The jurisdiction of the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, and the availability of alternative remedies for aggrieved parties.

Judgment

PHUKAN, J.

( 1 ) C. A. 6731/1994. THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 680/1992 dated 23/07/1992, confirming the order of the learned single Judge passed in W. P. No. 9846/1989 dated 16/06/1992 by which the writ petition filed by the appellants, was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda, representing the State of Andhra Pradesh, the first respondent, filed an application under S. 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) numbered as LGC 21 of 1988 in the Special Court under the Act (for short the Special Court ). The material allegation in that application was that the first appellant encroached upon the Government land to an extent of 5 acres in Survey No. 403/1, situated at Shaikpet village, Banjara Road No, 10, Hyderabad (for short the disputed land), made plots and sold them to respondents 2 to 15 before the Special Court who were treated as interested persons. It was alleged that as per the Government records plots Nos. l1, 12 and 13 in Survey No. 403/1 of Shaikpet village were unrecognised plots and were treated as Government lands. On that application the Special Court took cognizance of the case and issued notification under S. 8 ( 6) of the Act in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette (Extraordinary) of 7/11/1988. On the material placed by the Revenue Officer as per the verification report, persons who had been in possession of the disputed land were also issued notices. Though they were parties to LGC 21/88 in the Special Court, they are not impleaded in this appeal. The first appellant pleaded, inter alia, that he had agreed to purchase the disputed land from its owners and possessors, appellants 2 to 4, and obtained possession under the agreement for sale. He denied the allegation that he grabbed the disputed land.

( 3 ) AFTER considering the evidence placed on record the Special Court held that the Government was the owner of the disputed land and that the respondents were land grabbers and ordered them to be evicted from the disputed land. It was made clear that notice under proviso to sub-section (7) of S. 8 was not issued. Thus the application filed by the first respondent (LGC 21/88) was allowed by the Special Court on 1/06/1988.

( 4 ) APPELLANTS 2 to 4 who were not parties before the Special Court, joined appellant No. 1 in challenging the validity of the said order of the Special Court before the High Court in W. P. No. 9846/1989. The learned Single Judge who dealt with the case took the view that: (1) the appellants had the opportunity of having the impugned order reviewed under S. 17-A of the Act; (2) if they felt aggrieved by the judgment of the Special Court nothing prevented them from filing a suit for declaration of their title and right; and (3) on the merits of the case the judgment of the Special Court was perfectly, justified on the basis of the evidence placed before it, there was no lack of jurisdiction in the Special Court, no error apparent on the face of the record and no violation of principles of natural justice.

( 5 ) THE said order of the learned Single Judge was questioned in Writ Appeal No. 680/92 before the Division Bench of the High Court which reiterated the conclusions referred to above and dismissed the writ appeal on 23/07/1992. It is against that order the present appeal is filed by Special Leave.

( 6 ) WE have heard Mr. P. S. Mishra, the learned senior counsel for the appellants and Ms. K. Amreshwari, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.

( 7 ) IN the view we have taken, we do not propose to express any opinion on merits of the case. Suffice it to observe that having made the observation that the appellants could have availed the remedies of review under S. 17-A of the Act and the suit for declaration of title and right, in our view, the learned Single Judge ought not to have ex- pressed an