =9/68 paiki.

k. Besides that, the Commissioner's evidence in the suit in O.S.No. 29/1965 after reference from the Hon'ble High Court and the Commissioner's report in L.G.C. No. 46/1989 show about the existence of the land in Sy. No. 129/68 Paiki.

l. It was established that the land in dispute in these two cases is situated in Sy. No. 129/68 Paiki and it belongs to 8th respondent Kaushik Cooperative Housing Society. That 8th respondent amply proved the title, possession and enjoyment of the disputed property. The 8th respondent Society got possession of the schedule land through Civil Court proceedings.

m. That both the applicants in L.G.C. Nos. 29/1992 and 15/1996 failed to establish that respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of the Act. That 8th respondent proved its rival title, ownership and possession over the disputed property; and said disputed property is situated in Sy. No.129/68 Paiki and 8th respondent Society is declared as owner and title holder of the application schedule land.

32. Ultimately, both the applications in L.G.C. Nos. 29 of 1992 and 15 of 1996 were dismissed holding that they are not entitled to any such relief and further holding that Kaushik Society, who is the 8th respondent in L.G.C. Nos. 29 of 1992 and 15 of 1996 is the owner, possessor and title-holder of the schedule property.

33. As already stated, these two proceedings are unchallenged underthe above referred writ petitions which are being taken up along with the other writ petition in W.P. No. 28470 of 1995 filed against L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989.

34. Lastly, it now requires to refer to the proceedings which are under challenge in W.P. Nos. 1673 and 1706 of 2007. The impugned orders in these two writ petitions are in pursuance of the review applications filed by the petitioners therein as against the impugned orders passed in L.G.C. Nos.29 of 1992 and 15 of 1996 dated 28-04-2006 where virtually raised several pleas on merits, and ultimately, the Special Court, after considering the respective submissions, by its order dated 10-07-2006, rejected the same in the circulation holding that even on a consideration of all the grounds raised by them which virtually amount as if the grounds in appeal and held that the review petitions are not maintainable. Further, taking note of the fact that the orders in L.G.C. No. 29 of 1992 under challenge in W.P. No. 9931 of 2006 this Court has seized out the matter and there is no scope to pass any orders. Ultimately, both the applications were rejected.

35. Sri Mahmood Ali, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and supported by Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel, and Sri Vilas V. Afzul Purkar, learned senior counsel, strenuously raised several aspects in detail to show as to how the findings arrived at by the Special Court are not sustainable. Similarly, learned Government Pleader for Revenue also tried to make out his case to the effect that the findings arrived at by the Special Court are not valid, since the land is that of the Government land.

36. Repelling these submissions Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the main contesting party i.e., Kaushik Society, again went into detailed submissions on merits in depth and through the entire record.

37. Virtually, the learned Counsel appearing on either side have made submissions in such a way as if treating these writ petitions more than regular appeals, and the main submissions which ran in support of the petitioners is to the effect that, in fact, or even as per the record, there exists no such land as Sy. No. 129/68/paiki and further, the earlier proceedings including the suit filed by V.R.K. Sastry resulting into C.C.C.A.No. 14 of 1972 before this Court are not conclusive nor would operate as res judicata. As rightly submitted by either side, the points that ultimately, no doubt, get involved for due appreciation by this Court are as under:

1. Whether the application schedule land (inter alia in question) in L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989,29 of 1992,15 of 1996 is Sy. No. 129/68/paiki or 129/51, 129/52 of Shaikpet Village, Golkonda Mandal, Hyderabad District?

2. Whetherthejudgment of the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court in C.C.C.A.No. 14 of 1972 arising from O.S.No. 29 of 1965 operates as res judicata?

3. Whether the applicants (writ petitioners) in the respective applications i.e., L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989, 29 of 1992, 15 of 1996 have made out any case to attract the jurisdiction of the Special Court constituted under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (A.P. Act 12/82)?

4. Whether the petitioners have made out any case calling for interference of the Hon'ble High Court to issue writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned judgment of the Special Court in L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989,29 of 1992 and 15 of 1996?

38. In support of the plea that there exists no such land as Sy. No. 129/68/paiki, it is stated that the expression 'paiki' is initially not found in any legal expression nor in law or even in Hyderabad Survey and Settlement Manual, but, it is a loose one, which is being normally used by the then village Patwaris to refer to a part of a particular survey number, but not for an independent survey number, as such. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioners that at the time of assignments between 1337 fasli and 1341 fasli, Sy.Nos. 129/11 to 129/87 were carved out of Sy. No. 129 and thus, there is no such survey number as Sy. No. 129/68/paiki. Even otherwise, if at ail any such paiki number exists, it should form part of the original survey number i.e., Sy. No. 129/68/paiki, but not an independent one. It is also their case that the original survey number No. 129/68/ paiki is situated in Road No. 11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, admeasuring Ac.11-16 guntas and therefore, any part of such original number be it called Sy. No. 129/68 or otherwise cannot be to an extent of Ac. 16-09 guntas. Further, even admittedly when the land in Sy. No. 129/68/paiki is situated in Road No. 11, the same cannot exist in road No. 12. It is also their case that no documents have been filed to prove the assignment made in favour of Dilawar Ali or the later transactions of mortgage etc., with Mohd. Ghousuddin. In the sale deed executed in favour of Md. Moulana bearing document No. 563/1963, the land is described as Sy. No. 129/8 and no southern boundary is mentioned, whereas the rectification deed, dated 16-01-1964, bearing document No. 154/1964 tries to correct the land in Sy. No. 129/8 to 68. Further, it is contended that the judgment and the findings recorded in C.C.C.A.No. 14 of 1972 or L.G.C. No. 46/1989 would not bind the Government or the persons who are not parties to the same. That apart, the said findings are based on fabricated documents since the parties therein have played fraud on the Court. It has been the case of the petitioners that tippan book 1332 fasli and the relevant papers therein, which were brought into existence showing the existence of Sy. No. 129/68/paiki are tampered documents in order to accommodate the G-?>Q paiki number entry. It has been pointed out that entire tippan book is not before It,- Court at any point of time which only suggests the tampering of the record. The Commissioner pointed out in L.G.C. No. 15 of 1996 that there is no Sy. No. 129/68/paiki and if at all the said land is to be localized on the ground it would disturb the entire survey of the village. Even the Government records would amply show that there exists no Sy. No. 129/68/ paiki and the suit land is only in Sy.Nos. 129/51 and 129/52, which is a government land. The report of the Commissioner appointed in these proceedings wouid amply show that the tippan book of 1332 Fasli has been tampered to accommodate the entry in regard to Sy. No. 129/68/paiki. Glaringly, it was pointed out that there is no survey record or document co-relating to 129/68/paiki. Even the judgment No. 3 of 1954 dated 27th Behman 1354 Fasli on file of the District Collector, Atraf Balda, is a false and bogus document and in fact, when the record was sought to be summoned it was replied that there exists no such file. It has also been pointed out that during the pendency of the proceedings in O.S.No. 29 of 1965 filed by Sri V.R.K.Sastry, the defendant No. 4 died, but, no steps were taken to bring his legal representatives on record and therefore, the claim of the petitioners as against defendant No. 4 stood abated. Thus, there are no valid proceedings continued or properly pursued in presence of all the parties to say that the same would bind the petitioners. Even otherwise, it was contended that by taking into account all these aspects, the Division Bench of this Court in C.C.C.A. No. 14 of 1972 called for a finding from the Court below only to locate those two different survey numbers but not as to the existence of the very number. Therefore, there has been no proper enquiry and thus, the said findings are not based on proper perspective approach.

39. Even otherwise, by a meticulous reading of each and every document, an attempt was made in this Court to show that there is no possibility of existence of any such land as Sy. No. 129/68/paiki nor the judgment in C.C.C.A.No. 14 of 1972 would go against them or constitute as res judicata. It was also further pointed out that in the proceedings in C.C.C.A.No. 14 of 1972, there was no proper assistance in regard to the record available, therefore, the said findings are not conclusive.

40. The other submissions made by Sri E. Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. No. 9931 of 2006, is primarily on the aspect to show that the Special Court, in fact, did not have proper approach nor did consider the various documents filed by the petitioners to show their right, title and interest overthe schedule land. Thus, there has been total non-application of mind in regard to the material on record and instead of giving any relief to the petitioner namely Sai Nagar Society, which is respondent No. 8 in L.G.C. No. 29 of 1992, the other society namely Kaushik Society has been declared as owner erroneously. Again, it has been pointed out that the mistake, which occurred in the documents showing the sub-survey number '23' has been rightly corrected to '52'. He further submitted that it is the respondents who have utterly failed to establish their case as to their lawful entitlement and therefore, necessarily it should follow that they should be declared as 'land grabbers'.

41. Repelling all these and several other contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the main contesting party i.e., Kaushik Society, sought to sustain the findings of the Special Court to show that the same are based on cogent evidence and material on record, and having regard to the nature of proceedings in between the parties, the same would be a relevant piece of evidence, especially in view of the findings recorded in C.C.C.A. No. 14 of 1972 and L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989. Even the fact that there has been an unsuccessful attempt on the part of the petitioners in the execution laid in the said decree for specific performance would show that there is total lack of merits and justification on the part of the petitioner. The other documents namely the layout plans which have been obtained by Kaushik Society and the exemption under the provisions of the A.P. Urban Land Ceiling Act, which is marked as Ex.B-1, etc., would amply show that Kaushik Society is in possession in their own right, title and interest and they are not land grabbers as defined underthe provisions of the Act. Further, having regard to the specific findings arrived at different stages as to the existence of Sy. No. 129/68/paiki, necessarily it should follow that such contentions being purely that of facts and supported by the evidence and material on record, no interference is called for having regard to the scope and principles of natural justice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

42. No doubt, an attempt has been made on behalf of the petitioners to show whether the judgment and the findings recorded in C.C.C.A. No. 14 of 1972 can be termed as res judicata or not, but, however, certainly it should operate as a valid, cogent and convincing material, prima facie, establishing their case and it cannot be assailed by the petitioners at this length of time. Even otherwise, it is pointed out that the inter se disputes which arose between the petitioners vis-a-vis that of his party namely Kaushik Society cannot form part of the subject matter of lis or (sic. nor) would confer any jurisdiction on the Special Court under the provisions of the Act to go into such aspects. It is also his case that even on a reading of the case as set up by the petitioners, no primary jurisdictional facts have been made out to warrant entertainment of their claim or to award any relief in their favour.

43. With these and several other submissions as made across the Bar by the respective learned Counsel including the learned Counsel who appeared on behalf of the respective purchasers of the plots from the said society from Kaushik Society, as Government above, several aspects would necessarily emerge were it to be taken as a regular appeal. Unless and until such an approach is made in the similar fashion to reappreciate the whole evidence and material on record, it is not possible for this Court to have a say either way on the findings arrived at by the Special Court.

44. Before taking into account all such questions as raised and as referred to above, it necessitates to have a re-look at the findings recorded in both the set of cases i.e., L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989 and L.G.C. No. 29 of 1992 along with L.G.C. No. 15 of 1996. The factual matrix, the pleadings vis-a-vis the claims as set up by both the parties have already been narrated in the preceding paras.

45. Coming to the consideration and the discussion made by the Special Court in L.G.C. No. 46 of 1939, i: is seen from the judgment that the evidence and material has not only been properly referred to but also had a paid attention and consideration by the Special Court. Out of all the witnesses, who have been examined on behalf of the claimants viz., P.Ws.1 to 7, P.W.1 is the first applicant who gives a narration of entire sequel of events of their case. The other witness namely P.W.2 is P. Ramachandra Reddy, who is the General Power of Attorney holder of all the six applicants, again reiterates their version. P.W.3 is M.S. Sukumar, who is the brother of P.W.2. Unfortunately, P.W.2 died while he was being cross-examined. On a reading of the depositions of P.Ws. 1 to 3, the Special Court sums up their case in short, which is as follows:

Mohd. Abdul Basith is the father of the applicants and respondent Nos. 53 to 55. He is also known as Mulla Abdul Basith as well as Abdul Basith. He was a District Judge and he died in the year 1966. His wife died after six years after the death of her husband. The prefix 'Mulla' indicates religious learning. Abdul Basith was the son of Abdul Qayyum. Mulla Abdul Basith died in the year 1966 leaving behind the applicants and respondents 53 to 55. The schedule property is situated in Sy. No. 129/51, Shaikpet Village Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, which corresponds to revised Sy. No. 326. The same is correlated to Town Sy. No. 11, Ward -10, Block - H, Shaikpet Village. After the death of Mulla Abdul Basith, the schedule property was mutated in the name of the applicants and respondents 53 to 55, as evidenced by Ex.A-2. Representing the applicants and respondents 53 to 55 as G.P.A. Holder, P.W.2 representing the applicants and R-53 to R-55 entered into an agreement of sale with D, Srinath Reddy, President of R-4-Co-operative Society, agreeing to sell the schedule property. But, D-4 has not obtained any sale deed basing on the agreement of sale. In the year 1983, R-1 trespassed into the schedule property. As such P.W.2 filed a complaint against the R-1 in the Police Station, Banjara Hills. On the basis of the said complaint, proceedings Under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated against R-1 by the Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad. While proceedings Under Section 145 Cr.P.C, were pending, R-1 and Srinath Reddy, representing R-4 began selling the schedule property in plots. To the knowledge of the applicants there was no property like Sy. No. 129/68/paiki at Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad. R-44 was colluding with the other respondents in registering the plots and hence, R-44 was added as a party.

46. R.Ws.1 to 3 have been examined on behalf of the respondents. Out of them, R.W.1 is respondent No. 3-V.R.K.Sastry, R.W.2 is the Ex-Secretary of Kaushik Society and R.W.3 is the Sub-Registrar, who is respondent No. 44. The summoning of their depositions has also been made out by the Special Court vis-a-vis the documents filed by them. Ultimately, on the basis of the said evidence and the other documents in Exs.P-14, 15, 16,17,19 including Ex.P-18, etc., the Special Court observed that the present applicant predecessors in interest were parties to the same and further held that existence of Sy. No. 129/68/paiki is established. That part is again referred to in O.S. No. 29 of 1965 and C.C.C.A. No. 14 of 1972, the judgments of which are marked as Exs.B-1 and B-2 respectively. Taking into consideration the report, the Division Bench of this Court, called for a report from the lower Court on the two points, by the order, dated: 18-11-1975 which contemplated the aspects, firstly, as to whether the property mentioned in suit schedule is compromised (sic. comprised) Sy. No. 129/68/paiki or, whether it is compromised (sic. comprised) in Sy. No. 129/51 or 52 and whether both the survey numbers are localized on one plot or both are separate and distinct lands? Secondly, whether defendants 1 to 7, or which of them, have been in possession of the suit property, or part of it, as described in the suit schedule which is in Sy. No. 129/68/paiki. On receipt of the said order from the Division Bench of this Court, the Court below marked the same as Ex.B-6 holding that the suit schedule property is compromised (sic. comprised) Sy. No. 129/68/paiki and not in Sy. No. 129/51 or 129/52 and that the lands in Sy. No. 129/68 paiki and Sy. Nos. 129/51 and 52 are separate and distinct lands and ultimately holding that defendants 1 and 2 have been in possession of the suit schedule property. The Special Court, no doubt, tried to put the case under Explanation VI to Section 11 C.P.C., and on the principles of res judicata, held that the said findings are arising on the submissions and accepted that Sy. No. 129/68/paiki exists and dismissed the applications.

47. It is not necessary to delve into or refer to the entire judgment of the Special Court in this regard, at this juncture. Suffice to say that the Special Court did take into consideration the material on record and the evidence adduced by both sides and held as a finding of fact that Sy. No. 129/68/paiki exists and it is not connected whatsoever with Sy. No. 129/51 or Sy. No. 129/52.

48. In view of the same, it cannot be said, nor any attempt has been made by any of the learned Counsel in this Court appearing on behalf of the petitioners or supporting them to show, that the aforesaid findings recorded by the Special Court are in any way perverse. It is also not their case that the same is not based on the evidence or material available on record or any way asumptuous. Therefore on the face of it, it cannot be said that such finding of fact can be assailed in a judicial review contemplated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially in view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions. As already pointed out earlier, even in a case where there is a possibility of formation of two different opinions, still this Court would not venture to re-make or reappreciate or re-look into the evidence and material on record to come to a different or varied conclusion with that of the Special Court.

49. We now take up the cases arising out of LG.C. No. 29 of 1992 and L.G.C. No. 15 of 1996, which are the subject matter of W.P. Nos. 9931 and 21130 of 2006.

50. These two writ petitions i.e., W.P. Nos. 9931 and 21130 of 2006 are at the instance of the petitioners namely Sai Nagar Society and the Government respectively. After framing of the issues either way in both the cases, the Court below held an enquiry, wherein on behalf of the applicant in L.G.C. No. 29 of 1992, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-130 were marked, and on behalf of the applicant in L.G.C. No. 15 of 1996-Special Deputy Collector, Land Protection, Hyderabad, was examined as P.W.7 and Exs.A-131 to 147 were marked. Similarly, on behalf of the respondents, in L.G.C. No. 29 of 1992, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-38 were marked, apart from Exs.X-1 to X-11. On behalf of respondent No. 8 in L.G.C. No. 29 of 1992-Kaushik Society, R.W.3 was examined and Exs.B-3 to B-58 were examined. The Commissioner who was appointed to make a local inspection was examined as C.W.1, and his report and plan were marked as Exs.C-1 to C-3. The original tippan book was called for and was marked as Ex.X-12. Thus, common evidence was recorded in both the cases.

51. While considering the said evidence vis-a-vis the documents filed on behalf of both sides, the Special Court referred to each of such document, especially those documents filed and marked through P.W.1 to establish their purchase and utie over the schedule property. In rebuitul, apart from pointing out the non-examination of the vendor of the applicant and various other inconsistencies about the difference in the description of the properties in Exs.A-1, A-8 and A-9 and their identity, a further fact was noted that the said society was never in possession of the schedule property. By referring to the depositions of P.Ws.1 and 2 and especially, the admissions made by them in a more elaborate way and extracting the same, the Special Court apart from observing that the said admissions create a serious doubt about the case of Sai Nagar Society, took note of the fact that no document has been filed by the said society to show that Abdul Razak was granted any patta to an extent of Ac.8-18 guntas in Sy. No. 129/23 corresponding to revised Sy. No. 327 in respect of which, the witness has expressed total ignorance and unawareness and further, taking note of the alleged correction which was sought to be made from, after a long gap, 129/23 to 129/52, it was held categorically held by the Special Court that their Vendor Abdul Razak had no title over the schedule land. Later, the description and boundaries of the properties mentioned in Exs.A-1, A-8 and A-9 were taken into consideration, which apparently show that the same were not tallying or complying or consistent to any of such link documents. Therefore, it whether held that they have failed to establish their title over the schedule land apart from holding that neither Sai Nagar Society nor their vendor were in a position to identify or locate the schedule property on the basis of their own documents. The apart, even in regard to the possession, it was held that neither Sai Nagar society nor their predecessors in title produced any material or evidence to support the same.

52. Again, after discussing the various other documents, it was held that revision survey was not implemented in the revenue records and the survey numbers in the revenue records are maintained as per the initial survey. Therefore, with reference to the said proceedings and on a consideration thereof, it was held that the society again cannot claim right over the land in Sy. No. 129/52 Further, by observing that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is not consistent, but varying with each other, who pleaded ignorance on many important aspects, it referred that the land in Sy. No. 129/23 is a government land. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and by taking into consideration thereof, it was held that the very registered sale deed covered under Ex.A-1 indicates that it is a sham and nominal document created for the purpose of chance litigation, and the boundaries are different and varying from the link documents-Exs.A-8 and A-9, as admitted by P.Ws.1 and 2, and no consideration was paid under Ex.A-1 sale deed. Holding thus, the properties as claimed as totally different, the Special Court concluded that there is an utter failure on the part of the applicant-society in L.G.C. No. 29 of 1992 in establishing its title.

53. Similarly, coming to the same issue in L.G.C. No. 15 of 1996, after taking into consideration the case of the applicant-Government and especially, the deposition ot P.W.7 vis-a-vis the documents marked through him-Exs.A-31 to A-45, it was observed that the evidence of P.W.7 vis-avis the very concise statement filed in the very apv cation is far from satisfaction, noting that the government on one hand claimed that the land was grabbed by the respondent and on the other hand, it claimed that it is in possession of the schedule land and it did not seek proper relief against the respondents. After extracting the deposition of P.W.7 in detail, it is noted that L.G.C. No. 15 of 1996 filed by the Government is forthcoming after a long unexplained delay and there is no explanation as to why the Government did not add respondents 4 to 6 in L.G.C. No. 29 of 1992, who are claiming the very same government land, as parties to L.G.C. No. 15 of 1996. Even the applicant in L.G.C. No. 29 of 1992 i.e., Sai Nagar Society is not made as a party-respondent for the reasons best known to it. It was observed that this peculiar bias nature of the Government is unwarranted on its part, even though the Government is claiming the entire land. The Special Court had also taken note of the fact that no objections have been filed by the Government to the notification issued under Section 8(6) of the Act in L.G.C. No. 29 of 1992. Even other parties who are there in L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989 are also not impleaded in L.G.C. No. 15 of 1996. Noting that there is no clear cut version forthcoming in regard to the extent of land situated in T.S.Nos.1 part, 4 part, 11 and 12 part, and that P.W.7 is not able to give a convincing reason in this regard and no record is being produced to substantiate the same, the Special Court observed that the approach of the Government is very random, casual and half-hearted and therefore, not sustainable. Further, it was observed that the very attitude of P.W.7 in giving evidence is very fatal to the claim of the applicant-Government. Even while referring to the report to Ex.C-1 the report of the Commissioner stating that T.S.No. 1 is not affected and T.S. No. 11/part and T.S.No. 12/part are patta lands and therefore, T.S.No. 4 alone is a government land co-relating to Sy. No. 403 and the extent of which is being 6 hectares 1 are and 12 metres and therefore, the Government cannot claim any land in T.S.No. 11 part or 12 part.

54. On the other issue as regards the identity of the schedule land i.e., as to whether the land is in Sy. No. 129/51 and 52 or in Sy. No. 129/68/paiki, the Special Court once again did exercise its discretion on the merits of the case in detail by taking into consideration the respective claims and the evidence available on record and has given due attention to the chequered events, as already referred to above, including the proceedings which has landed in this Court in C.C.C.A. No. 14 of 1972, where the finding was given on the basis of the report of the Court below to the effect that Sy. No. 129/68/ paiki exists and it was observed by this Court that earlier on one occasion, it took note of the said discrepancies crept in the revision survey was baqui and affirmed the findings of the Civil Court to the aforesaid effect. Therefore, the existence of land in Sy. No. 129/68/paiki has been duly upheld in the suit O.S. No. 29/1965 and C.C.C.A. No. 14 of 1972.

55. Again, the self-same issue cropped up in LG.C. No. 46 of 1989, which is also taken note of. Since the proceedings in LG.C. No. 46 of 1989 are also under challenge in W.P. No. 29470 of 1995, it is also taken up for disposal along with the other two writ petitions viz., W.P. Nos. 9931 and 21130 of 2006, it is not necessary for us to repeat once again the findings recorded by the Special Court therein. However, suffice to say that having regard to the material available on record, it has been held that Sy. No. 129/68/paiki exists. Apart from the report of the Commissioner, his deposition as C.W.1, has also been duly considered and once again falling back on the findings given in the aforesaid civil proceedings in C.C.C.A. No. 14 of 1972, the factum of existence of Sy. No. 129/68/paiki has been reiterated. Ultimately, the Special Court considering all the facts and circumstances. vis--vis the material available on record found [ that it cannot be said that the schedule i property is not in Sy. No. 129/68/paiki. j Ultimately, it was held that Sai Nagar Society I failed to establish its right, title and interest over the schedule land in LG.C.No. 29 of 1992 and the Government also failed to establish that it has any right, title or interest over the schedule land. Further, it was found that the claim of the legal heirs of Abdul Basinth and Abdul Razak is based on Ex.B-10-Sanadh patta alleged to have been granted to Abdul Razak, is a bogus document and ultimately held that respondent No. 8-Kaushik Society has established its right, title, interest, possession and enjoyment over the schedule land, especially in view of the four separate proceedings viz., O.S. No. 29 of 1965 - Ex.A-135, C.C.C.A. No. 14 of 1972-Ex.A-136, LG.C. No. 46 of 1989 and E.P. No. 20 of 1991, where repeatedly it is being found that the land is in Sy. No. 129/68/ paiki and consequently, rejected the claim of the applicants.

56. Later, by taking up the other issue as to whether the judgment in LG.C.No. 46 of 1989 and O.S.No. 29 of 1965 along with C.C.C.A.No. 14 of 1972 would operate as res judicata or estoppel, the contention of the applicants was to the effect that they were obtained by the respondents by playing fraud was rejected by the Special Court. It was further observed that when the legal heirs of the parties to the proceedings did not raise any objection or plea of fraud at any stage in any of the earlier proceedings, it is not open for them to assail the same at this length of time. After referring to the various contentions urged on behalf of both the applicants, the Special Court found that there is no substance in any of those submissions and ultimately, held that the property in all these proceedings is one and the same; and that following the judgment rendered in C.C.C.A. No. 14 of 1972 and LG.C. No. 46 of 1989, it concluded that the property is in Sy. No. 129/68/paiki.

57. As regards the plea of adverse possession, it was decided that such a plea is not available and consequently, dismissed the application.

58. Thus on a bare appraisal of the entire judgment of the Special Court in these two cases would amply show that the evidence and material which had been produced by both sides has been duly considered by the Special Court, which ultimately, rejected their claim recording a finding that the schedule land exists and exists only in Sy. No. 129/68/ paiki. These ultimate conclusions are supported not only by the evidence and the material produced on behalf of the parties but also by well supportive reasons, in detail and in depth. On a reading of the entire judgment, we do not find that there is any perversity in the impugned order in any manner while coming to the conclusions, referred to above, by the Special Court. Therefore, having regard to the said findings, as such, arrived at by the Special Court in a well considered proceedings, and as already observed, there being no attempt on the part of the petitioners herein to show as to how the said findings are perverse to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more so, exercising the writ of Certiorari, it is not open for this Court to once again re-appreciate or to go into the same to have a re-look and to come to any different conclusion with that of the one arrived at by the Special Court. Even otherwise, both sides have taken us through the entire record by making elaborate arguments, which we intentionally allowed them to do so having regard to the questions sought to be urged, we are of the opinion that there is absolutely no error committed by the Special Court in either of these proceedings to warrant any interference by this Court on any of such findings, which are purely factual in nature. We also do not find any warranting grounds to vary with the findings arrived at by the Special Court. Hence, we refrain from exercise the jurisdictional powers. Accord'' 'v, we do not find any merits.

59. Apart from the other questions which require to be gone into are as sought to be projected from both the sides, the basic question which needs to be paid attention at the threshold is the very maintainability of the proceedings as initiated in all these applications in L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989, 29 of 1992 and 15 of 1996 purported to have been filed by the respective applicants under Section 8(1) of the Act. Taking into consideration the definition as contemplated under Section 2(e) and (d) of the Act, both of which have to be read together and keeping the principles as laid down in the above referred decisions, it emanates that initially the Act has been brought into force to prohibit the organized attempts on the part of 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. The said legislation is a special legislation with an avowed object contemplating the past remedies in contradiction to the regular remedies available under the common law and especially taking into consideration the delays which are occurring in the ultimate disposal of such matters. Therefore, in view of the expressions as enunciated and elaborated in the above pronouncement, the remedy is an exclusive one in a narrowed concept with a limited jurisdiction and in a limited arena rather than roping in wider net of common law remedies. Therefore, the only conclusion, which can be arrived at having regard to the aforesaid principles that the remedy as provided, takes in very briefer and conspicuous only as against such land grabbers sat within the parameters as contemplated thereunder. However, certainly it cannot take all the cases of trespass, encroachment, illegal occupations or otherwise intermeddling with the properties by any such persons for which the general remedies underthe common law can always take care of. Necessarily it follows that neither the complaint against the land grabber nor the enquiry as contemplated much less the relief as provided for need not invite an elaborate enquiry on a seriously contested right, title and interest including as to disputed long possessions and especially having regard to already existing chequered litigious events between the parties, no such application can be entertained nor the Special Court could have any jurisdiction to go into the same. As long as there is any justification for the possession by the so called land grabbers against the so called persons, who have been sought to be called as land grabbers is supported by any sustainable plea, document or proceedings as they would not come well within the definitive clause of land grabbers. Therefore, the applicants cannot try to go back, and back and try to rope in any dispute which is a stale or long pending. That apart, necessarily the application as contemplated under Section 8(1) of the Act, should proceed on specifically averred premise that the applicant was in possession all along or till a particular time and further the averment to the effect that there is a disposition (sic. dispossession) by the respondents thereunder in the recent past without any right, title land interest as such. The absence of details in regard to any of these aforesaid aspects is quite fatal and the applications have to be rejected. However, it need not reiterate if at all the applicant has got any other remedy under the common law subject to all the limitations as prescribed thereunder, he shall have to opt for such remedies rather than taking shelter before the Special Court or the Tribunal. Therefore, with this background, it now requires to see as to whether there is a sufficient compliance or averments in order to make out a case to fall well within the ambit as contemplated. In L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989, which is filed as long as on 09-02-1989 and which is the first in the order of filing by the legal representatives of Abdul Basith, contains the concise statement, which has been extracted above. Even on a bare reading of the aforesaid proceedings apart from referring to various proceedings, permissions etc., from the authorities, the allegations date back to sufficiently prior period where the dispute arose as to whether the land in Sy. No. 129/68/paiki exists or not, and whether it corresponds to other survey numbers as contended. The title is sought to be claimed through their father, who died in the year 1966 after mutation and other proceedings and the agreement is of the year 1981 with Kaushik Society and further referring to the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and also the various documents executed in between various parties including Mohd. Khasim, V.R.K.Sastry etc., including the execution of 35 sale deeds and complaint against the trespass and encroachment in pursuance of the exemption obtained under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling under G.O.Ms.No. 523, dated 26-03-1979. On the entire reading of the statement, nowhere it has been shown as to how long and still what date the applicants are in possession and on what exact date on which the applicants were dispossessed. The entire case as referred to apart from going to the quite longer earlier point of time, there is no assertion in regard to the possession and dispossession.

60. Similarly in L.G.C. No. 29 of 1992 filed by Sai Nagar Society, who is the petitioner in W.P. No. 9931 of 2006, the concise statement commences their claim from the date of purchase on 06-11 -1982 which was followed up with rectification deed dated 03-08-1991 and after referring to the exemption proceedings under the G.O.Ms.No. 1114, dated 11-08-1982 and G.O.Ms. No. 4270, dated 10-09-1980. Even referred to the title of their predecessors in title and alleged that on 22-10-1985 their possession was sought to be interfered with by one Abdul Qayyum, S/o Abdul Rub. Admittedly, the applicant had filed a suit in O.S. No. 1376 of 1985 on the file of the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained interim injunction on 08-11 -1985 in I.A.No. 935 of 1985 which was modified to that of status quo order on 07-12-1988. Even referred to another suit in O.S.No. 1399 of 1984 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which was filed on 19-11-1984 by Akbar Khasim, s/o Abdul Razak for declaration of title and perpetual injunction to which most of the other persons are also parties. The subject matter of the suit as referred to above is covered by Sy. No. 129/51 and 52. After pointing out the survey and demarcation proceedings and other revisional surveys and further referring to the case which has already been filed in L.G.C. No. 46 of 1989, which is mentioned above and again referring to the proceedings initiated at the instance of Abdul Qayyum, S/o late Abdul Rub under Section 87 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and the report therein on 03-10-1983 and other subsequent proceedings in detail and in depth till the revisional orders passed by the Government which was filed on 28-07-1990 and further again referring to the suit in O.S.No. 1376 of 1985 and obtaining injunction and status quo as referred to above and recording its pendency, they sought for declaration that the applicant is the owner and possessor of the schedule land and declare the respondents as land grabbers. No-doubt, though a specific mention is made in regard to the acts of interference by the first respondent only on 22-10-1985 in the said application, which was filed on 25-09-1992, the entire chequered events amply back to a longer period much prior to the filing of this application and take note of the pendency of civil suits and taking recourse to the proceedings. Therefore, there being no such averment to call the respondents therein as land grabbers i.e., dispossessing the applicant without any right, title and interest of what-so-ever in nature, in fact, the application is silent about the period of possession or the date of dispossession specifically except as stated above that there was an act of interference. Therefore, unless there is an averment specifically to show that the applicants are in possession in their own absolute right, title and interest and the respondents so called land grabbers without any such right, title and interest or valid claim, dispossessed the grabbed land from the applicants, the very application would not come or fall within the parameters as contemplated under the aforesaid Act.

61. Having regard to the provisions of the. Act and the acts of land grabbing as defined thereunder, the matter has come up for consideration before the Larger Bench of this Court in Hindusthan Aeronautics Employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Hyderabad v. Special Court (constituted under A.P. Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982 and Ors. : AIR2005AP76 where by referring to Sections 2(e), 7A(5), 8(7) of the said Act, held that:

62. From this, it is clear the relief of redelivery of possession of the grabbed land to the rightful owner can be granted by the Special Court or Tribunal, if necessary facts are pleaded and proved. In addition to that relief, compensation can also be awarded. This presupposes that the possession of the land was wrongfully assumed by the person accused of grabbing the land. If the attempts to grab land are to be treated as constituting a cause of action, to enable the party complaining of it, to initiate proceedings, the Court or Tribunal must be in a position to grant the relief in case the facts pleaded, are proved. In such an event, the nature of relief has to be in the form of a perpetual injunction or anything equivalent to it. There is no provision in the Act, which enables the Special Court or Tribunal to grant such relief. Therefore, this is also a pointer to the conclusion that the Act does not contemplate adjudication into matters where the allegation is only as to attempt to grab the land.

63. This view is fortified by the text of rules framed under the Act and the forms appended to them. In Forms ll-A and ll-B, appended to the Rules are, notices to be issued to the effected parties after the Special Court or Tribunal, as the case may be, takes cognizance of the case filed before them. They read as under;

Form-ll-A: Notice. The Special Court/Special Tribunal has taken cognizance of the case filed by Sri....Son of .It is alleged that the land belonging to...as specified in the schedule below is grabbed by Sri...Son of...64. The form does not contemplate a situation where the act complained of, is only an attempt to grab land. On the other hand, it refers to an act of accomplished grabbing. Reliance upon these Rules and the Forms is objected to, by the Counsel for the petitioners, on the ground that they cannot be treated as part of the Act. In this regard, it is apt to refer the judgment of the Supreme Court in /. T. Commissioner, Jullundurv. Ajanta Electricals, Punjab, 1995 AIR SCW 3378. In that case, Section 139(2), of the Income Tax Act, as it stood at the relevant point of time, empowered the Income Tax Officer to serve notice upon as assessee, requiring him to furnish return of his Income, during the previous year, in the prescribed form. It also provided that in case the return is not submitted within the stipulated or extended time, the assessee would become liable to pay interest. Rule 13 and Form No. 6 appended to the Rules enabled the assessee to file an application for extension of time. The benefit under Rule 13 and Form No. 6 was not extended to the respondent herein, on the ground that the relevant provision of the Act does not provide for it and Ru les and Forms cannot be treated as part of that Act. B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J., speaking forthe Bench dealt within the contention with the following observations:

Though the rule cannot affect, control or derogate from the section of the Act, so long as it does not have that effect, it has to be regarded as having the same force as the section of the Act. If Section 139(2) is read long with Rule 13 and Form No 6 it becomes clear that an application for extension could be made even after the period allowed originally or as a result of extension granted had expired. Keeping in mind the object of giving discretion to the I.T.O. and the consequences that were to follow from not filing the return within time, we see no justification for reading into the section any limitation to the effect that no application could be made after the time allowed had expired. We see no good reason to construe the section so narrowly.Therefore, there is nothing wrong in treating the Rules and Forms as constituting part, or at least, an extension of the principal enactment, so long as they are in conformity with the provision of the Act under which they are framed.

81. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that an attempt to grab land cannot be treated as act of land grabbing, as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act, and that the Special Court or Special Tribunal constituted thereunder do not have jurisdiction to entertain matters based on the allegations of attempts to grab land. To be precise, it is only in such matters where the applicant before the Court or Tribunal alleges that the land in question has been taken possession of, by the respondent herein, that they can exercise jurisdiction. The judgments reported in J, Anji Reddy y. Mir Ahmed Ali Khan, Government of A.P. v. Sathaiah, R. Komaraiah v. Special Court, Hyderabad and Bhavanarishi Co-operative Housing Society v. State of A.P., insofar as they held that attempt to grab land amounts to land grabbing, are overruled. We approve the view taken in Syedulla v. Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and Shalivahana Builders (P) Ltd., v. S.G. Co-operative Housing Society.

62. In Gouni Satya Reddi v. Government of A.P. 2004 ALT (Rev.) 31 (SC) considering the very same definition clause in Section 2 (d) and (e) of the aforesaid Act, it was held that:

From the definitions of the phrases 'land grabber' and 'land grabbing' contained in Clauses (d) and (e) of Section 2 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, it is clear that grabbing of any land must be without any lawful entitlement and with a view to take possession of such lands illegally. That is to say, the land grabber must be aware of the fact that he is entering into the possession illegally and without any lawful entitlement. Thus coupled with the fact of not being entitled to possession the person must enter into possession with a view to obtain illegal possession. Where such view of taking illegal possession is missing or lacking, a person would not be covered under the definition of the phrase or expressing 'land grabber'. It is a necessary ingredient of land grabbing i.e., the person taking possession must know it that he is acting illegally while taking possession.

In this case there was no finding that the appellant had created false documents by creating false power of attorney, as alleged. Non-examination of attesting and identifying witnesses of the registration of the deed of general power of attorney in favour of P would not be a circumstance strong enough to hold that a false document was created by the appellant in favour of P with an intention to get the sale deed executed in his favour. It would not mean that the appellant when entered into the possession overthe land was aware that the power of attorney actually existed or not in favour of P and that the sale deed executed on that basis did not entitle him to take possession. Merely not being entitled to get the possession itself was not enough to hold that a person would be land grabber unless the possession was taken with an intention to enter into possession illegally. Further, such an intention stands dispelled by the fact that the appellant had invited objections by publishing notice in the newspapers to the intended transaction, as claimed by the appellant. The Special Court has not recorded any finding that no such publication was made. P may have been an impostor, or not a genuine person or a genuine power-of-attorney holder of respondent 3, but neither is there any such finding nor facts or circumstances on the record to impute any such knowledge to the appellant at the time of execution of sale deed in his favour. There mere fact of legally not entitled to the possession would not fulfil the ingredients of the definitions of 'land grabber' and 'land grabbing'.

8. Before entering into further discussion on the merits of the case it would be appropriate to peruse certain relevant provisions of the act. Section 2 (d) of the Act defines 'land Grabber' as follows:

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 fortaking illegal possession of lands or for construction of unauthorized 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 of any of the above mentioned acts; and also includes the successors in interest; 9. Section 2(e) defines the expression 'land grabbing', which reads as under:

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 licence agreements or any otherillegal agreements in respect of such lands, or to construct unauthorized structures thereon for sale or hire, or give such land 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.10. From a reading of the definitions of the phrases 'land grabber' and 'land grabbing' it is clear that the grabbing of any land must be without any lawful entitlement and with a view to take possession of such lands illegally. That is to say the land grabber must be aware of the fact that he is entering into the possession illegally and without any lawful entitlement. If such elements as indicated above are missing in our view, it would not be a case of land grabbing.

63. Similar consideration has come up before the Full Bench of this Court in Mohd. Siddiq Ali Khan v. Shahsun Finance Ltd., Chennai : AIR2005AP274 referring to the principles laid down in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Government of A.P. and Ors. : [2002]1SCR651 , it was held that:

106. That unless the allegations made in the application satisfy and attract the ingredients of 'land grabber' and 'land grabbing' as provided for under Section 2 (d) and (e) of the Act, mere repetition of words 'land grabbing' would not be enough for taking cognizance of a case, unless that statement or allegations satisfies both the ingredients - the factum as well as the intention. As has been held in Shalivahana Builders' case, that an act of land grabbing involves 'taking of any land belonging to Government, etc., or any other private person unauthorisedly, unfairly, greedily, either forcibly, violently, unscrupulously or otherwise but without any lawful entitlement. Taking possession of the land without any lawful entitlement thereto is the sine qua non to hold a person to be a land grabber. It may be noted, to make out a case that a person is a land grabber the applicant must aver and prove both the ingredients - the factum as well as the intention. Unless a person unauthorisedly and without any lawful entitlement thereto enters or intrudes into a land forcibly or otherwise, he cannot be held to be land grabber. The emphasis is on taking possession without any lawful entitlement.

109. We have already noticed the assertions and the claim of title by each of the parties and dispute as to the relationship and the pendency of proceedings, which are admitted and stated in the application filed in the L.G.C. by the 1st respondent/applicant. The agreement of sale and the sale deed based on which the 1st respondent/ claimant claims title, themselves, are the subject-matter of more than one civil suit. In all those proceedings, the individuals impleaded as respondents in the L.G.C. are shown to be residing in the application schedule property asserting their right, title and interest in the property. It is not, even, alleged in the concise statement of facts that all of a sudden, they have intruded and forcibly taken possession of the application schedule property. The rival claimants asserting title and possession of the land can never be equated to that of 'land grabbers'. It is admitted in the concise statement that parties asserting rival title, not altogether strangers to the schedule property. The Special Court, no doubt, exercises all the powers of Civil Court as well as the Court of Session for the purposes of even deciding the question of title of the land but only of the land alleged to have been grabbed. The Special Court is not a substitute for Civil Courts in the matter of adjudication of the interse rights and disputes involving intricate questions of right, title and interest in the land. In the case on hand, the facts pleaded in the concise statement, at the most, may reveal the bona fide dispute of title and possession claims and counter claims in respect of the schedule property. Such bona fide disputes can never be equated to that of an act of land grabbing. The individuals involved in raising such bona fide disputes can never be characterized as 'land grabbers'.

112. In our considered opinion, the mere repetition of expression 'land grabber' and 'land grabbing' by themselves would not be enough fortaking congnizance of a case, unless the averment and the allegations made in the concise statement attract the ingredients of 'land grabber 'or' land grabbing.

64. In Pithana Nanda Kumar and Ors. v. Kostu Eswara Rao and Ors. : 2000(1)ALD575 the Division Bench of this Court while considering the aforesaid provisions has held that:

Person who has entered the premises as a lessee does not become a land grabber, on the termination of lease. He would be a tenant holding over - In deciding whether a person is a land grabberor not, the position at the time of the initial entry in the land has to be seen - The mere fact that the tenant after receiving the notice of termination of lease set uptitle in himself does not alter the position.

65. Even otherwise by taking into account the contents of the rejoinder filed by the applicants which again refers to all those proceedings in several cases, suits including the suit filed by V.R.K. Sastry for specific performance which has culminated in C.C.CA. No. 14 of 1972, there is no reiteration as to any of the above aspects. Hence, it cannot be said that the application as has been filed and framed is a one, which can fall within the jurisdiction of the Special Court.

66. Coming to the other case in L.G.C No. 15 of 1996 fiied by the State, who are the petitioner in W.P. No. 21130 of 2006 by giving detailed account of the surveys and the preparation of Survey Register in 1330 Fasli which is equivalent to 1920 A.D. and claiming that there is no such Sy. No. 129/68/paiki existing except the other lands in Sy. No. 129/68 admeasuring Acs. 11.16 guntas and again referring to the later proceedings in the years 1964 to 1970 under the provisions of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and disputing the entry in the tippan book of 1332 Fasli and the other documents and again referring to the suit in O.S.No. 29 of 1965 filed by V.R.K. Sastry for specific performance, the entire contents are totally absent in regard to the specific averment as to since how long the said applicant was in possession or till what date. There is no detail in regard to the actual date of dispossession by the respondents, who are being sought to be declared as land grabbers. Therefore, even on a bare reading of the entire statement, there is no primary or prima facie satisfaction as to the mandatory details as required for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of Special Court and to seek any relief against the Respondents as land grabbers.

67. Thus, in all these three applications, we are of the view that primarily on the face of it, the applicants did not approach the Court of special jurisdiction within its limited sphere to make out a case warranting to hold that the respondents in the applications concerned can be termed as land grabbers or any relief as such can be given. In fact, on an appraisal of the contest made by all the respondents In all these three cases, it clearly shows that they have come in defence with a perfectly sustainable and arguable case. It is not a case either on behalf of the applicants or there is any such plea to show that they did not claim any title, right and interest which can be said to be either non-existing or wholly that there is no claim at all in this regard. Therefore, we hold that the applicants in all these three applications have not made out a case to approach the Special Court under the provisions of aforesaid Act and seek any relief against the respondents as land grabbers.

68. Considering the scope of the powers of this Court, under its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in issuing a Writ of Certiorari, the Apex Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S.Radhakrishnarf, held that:

A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts ortribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts ortribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice.

The jurisdiction of High Court to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari.

A finding of fact recorded by the Tiibunal cannot however, be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding being within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court.

Thus where in dealing with the rival claims of the A and B for stage carriage permits on certain route, the Transport Authority and the Transport Appellate Tribunal where mainly influenced by the fact that A had a workshop at Madras which is one terminus of the route in question, whereas B had a workshop and a place of business only at intermediate station of the route and did not possess a workshop at either of the termini of the route and hence issued to the permit to A; and B, in moving the High Court for a Writ of Certiorari under Article 226 against the order, argued before the High Court that in coming to the conclusion that he had no workshop at the terminus, the Appellate Tribunal had failed to consider material evidence adduced by him and a writ was issued in his favour on this narrow ground,

Held (by Majority-Subba Rao J, dissenting) that the question whether B had workshop at a terminus of the route was the pure question of fact and the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings recorded by the Appellate Tribunal and seek to correct it by issuing a writ of certiorari.

An error of law which can be corrected by a Writ of Certiorari must be one which is apparent on the face of the record. Thus, where it is manifest or clear that the conclusion of law recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal is based on an obvious misinterpretation of the relevant statutory provision, or sometimes in ignorance of it, or may be, even in disregard of it, or is expressly founded on reasons which are wrong in law, the said conclusion can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In all these cases, the impugned conclusion should be so plainly inconsistent with the relevant statutory provision that no difficulty is experienced by the High Court in holding that the said error of law is apparent on the face of the record.

If a statutory provision is reasonably capable of two constructions and one construction has been adopted by the inferior Court or Tribunal, its conclusion may not necessarily or always be open to correction by a writ of certiorari. However, it is neither possible nor desirable to attempt either to define or to describe adequately all cases of errors which can be appropriately described as errors of law apparent on the face of the record. Whether or not an impugned error is an error of law and an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record, must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each cases and upon the nature and scope of the legal provision which is alleged to have been misconstrued or contravened.

69. In State of A.P. v. P.V. Hanumantha Rao : (2003)10SCC121 , it was held that:

Scope of High Court's jurisdiction under - Writ petition lies not against a decision but against docijion - making process of court, tribunal or authority - Writ petition preferred against decision-making process of a Special Court constituted under a special Act which did not provide any remedy by way of appeal - High Court's interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction when called for Held, where important evidence had been overlooked and legal provisions involved misinterpreted or misapplied resulting in error apparent on the face of the proceedings, High Court can interfere -Where Special Court declared the occupants of land as 'land-grabbers' under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 taking the view that document of title viz. inam grant produced by the occupants was unreliable, held, High Court on examination of the documents was justified in interfering with the judgment of the Special Court, on finding not only its reasons or conclusions erroneous but also on finding that important evidence corroborating the grant had not been properly scrutinized and important revenue records disregarded.

70. In Tadi Surya Rao v. Dr. Gurubhavatula Ramakrishna Rao : 1996(3)ALT763 , the Division Bench while considering the scope of this under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in regard to the proceedings underthe aforesaid Act, it was held that:

II. Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 - Section 8(2) - Decision regarding possession and title by special court is final - High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution is forbidden to sit in appeal over the said decision.

71. Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Kaushik Society raised two other objections in regard to the very maintainability of the applications through the alleged G.P. As. and challenge by some of the parties against whom no relief has been granted and on whose behalf senior counsel. Sri D. Prakash Reddy and Vilas V. Afzul Purkar supported the case of the petitioners apart from adopting the submissions made by learned Counsel Sri Mahmood Ali.

72. In the first aspect, the objection is that though initially the applications have been filed with a permission to approach the Court through the G.P.As, however, ultimately none of those G.P. As. were filed in the proceedings. Therefore, mere obtaining permission at the initial stage without follow up of supporting G.P.As. on record, the applications are not maintainable. Merely, it has been his contention that the respondents against whom no relief has been granted either way and especially there being not either applicants or termed as land grabbers, cannot attack the orders of the Special Court. In this regard, on a query made by the Court calling upon the counsel for the petitioner to verify the records as to whether the G.P.As. have been filed or not, on making an inspection of the records which are before this Court and other records with the Special Court in the same case, it is stated in the said memo that after verification of the record, no-doubt the G.P.As. were filed and they were available with the Special Court. Since they were not marked in the evidence as exhibits, those records are not summoned and therefore, the Special Court did not look into any of these G.P.As. and thus, made a comment on the applicants. Hence, it cannot be said that it is a case where no G.P.As. are filed. To the said memo, there is no rebuttal on behalf of the contesting respondents i.e., Kaushik Society to deny the said fact or any such reporting back to this Court as to the nonexistence of any of the G.P.As. on record. Hence, having regard to the fact that the G.P.As. were filed and available on record and merely because they are not marked, it cannot be said that the applications are not properly filed through due representation. Hence, the said objection stands rejected.

73. Coming to the other objection to the effect that the parties against whom no relief either way having been granted cannot attack the orders of the Special Court. It has been pointed out by both the senior course! Sri D. Prakash Reddy and Sri Viias V. Afzal Purkar that having regard to the findings which have been given against them irrespective of the fact whether there is any relief granted or not, they can assail the same more so when the matters are being canvassed and all the questions are at large before this Court. In this regard, it is now well established and especially taking note of the amendments which have been brought forth to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure that even a finding can be assailed independently by way of an appeal and the definition of an aggrieved person having given wider interpretation arising out of various other provisions by this Court and also the Apex Court, it cannot be said that a person against whom a finding is given cannot assail the same as independently or in respect of the application filed by the main aggrieved persons against whom either relief is granted in their favour or against. Hence, we do not find any merits in the said objection and the same accordingly stands rejected.

74. Having regard to the aforesaid reasons and by taking into account the findings as arrived at on facts, we hold that the applications as have been filed and framed are not maintainable especially in view of the limited jurisdiction of the Special Court under the Act, which cannot take in or adjudicate upon such serious questions going far back in time or correctness thereof. Needless to mention that the remedies, if any, can be availed by any of the parties concerned or aggrieved to seek appropriate reliefs before appropriate Forums on its own merits and independently and in accordance with law.

75. Having regard to the aforesaid reasons and in depth consideration and the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, we do not find any merits in these Writ Petitions.

76. The Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, in the circumstances, no costs.