N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.

( 1 ) ALL the writ petitions have been filed to quash the judgment and decree dated 4-9-1995 passed in L. G. C. No. 137/89 on the file of the Special Court under A. P. Land grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad (for short the special Court )

( 2 ) W. P-NO. 23232/95 is filed by the A. P. Housing Board (Respondent No. 22 in lgc ). W. P. No. 22580/95 is filed by one p. Abraham (Respondent No. 4 in lgc ). W. P. No. 8797/96 is filed by r. Hemalatha, G. Venkateswarlu and smt. D. Venkayamma (Respondents 34 to 36 in LGC) and W. P. No. 9565/96 is filed by all the 4 applicants in LGC.

( 3 ) SINCE all the writ petitions arise out of same judgment and the point involved is one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by a common order.

( 4 ) FOR purpose of convenience the parties are referred as arrayed before the Special court.

( 5 ) A few facts which are necessary to dispose of these writ petitions are as follows: Applicants 1 to 3 are the sons and Applicant No. 4 is the wife of late farhatulla. Late Farhatulla owned an extent of Ac. 45. 00 in S. Nos. 45 to 48 of yousufguda village in the limits of golkonda Mandal. The said extent was acquired by the Government for the beneficiary, namely the A. P. Housing board, but the authorities could take possession of Ac. 43. 00 leaving Ac. 2. 00 as it was occupied by the hut dwellers. Award was passed and compensation was paid in respect of the land taken possession of and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in respect of ac. 2. 00 was deposited in the Treasury with a view to pay the same to the hut dwellers after their eviction. The said Ac. 2. 00 is the subject matter of the land grabbing case.

( 6 ) IT is the case of the applicants when they approached the Municipal corporation of Hyderabad with a request to sub-divide Ac. 2. 00 land and approve the layout, the Corporation directed them to obtain No Objection Certificate from the housing Board as it was covered by an award. Aggrieved by this the applicants filed W. P. NO. 4194/88 seeking a direction to direct the Corporation to approve the layout without insisting for No Objection certificate which was allowed on 8-12-1988. While so the respondents except R-22, who are organized land grabbers started infiltrating into the land and raised unauthorised structures. It is the further case of the applicants that A. P. Housing board (R-22) has no right in the petition schedule land. It had put up a fencing around a portion of the schedule land and when they were planning for initiating civil proceedings against the Housing Board, it got impleaded in the LGC. As such the housing Board is also liable to vacate the said portion and the structures to be removed.

( 7 ) THE case of the respondents 1 to 3 in their counter is that the petition schedule land has been in possession of their forefathers and under their cultivation since times immemorial. In fact their long possession over the schedule land was also recognized by the Land Acquisition Officer in his proceedings stating that huts were in existence since 45 years. As such, they have perfected their title by adverse possession. They filed O. S. No. 1550/85 on the file of the iv Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad and obtained interim injunction against the applicants from interfering with their possession. They have applied for layout to the Corporation and constructed house in the schedule land. At the time of construction when the Corporation authorities raised objections, they filed w. P. NO. 29886/86 and obtained stay. Many dwellers in the schedule land were paying land revenue. Even late Farhatulla and the 1st applicant herein admitted in other proceedings that they had no title deeds in respect of the schedule land. Since these respondents and their predecessors-in-tile have perfected title by way of adverse possession over the schedule land they cannot be termed as land grabber.

( 8 ) THE case of 4th respondent is to the effect that Raja. Lakshmana Rao, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document