RAMANUJULU NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) SRI T. Bali Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction as, under the andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1982, as it stood prior to its amendment, enquiry into any alleged act of land grabbing could only be done by the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area concerned, in the absence of a "special Court" constituted for the purpose. In other words, he contends that the District Judge of the concerned area having been constituted as persons designate, the impugned order passed by the Additional district Judge is without jurisdiction.

( 2 ) SRI P. LN. Sarma, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that, though reference is made to the expression "the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area concerned", the District Judge acts as a court with all the incidents attached to a Court, and that under Section 11 (2} of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, he can make-over the case in question to the Additional District Judge. Reliance is also placed upon some of the observations made in Public Prosecutor vs. L. Ramayya (1974-2, APLJ, 305 - full Bench ).

( 3 ) THE question raised in the Revision Petition is not only one of general importance but has far-reaching consequences. An authoritative pronouncement of a Division Bench of this Court on the question is, therefore, desirable. ORDER (Order of the Bench Delivered by Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.)

( 4 ) THIS civil revision petition arises out of an order passed under the Andhra pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1982 (hereinafter referred to an "the Act") and is referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court on the ground that the question raised is not only of general importance but has far-reaching consequences and an authoritative pronouncement of a Division Bench would be desirable.

( 5 ) THE facts which gave rise to this civil revision petition may briefly be stated as follows:- The respondents herein filed land grabbing O. P. No. 335 of 1983 in the Court of the District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam, stating Inter alia that the petition A-Schedule lands were purchased by Mahaboob Ali baig Saheb, a resident of Vijayawada, from Chimta Purachandra Rao of gudivada, under a registered sale-deed dated 7-11-1940. The said lands were sold to Abdul Karim Saheb, a resident of Nambur, Guntur District under a registered sale-deed dated 11-1-1943. this is however specified in the petition B-Schedule. After the death of Abdul Karim Saheb, his legal heirs partitioned the B-Schedule lands under a registered partition deed dated 21-9-1968. The 1st petitioner in the above O. P. is the eldest son of the said abdul Karim Saheb and he got an extent of Ac. 2-98 Cents which is described in the petition C-Schedule. It is stated that from the date of the partition he has been is possession and enjoyment of the said land by raising crops and paying cist to the Government. He was also issued Patta Certificate. From out of the said land the 1st petitioner gifted the lands specified in Schedules d to J to his children and grand-children who are petitioners 3 to 9, under registered gift deeds. The 2nd petitioner is the alienee of the land from the 1st petitioner, which is described in the K-Schedule. A part of the land was also acquired by the Government and an award was passed in favour of the petitioner. All the petition schedule lands were leased out to one Saluku satyanarayana. It is stated that on 19-4-1981 some persons trespassed into the land of the 2nd petitioner and raised huts illegally and squatted on the land. The matter was reported to the Collector, Krishna, by application dated 21-4-1981 with copies to different authorities. An application under section 145, Cr. P. C was also filed before the Taluk Magistrate (Executive), vijayawada. By order dated 25-5-1981 in M. C. 61 of 1981 the Magistrate held that the respondents t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document