V. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition arises out of an order dated 2-2-1994 in L. G. A. No. 40 of 1993 on the file of the 1st respondent-Special Court constituted under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, (for short, the Special Court ), confirming the order of the 2nd respondent - Special Tribunal - cum - District Judge, Adilabad, constituted under A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, (for short, the Special Tribunal ), dated 2-7-1993 in L. G. O. P. No. 9/89.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are the appellants before the Special Court and the respondents before the Special Tribunal. The respondents approached the Special Tribunal stating that they had purchased the petition schedule property from P. W. 4 under the registered sale deed dt. 12-5-1980 and that the petitioners have grabbed the suit schedule land without any right over the same. It is their case that the petition schedule property viz. , plot No. 87 of 50 x30 , situate at Hamidpura locality of Adilabad town, originally belonged to the Municipality of Adilabad. In 1967 the Municipality assigned the land in favour of one Narayana under Ex. A-5 and one Rajeswar, P. W. 4, purchased the same under Ex. A-3 registered sale deed dt. 17-11-1973 from Narayana. The respondents in turn purchased the property from P. W. 4, Rajeshwar, under sale deed dated 12-5-1980. The petitioners trespassed into the land in 1986, when the respondents were out of the town and raised some constructions. Therefore, the respondents are entitled for a declaration that the plot belongs to them and for possession. The petitioners controverted the case of the respondents asserting that the respondents had no right over the property and that it belongs to Municipality of Adilabad and the petitioners had been in possession of the land in question since 20 years and they had been paying municipal taxes for the plot and they were granted pattas inrespect of the schedule property under Exs. B-1 and B-2 dated 14-12-1990 and 5-2-1992.

( 3 ) ON these leadings several issues were framed by the Special Tribunal. In support of their case the respondents examined P. Ws. 1 to 5 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-5; whereas the petitioners examined R. Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. B-1 and B-2.

( 4 ) UPON consideration of the evidence on record the Special Tribunal accepted the case of the respondents and rejected Exs. B-1 and B-2, filed by the petitioners, as having no evidentiary value inasmuch as they were procured long after the institution of O. P. and therefore they cannot be used for the purpose of substantiating their claim as on the date of the petition. Consequently it was held by the Special Tribunal that the Municipality having assigned the land under Ex. A-5 in favour of Narayana, it had no right to assign the same land in favour of the petitioners. The Special Tribunal held that the respondents are the owners of the scheduled property and the petitioners having been found in possession of the property without any right to the same, are declared as landgrabbers under the Act, and that the respondents were held entitled for vacant possession of the property in question. The petitioners were directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondents for their wrongful possession and enjoyment of the property, u/sec. 7-A (5) of the AP. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, (for short, the Act ).

( 5 ) THE Special Court in appeal, reapprised the entire evidence on record and by giving valid and cogent reasons confirmed the order of the Special Tribunal and dismissed the appeal.

( 6 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no proper plea was raised by the respondents that the land was assigned by the Municipality and that Ex. A-5 assignment deed was not proved. This contention is factually incorrect. P. Ws. 1 and 2 have clearly stated in their evidence that the Municipality assigned the land in favour of Narayana under Ex. A-5 and that Narayana sold the land under a registered sale d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document