Important Point
Where Special Court after tabulating all details furnished by applicant and respondents, held that Respondents 1 & 2 or their successors-in-interest were in occupation of land which did not belong to them, then conclusion arrived at by Special Court and High Court found acceptable in views of facts and circumstances of case.

judgment

P. Sathasivam, J. —

1.These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 25.06.2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos. 29675 & 29712 of 1997 in and by which the High Court dismissed these writ petitions filed by the appellants herein.

2.BRIEF FACTS:

The schedule land forms part of Sy. No. 30 of Taranagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the total extent of which is Ac. 3.19 guntas. Out of the said extent, one Chakali Ramaiah owned an extent of Ac. 1.29 guntas of land and one Katika Baloji owned an extent of Ac.1.30 guntas. Out of total extent of Ac.1.29 guntas, Chakali Ramaiah sold an extent of Ac.1.00 to Smt. Shamshunnisa Begum, contesting respondent No.1 herein and 20 guntas to one Jahangir and retained the balance of 9 guntas. Katika Baloji sold an extent of 30 guntas to Smt. K. Sharada Bai, appellant No.1 herein and 1 acre to H. Padmini Bhai, appellant No.2 herein. The contesting respondent filed O.S. No. 87 of 1988 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, West & South, R.R. Dist. for a perpetual injunction restraining appellants herein and others acting on their behalf from interfering with the exclusive possession and enjoyment of her 1 acre land. By order dated 14.07.1995, the said suit was transferred to the Special Court constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and numbered as L.G.C. No. 133 of 1995. On its transfer, it was tried along with L.G.C. No. 162 of 1994 which was filed by respondent No.1 herein alleging that the appellants grabbed 12.5 guntas of land out of her 1 acre land. During the pendency of the application, the Special Court appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect and measure the disputed land and the Commissioner filed a report before the Court which is filed as Annexure P-1 along with the S.L.P. On 15.10.1997, the Special Court by a common judgment allowed both the L.G.Cs holding the appellants herein as land grabbers and directed to deliver the vacant possession of 12.5 guntas of land to the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed Writ Petition Nos. 29675 and 29712 of 1997 before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions holding that the Special Court has not committed any error in allowing the L.G.Cs. Questioning the same, the appellants filed the above appeals by way of special leave.

3.We heard Mr. Roy Abraham, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mrs. K. Amareswari, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

4.The only question to be considered in these appeals is whether the order passed by the Special Court and the impugned order of the High Court upholding the decision of the Special Court is sustainable or not?

5.Though in the grounds of appeal an objection was raised about the jurisdiction of the Special Court constituted under the Act, no argument was advanced with regard to the same. On the other hand, the appellants challenged the merits of the impugned orders and the ultimate conclusion arrived. The contesting respondent filed an application under Section 8(1) of the Act to declare the appellants herein as land grabbers and evict them from an extent of 15 guntas of land forming part of Sy. No. 30 of Taranagar Village. She filed counter contending that she is bona fide purchaser and she is in possession and enjoyment of her property since the date of purchase and perfected title to the schedule property by adverse possession. Before the Special Court, common evidence was recorded. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 & 2 were examined and Ex. A-1 to A-21 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW 1 was examined and EX. B1 to B-14 were marked. The Special Court examined CW-1 and Ex. C1 to C-8 were marked. The Special Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, found that the applicant before it is the owner of 12= guntas of land forming part o