THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA Writ Petition No.17199 of 2004 ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

2. This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order of the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad in L.G.A.No.17 of 2003, dt.23.06.2004, confirming the order passed in L.G.O.P.No.755 of 1993 dt.19.02.2003 by the Special Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice, null and void and to declare respondent Nos.2 to 6 as land grabbers.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners originally filed L.G.O.P.No.755 of 1993 claiming land to an extent of 50 square yards out of 12641.40 square yards as having been grabbed by respondent Nos.3 to 6; and that the 2^nd petitioner is the purchaser of the aforesaid property bearing House No.14-4-167 situated at Osmanshahi, Hyderabad, vide document dt.23.03.1993.

4. Both the Special Tribunal in the LGOP as well as the Special Court in LGA had held that since respondent Nos.3 to 6 have set up a rival claim to the subject property, the said respondents cannot be declared as land grabbers in terms of Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, ‘the Act’).

5. The Special Court in LGA had recorded a categorical finding that the respondents have established their ownership and possession over the petition schedule right from 1958 onwards by producing documentary evidence covered by Exs.B.1 to B.104 marked before the Court below.

6. The Special Court by taking note of the aforesaid documents marked, had come to a conclusion that the 1^st respondent cannot be declared as a land grabber within the meaning of the Act and that the rival title set up by the respondents to be true and valid.

7. The said finding of fact recorded by both the Special Tribunal in LGOP and the Special Court in LGA, in the considered view of this Court, cannot be said to be either suffering from any irregularity or illegality for this Court to interfere in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. Further, it is trite law that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot convert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or re-

evaluation of evidence. [see State of A.P. v/s. Prameela Modi, [(2006) 13 SCC 147]].

9. Further, the Apex Court in State of A.P. v/s. P.V.Hanumantha Rao & Another, [(2003) 10 SCC 121] dealing with the scope and interference against the decision of Special Court by the High Court in a Writ Petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, had held as under:

“33. No doubt, it was held that neither in exercise of the power of writ under Article 226 nor in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court will convert itself into a Court of appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence. The power of the High Court in writ jurisdiction to interfere where important evidence has been overlooked and the legal provisions involved are misinterpreted or misapplied has been recognized even in the case of Sawarn Singh v/s. State of Punjab, [(1976) 2 SCC 868: AIR 1976 SC 232] on which strong reliance was placed on behalf of the State. The relevant observations are:

“13. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law.”

10. In the light of the above discussion and the legal position, this Court is of th