Judgement Key Points

( 37 ) IN such view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that the application filed by the respondents herein before the tribunal which was later transferred to the special Court is misconceived. The Special court ought not to have taken cognizance of the case under the Act. The application filed by the respondents - applicants ought to have been summarily dismissed.

( 38 ) NOW we shall take up the next contention urged by the learned senior counsel relating to the identity of the land alleged to have been grabbed by the petitioners herein. In the original petition filed by the respondents the entire extent of ac. 9. 26 gts. situated in S. No. 73, marredpally village, Hyderabad is mentioned as against the column "extent". The boundaries as against Column No. 12 are also given for the whole of the extent of ac. 9. 26 gts. In the prayer portion a declaration is sought as against the petitioners herein declaring them to be the land grabbers in respect of the land admeasuring Ac. 1. 38 gtss only in S. No. 73, marredpally village, Hyderabad District. It is specifically stated in categorical terms that the lands admeasuring Ac. 1. 38 gts. that remained after acquisition of an extent of ac. 7. 24 gts. continue to be in possession "of the society and its members". Admittedly, the boundaries of that extent of Ac. 1. 38 gts. of land situate in S. No. 73 of Marredpally village are not furnished in the original petition filed by the respondents before the tribunal. The Special Court records a finding to the effect that the "applicants 2 to 7 and other purchasers of plots lying in the lay-out of the application schedule land in S. No. 73, who are members of the first applicant - society are owners of the application schedule land and not the 2nd respondent. " the application schedule land, as has been noticed, is the total extent of Ac. 9. 26 gts. and ac. 1. 38 gts. in respect of which relief has been claimed by the respondents/applicants in the original petition. The confusion is writ large and apparent on the face of the record.

( 39 ) THE findings recorded by the Special Court are totally at variance with the pleadings and averments made in the application filed by the respondents/ applicants. Crucial statements and admissions made in the evidence of P. W. 1 have been totally ignored and the same amounts to refusal to take the relevant evidence into consideration by the Special court. In the evidence it is categorically admitted by one of the applicants (P. W. 1) that the registered sale deeds marked exs. A-5 to A-9 relating to the plots purchased by the members of the 1st applicant society are only with regard to a portion of the petition schedule land but not with regard to the entire petition schedule land in the original petition. It is also admitted that no documents are filed to prove that the applicants in the original petition were in possession of any portion of the petition schedule land. It is further admitted that the boundaries of Ac. 1. 38 gts. of land are not given in the petition. It is also stated that no documents are exhibited or filed regarding the identity of the extents purchased by the applicants P-2 to P-7 (respondents/applicants 2 to 7) in the land grabbing case. We have referred to these portions of the evidence not with a view to reappreciate the evidence and substitute the findings for that of the Special Court. We have referred to those relevant portions in evidence in order to highlight that the special Court failed to take the said portions of relevant evidence into consideration in recording its findings.

( 40 ) IT is thus clear that the respondents-applicants miserably failed to establish the identity of the land alleged to have been grabbed by the petitioners herein. In fact there is no allegation of land grabbing. The applicants in law are required to prima facie prove that the land alleged to have been grabbed is a land owned by the applicants and only thereafter a presumption arises that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document