Failure to consider a report from authorities does not invalidate a court's ruling if the decision is supported by substantial evidence presented during proceedings.

ORDER :

(T. Vinod Kumar, J.)

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 25-10-2007 passed by the Special Court constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Special Court’) in Land Grabbing Case vide LGC No.72 of 2002.

2. The petitioners herein are respondents in the aforesaid LGC.

3. The respondent herein have filed the subject Land Grabbing Case (LGC) under Section 8 (1) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’) initially against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein as respondents therein. During the pendency of LGC, on the death of 1^st petitioner herein, petitioner Nos.3 to 5 herein were brought on record as Legal Representatives of the deceased 1^st petitioner herein.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents in LGC, Sri Challa Subba Rao, learned Counsel for Sri M.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5, 6, 8 and 9/applicants in LGC and Sri Gade Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.14 to 16/applicants in LGC.

5. On behalf of the petitioners/respondents, it is contended that the Special Court did not follow the procedure prescribed under the Act while taking cognizance of the application filed by the respondents/applicants to declare the petitioners/respondents as land grabbers having grabbed land admeasuring 3010 sq. yards out of Ac.1.81 cents covered by plot Nos.1 to 32 in Sy.No.53 part of Kowkur village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (now Medchal-Malkajgiri District).

6. The petitioners/respondents contend that, the Special Court while taking cognizance of the application filed by respondents/applicants, though had called for report from the Mandal Revenue Officer, did not consider the aforesaid report while deciding the application filed by the respondents/ applicants, and if only the aforesaid report was considered, it would be clear that the respondents could not have been declared as land grabbers under the provisions of the Act.

7. It is the further case of respondents that, the Special Court having called for a report, ought to have taken into consideration the aforesaid report, and non-consideration of the report, has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

8. It is also the further case of petitioners/respondents that, as per Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 (for short ‘the Rules’), though, it is for the Court to call for a report or not, but once report is called, the same is required to be considered as held by a Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Mohd. Siddiq Ali Khan and another etc Vs. Shahsun Finance Ltd. and another , [ 2005(2) ALD 675 ].

9. It is also the case of petitioners/respondents that, since the 1^st petitioner/respondent had denied the execution of agreement of sale or receiving part consideration thereunder, the applicants did not discharge the initial burden cast on them as per Section 10 of the Act, before the burden getting shifted on to the respondents.

10. The petitioners/respondents also contended that the issues have not been properly framed by the Special Court.

11. The petitioners/respondents further contended that since, the respondents/applicants except claiming to have obtained layout from the