(Per V.V.S. Rao, J.)

1. The writ petition is filed assailing the judgment dated 07.02.2000 in L.G.A.Nos.21 and 23 of 1999 of the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (the Act, for brevity), confirming the judgment appealed. Those two cross appeals were filed by the parties to O.P.333 of 1989 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereafter referred to as the primary Tribunal), whereby and whereunder it was held that the second respondent herein is the owner of land admeasuring 600 square yards in plot No.6, survey No.48 situated at Madannapet Village, Hyderabad (hereafter called, the petition schedule property), and further declaring that petitioners herein grabbed the petition schedule land and directing them to pay the value of land as recorded in the basic value register to the extent of the land of the second respondent herein. In this order, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the primary Tribunal.

2. Mohd.Khaiser Mohiuddin was the owner of considerable extent of land in survey No.48 of Madannapet Village. He got the layout approved (Veeraswamy layout) and sold house plots. The petitioner, Nirmala Devi, purchased the petition schedule property under registered sale deed dated 25.11.1965. It appears, Khaiser also sold similar extents to Eshwaraiah on 15.11.1971. Four years thereafter, on 21.03.1976 Eshwaraiah sold 166 square yards to Venkatamma, W/o.Yellaiah, fifth respondent, and 433 square yards on 20.07.1976 to Laxmamma, W/o.Babaiah, eighth respondent. Petitioner filed O.S.No.3385 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for perpetual injunction against respondent Nos.3 and 4, namely, Karim Mohd.Khan and Altunnisa Begum. The suit was later amended as a declaratory suit and was marked as O.S.No.1581 of 1983. In 1987 the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. In the meanwhile, the Act came into force and the petitioner filed O.P.No.333 of 1989 under Section 7-A of the Act before the primary Tribunal seeking the relief of declaration and possession. Yellaiah was shown as first respondent besides four others who are claiming separate interest. After death of Yellaiah his another wife, Jangamma, and children were added as party respondent Nos.6 to 11. The petitioner alleged that in 1982 Yellaiah encroached upon the petition schedule land and raised constructions thereon. The respondents opposed the O.P denying land grabbing and claimed independent interest under the documents referred to hereunder. During the enquiry by the primary Tribunal P.Ws.1 and 2, and R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined. Documentary evidence by way of Exs.A1 to A4 and B1 to B40 were brought on record in addition to Exs.C1 to C3.

3. The primary Tribunal framed as many as six issues including an additional issue. The Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, was appointed as the Commissioner to identify, localize and to note down the physical features of petition schedule property and submit the report. On such survey the report – Ex.C-2 along with sketch -Ex.C3, were submitted and Commissioner was examined as C.W.1. Considering the evidence, the learned primary Tribunal allowed the O.P declaring that the petitioner has title to the property, that respondent Nos.5 and 8 purchased under agreement of sale part of the land which was already sold to the petitioner, and that vendor of the respondents himself had no title to the land. The plea of adverse possession was not accepted. The relief of possession was, however, denied as primary Tribunal thought that awarding value of the land and further equal amount in addition to the actual value would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the O.P was partly allowed by order dated 21.12.1998.

4. The respondents filed LGA No.21 of 1999 and the petitioner filed LGA.No.23 of 1999 seeking the relief of possession. The Special Court framed the points for consideration.