N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the judgment and decree of the 1st respondent-Special Court passed in l. G. A. No. 44 of 1996 dated 3-3-1997 and to quash the same as illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as follows: the petitioner herein filed L. G. O. P. No. 296 of 1990 on the file of the District judge-cum-Special Court, Land Grabbing, vizianagaram against respondents 3 and 4 to declare that he is the owner of the petition schedule property and to direct the eviction of respondents 3 and 4 and to pay mesne profits of Rs. 3,600. 00 and also for future profits. It was contended by the petitioner here in in the L. G. O. P. that he is the owner of the petition schedule property bearing T. S. No. 2/2 situate in Vizianagaram comprising of the dilapidated building with the site. According the petitioner, he purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 15-7-1982 Ex. A-1 from the legal representatives of one late Abdul Shakur sahib who in turn had purchased the same under a sale deed dated 30-8-1955 Ex. A-5. It is the case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent herein who is the owner of western portion bearing T. S. No. 2 without any lawful right encroached into the portion of the land belonging to him. It is alleged that the 4th respondent at the instance of the 3rd respondent encroached into the eastern portion and raised a wall and increased the original space of their old terrace portion of the building. In spite of repeated protest and demands, respondents 3 and 4 failed to remove the alleged encroachment. Hence the petitioner herein filed the above L. G. O. P. On service of notice respondents 3 and 4 filed their objections. Their case before the Court was that the petitioner has no right over the petition schedule property. According to the 3rd respondent, he is the owner of the property and the 4th respondent is his tenant regularly paying rent to him. It is the case of respondents 3 and 4 that the building is situate in T. S. No. 2/1 which lies east to west 24 metres and north to south 24 metres whereas the petitioner s property lies in T. S. No. 2/2 to the east of T. S. No. 2/1. According to the 3rd respondent, his mother executed ex. B-1 in the year 1973 in his favour. The said area was sub-divided. The 3rd respondent is the original owner and in possession of the property.

( 3 ) IN support of rival contentions, both the parties let in evidence both oral and documentary. On behalf of the petitioner herein, the petitioner himself was examined as P. W. I and two other persons as P. W. 2 and 3 and Exs. A-1 to A-7. Respondents 3 and 4 were examined as R. Ws. l and 2 and two others were examined as R. Ws. 3 and 4 and Exs. B-1 to B-10 were marked on their behalf. During the pendency of the proceedings the Court appointed a commissioner and his report was marked as Ex. C-1. Exs. C-2 and C-3 are the town survey plans and the enlarged plan respectively. After appreciating the evidence, the Court found that the petitioner proved his case that respondents 3 and 4 encroached the land as alleged and allowed the L. G. O. P. filed by the petitioner herein by an order dated 20-9-1996. Aggrieved by the said order, respondents 3 and 4 filed an appeal before the Special court in L. G. A. No. 44 of 1996. The lower appellate Court again considered the entire evidence and by giving reasons allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. Hence this writ petition.

( 4 ) SRI C. Pratap Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the lower appellate Court is arbitrary and illegal. The judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court is not in conformity with Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC as no points were framed. Being an appellate authority, the Special Court should have consider

Click Here to Read the rest of this document