P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THE short, but important question that falls for consideration in this revision petition is, whether the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to try a suit for declaration and recovery of possession of certain land, situated within the urban Agglomeration as defined in Clause n of Section 2 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, in view of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereinafter called as the Act ) when an issue relating to Land Grabbing arises out of pleadings?

( 2 ) THE respondent filed O. S. No. 460 of 1984 on the file of the II Additional judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for deciaration and for possession of the suit land, measuring 3636 Sq. Yards, together with profits againstthe petitioners. The suit was admittedly filed in April, 1984 i. e. , long after Act 12 of 1982 came into force i. e. , on 29-6-1982. The petitioners who are (1) The Government of andhra Pradesh (2) The Collector, Hyderabad District and (3) The Chairman, hyderabad Urban Development Authority, are contesting the suit. The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have filed separate written statements contending that the plaint schedule property as per the Land Record Registers, is recorded as Government land and the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G. O. Ms. No. 1047 dated 8-9-1981 transferring this and some other land for development under the scheme called budda Poornima Project and possession was delivered to the third petitioner on 28-6-1984 by the Tahasildar, Golkonda Taluk after conducting panchanama. The petitioners filed a memo under Section 7-A of the Act stating that as the plaint schedule land belongs to the Government and as the same has been grabbed by the respondent, by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (8) of Section 7-A of the Act, the suit should stand transferred to Special Tribunal on the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) amendment Act, 1987 and therefore, the Court ceased to have jurisdiction. The respondent filed a counter opposing the said memo and contended that the said act has no application and the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to try the suit. However, the lower Court by its order dated 21-12-1989 rejected the memo since it took the view that it is doubtful whether the Act 12 of 1982 has any application to the case and when the respondent is asking for possession of the land, the provisions of the Act have no application to the case and therefore, the suit does not stand transferred to the Special Tribunal. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed this revision petition.

( 3 ) SRI P. M. Gopal Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the Act 12 of 1982 is a special enactment providing for the constitution of special courts for enquiry into the alleged act of Land Grabbing and trial of cases in respect of ownership and title to or lawful possession of the land grabbed. He relied upon Section and (2) of me Act and submitted that any case in respect of the alleged act of land grabbing or the determination of questions of title and ownership to or lawful possession of any land grabbed under the Act shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area and the jurisdiction of the ordinary Civil Courtis by implication excluded. It is also his further submission that under Section 8 (8) of the Act all cases cognizable by the Special Court shall stand transferred to the Special Court having jurisdiction.

( 4 ) SRI M. R. K. Choudary, learned Counsel for the respondent countered these arguments and relying upon the words occuring in Section 7-A (6) "as would have been within the jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal contended that only those suits as would have been within the jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal , alone shall stand transferred and inasmuch as this is a suit for declaration of title and possession, it cannot be transferred from the Civil Court as Civil Court alon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document