RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners herein have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly a writ of certiorari and call for the records on the file of the Special Court under A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, hyderabad, in LGC. SR No. 104/97, dated 30-11-1998 and quash the same and grant consequential relief by directing the Special Court to number the case and dispose of the case on merits.

( 2 ) IT appears from the record that the petitioners-applicants herein claimed to be the owner of the land in dispute which is covered by T. S. No. 1050/1 admeasuring Acs. 10. 3 cents, popularly known as "pithana Dibba" of visakhapatnam. The petitioners further claimed that it is their ancestral property. It is further stated that one P. Sita Rama Swamy. and his brother p. Appala Swamy were entitled to and were in possession of the property in the ratio of 2:1 and the applicants 1 to 7 are the grandsons, granddaughters and daughter-in-law of P. Sita Rama Swamy and applicants 8 and 9 are daughters of P. Appala Swamy. It is further averred by the applicants herein that the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam granted ryotwari patta in favour of late P. Appa Rao, the only son of P. Sita Rama Swamy, in patta No. 921, under Section 11-A of A. P. Estates Abolition Act. On the death of P. Sita Rama swamy, P. Appa Rao, s/o Sita Rama Swamy and Paidamma, the wife of Appala swamy, namely, the mother of applicants 8 and 9 inherited the property in their respective shares. On the death of Paidamma, the applicants 8 and 9 became entitled to her share. It is further stated in the application that the applicants who are the Legal Representatives of Appa Rao and Paidamma inherited the application schedule property and that even during the life time of P,appa Rao, each of the unofficial respondents, who migrated to visakhapatnam in search of employment, took different extents of land agreeing to pay different amount as ground rent for raising a temporary shelter for their stay at Visakhapatnam. It is further averred by the petitioners herein that the petitioners had given different extent of land to the respondents herein only for the purpose of erecting shed for a particular period and after expiry of the lease, the petitioners herein had terminated the lease of the respondents herein by issuing legal notice. In spite of the notice, the unofficial respondents did not vacate the land and, therefore, the petitioners herein were constrained to file an application before the Special Court. It is further averred that the special Court, on hearing both sides, held that it had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case and accordingly the application filed before it was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel Sri A. Suryanarayana Murthy appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners-applicants submitted at the Bar that the respondents herein were granted different extents of land by executing documents of lease and when the lease period was over the petitioners herein terminated the lease of the unofficial respondents by issuing notice and that in spite of notice, they did not vacate the land and, therefore, they are land grabbers and the learned judges of the Special Court established under the provisions of the Andhra pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for short "the Act") ought not to have dismissed the application filed by the petitioners.

( 4 ) IN order to understand and appreciate the legal point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is appropriate to note the definition of land grabber and land grabbing given under Section 2 (d) and (e) of the Act respectively, which read as under: "land grabber" means a person or a group of persons who commits land grabbing and includes any person who

Click Here to Read the rest of this document