SARDAR ALI KHAN, J.

( 1 ) THE 13 petitioners in this case have filed the writ petition for the issue of an appropriate writ declaring Section 10 of A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (Act 12 of 1982 ). hereinafter referred to as "the Act", void and the proceedings in O. P. 191/84 on the file of the Chairman for the tribunal under the Act also void after the coming into force of A. P. Act 16 of 1987.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that a petition dated 10-12-1984 was filed under Section 8 of the Act to direct the petitioners herein to vacate the petition schedule property and for recovery of possession. The said petition was taken on record in the court of the Chairman for the tribunal under A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. The petition was allowed by the Chairman by his judgment, dated 21-12-1987. The allegation against the petitioners herein made in the above said O. P. 191/84 is that they have forcibly entered into the schedule land and erected temporary structures. Respondent No. 2 claims to be the owner of the said land. It is alleged that the petitioners have absolutely no right or interest in the schedule property.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has not laid any stress on the validity of Section 10 of Act 12 of 1982, as amended by Act 16 of 1987, and has, in fact, mentioned that since that Section deals with the question of shifting of the burden of proof on the person, who, prima facie, is a land grabber in the opinion of the Special Court, he has nothing to submit with regard to the validity of that Section.

( 4 ) THE other mam submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are as follows. (a) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the value or the extent of the land is not of a substantial nature to bring it within the definition of Section 2 (cc) of the Act defining "land belonging to a private person. " (b) The Special Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide O. P. 191/84 under the provisions of the Act. (c) The Special Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the guidelines provided under Section 17-B for the interpretation of the Act.

( 5 ) TAKING the first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, viz. , that, the land is of such a small extent that it does not come within the purview of the definition of "land belonging to a private person", as defined in Section 2 (cc) of the Act, it may be stated that the extent of the land in this case is Ac. 0-23 1/2 cents, which comes to 1137. 4 square yards under the occupation of the 13 persons. I am afraid, I do not see any logic in this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners for the simple reason that an extent of 1137. 4 Sq. yards is a fairly vast area of land which cannot be given up by the 2nd respondent- land owner only because it has come in the illegal occupation of 13 persons. Hence, it cannot be said that the value or the extent or the nature of the evil involved is not of substantial nature to bring it with in the definition of section 2 (cc) of the Act.

( 6 ) THE other submission which will have to be considered is with regard to the jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal which has disposed of o. P. No. 191/84. Under Section 2 (1) of the Act (Act 12 of 1982), the term "special Court" has been defined as hereunder, viz. ;"special Court" means a Special Court constituted under Sec. 7, and where no such Special Court is in existence the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area concerned. "o. P. 191/84 was instituted before the Special Court on 10-12-1984 under section 8 of the Act and it came up for final hearing on 20-11-1987 and has been dsposed of by a judgment dated 21-12-1987. It is not in dispute that unptil now no special court, as envisaged under Section 2 (i) of the Act, has been constituted. More over, under Section 2 (i-a) and (i-b ). introduced by Act 16 of 1987, which are deemed to have come into force on 20th february, 1987, "s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document