V.V.S. Rao, J.

The State of Andhra Pradesh through its District Collector, Ranga Reddy District invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the order of the Special Court constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (the Act). By the said impugned order dated 24.6.2011 made in I.A.No.356 of 2011 in LGC No.40 of 2003 the Special Court rejected permission for amendment of the pleadings in concise statement filed in LGC. As per Section 8(1) of the Act and the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 (the Rules), every applicant including the State alleging land grabbing by others has to submit the case in Form No.1, Column-15 that requires the applicant to file concise statement of the claims. Be it also noted, if the Special Court finds prima facie case of land grabbing as defined, it has to take cognizance of the LGC and direct publication of the cognizance in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette in Form-II A as required under the proviso to Section 8(6) of the Act and Rule 7 of the Rules. Further, Section 8 (3) of the Act makes the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.PC) applicable to the proceedings before the Special Court.

Government case

In the affidavit accompanying the I.A., for amendment, the petitioner pleaded that the application schedule land in LGC (Acs.56.20 guntas in S.Nos.10/1 and 10/2 – Old S.No.11 – Plot No.104) situated at Habsiguda Village of Uppal Mandal in Ranga Reddy District (hereafter, the schedule land) was originally maktha land of Jainuddin. Hyderabad Government acquired the land for establishment of Osmania University (OU). Nizam gave grant (inam) to Jainuddin. After death of Jainuddin in 1346 Fasli, Nizam did not issue fresh grant. But one Habibuddin trespassed into the land. He sold the land and the respondents are claiming the property through those sale deeds. The trespasser was evicted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (the LE Act) and the same was also notified. Habibuddin died on 30.12.1967 and after his death his alienees have no right over the property. To support this claim of the Government, an amendment was sought to the effect that Jainuddin was makthedar; after his death regrant was not made by the Ruler and consequently the property reverted and vested in the Government. They contended that the amendment does not in any manner change the cause of action or nature of the LGC nor prejudices the respondents.

Case of the respondents

Dr.V.RajeshwaraRao (respondent No.26 herein) filed main counter affidavit revealing the case as summed up in the next paragraph. Some of the respondents filed a common counter and the remaining respondents adopted the same.

The application for amendment is not maintainable. The application schedule lands are not maktha lands. These lands were not acquired for establishment of OU. The allegation that Habibuddin nor his alienees have no right or claim is denied. In 1956 OU – respondent No.36 herein – filed O.S.No.1 of 1956 for recovery of possession and the suit was dismissed. Appeal being CCCA No.61 of 1959 was preferred before this Court. It was also dismissed. Thereafter the Government initiated the proceedings under the LE Act. The same was challenged in writ proceedings. The High Court allowed the same on 30.6.1977 taking the view that the summary LE proceedings are not permissible. The Government filed Civil Appeals in the Supreme Court. By judgment dated 16.3.1982 in Government of A.P. v Tummala Krishnarao (1982) 2 SCC 134 : AIR 1982 SC 1081) the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals. The Government then filed O.S. No.36 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy for declaration and possession of the application schedule properties. The suit was filed alleging that the Government acquired the lands from late Jainuddin who was the pattadar of t