Only aggrieved parties with a legitimate interest in the property can file applications under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982; third parties lack standing.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an appropriate writ, Order or direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in L.G.C. Sr.No.2687/2012 and be pleased to quash and set aside the order of rejection of L.G.C.Sr.No.2687/2012 dated.12.12.2014 passed by the Hon’ble Special Court constituted under the A.P.L.G.(P) Act, 1982 and consequently, be pleased to direct the Hon’ble Special Court to take cognizance of L.G.C.Sr.No.2687/2012 and adjudicate upon the same as per the procedure prescribed by law and be pleased to pass such further or other order as this Hon’ble Cout may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.1, Sri Shyam S. Agarwal, learned counsel representing Sri G.Dhananjai, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 7, and perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they had instituted a land grabbing case vide LGC.SR.No.2687 of 2012 on the file of the Special Court constituted under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’) inter alia asserting that the respondent Nos.2 to 10 have grabbed the land to an extent of 1,220 sq. yards out of 1,550 sq. yards belonging to the Government by fraudulently obtaining a decree and judgment, dt.21.03.2000 in OS.No.249 of 1994; that in order to secure the aforesaid land back to the government, they had instituted the underlying LGC before the Special Court as being ‘any person’ entitled to maintain a petition under Section 8(1) of the Act to declare the unofficial respondents herein as land grabbers and to restore the land back to the Government; that the Special Court without considering the scope and ambit of the Act and without even considering that any decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court would be null and void, had rejected the underlying LGC at SR stage itself without even taking the same on record by holding the subject petition as prima facie frivolous and vexatious, which finding of the Special Court it is contended as wholly unsustainable.

4. Petitioners further contend that the Special Tribunal also erred in holding that the Government having suffered an adverse order in respect of the subject land in OS.No.240 of 1994, the present petition filed by the petitioners herein would not be maintainable, as the same is hit by the principle of res judicata, without appreciating that the said principle of res judicata cannot be applied at the stage of taking cognizance of the application by the Special Court.

5. It is also the further case of the petitioners that they are not claiming existence of any inter se disputes in respect of the subject land, for him to maintain the present LGC filed by them, but is only seeking to declare the respondents as land grabbers and to restore the land back to the Government.

6. Petitioners further contend that insofar as the land being claimed by the unofficial respondents on the strength of the judgment and decree obtained fraudulently in OS.No.249 of 1994, the same is located elsewhere as the boundaries of the suit schedule property does not match with the boundaries of the land in their occupation and the unofficial respondents, by using the aforesaid judgment and decree obtained fraudulently are seeking to encroach on to the government land in possession of the petitioners, which has been regularized in their favour in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166, dt.16.02.2008.

7. Petitioners in support of their claim that the underlying LGC as filed by them is maintainable being covered by Section 8(1) of the Act, have relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.S.Nayak v. A.R.Antulay1, AIR 1984 SC 684

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents by dra