THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION No.623 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated

09.11.2010 in LGC No.11 of 2004 passed by the Special Court at Hyderabad under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1882.

2. The L.G.C. No.11 of 2004 is filed by respondent Nos.2 to 8 herein claiming that the petitioner/respondent herein has grabbed their land in Sy. No.200 of Moosapet village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to an extent of 3000 square yards.

3. On the Special Court taking cognizance and issuing notice, the petitioner/respondent filed his counter claiming that he is the owner of land in Sy. No.199 to an extent of Ac.1.21 gts. out of Ac.6.05 gts. and that he has not grabbed/claimed any part of land of the respondents/applicants.

4. The Special Court by considering the application filed by respondents/applicants and the counter filed by the petitioner/respondent had framed the following issues:

i. Whether the applicants are the owners of the application schedule property?

ii. Whether the rival title set up by respondent is true, valid and binding on the applicants?

iii. Whether the respondent is a land grabber within the meaning of Section 2(d) and € of the Act XII of 1982?

iv. To what relief?

5. On the Tribunal framing the aforesaid issues, the respondents/applicants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A- 1 to A-16 on their behalf. On behalf of the petitioner/respondent he had examined himself as R.W-1 and no documents are marked.

6. On behalf of the Court, K. Muralidhara Rao, S/o Narasimha Rao, Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy has been examined as C.W-1, Sri Y. Srinivas Reddy, Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records has been examined as C.W-2 and had marked Exs.C-1 to C-10 on behalf of the Court.

7. On behalf of respondents/applicants before the Special Court, it had been contended that they are the owners and possessors of land to an extent of Ac.45.17 gts in different survey numbers; that they are in possession of land to an extent of Ac.5.28 gts. in Sy. No.200, in which Ac.0.12 gts. was acquired by the Government for IDPL.

8. Before the Special Court, the respondents/applicants had claimed that the petitioner/respondent illegally encroached 3000 square yards of land in Sy. No.200 and also constructed compound wall and is making illegal constructions in the said land grabbed by him.

9. The respondents/applicants further contended that in the earlier Land Grabbing Case filed by the father of applicants vide LGC Nos.129 of 1995 and 4 of 1996, the Special Court vide common judgment and decree dated 19.10.2001 had declared that the respondent or his relatives have land only to an extent of Ac.1.21 gts. in Sy. No.199 and does not have right or title in respect of the land in Sy. No.200.

10. The respondents/applicants further contended before the Special Court that since the petitioner/respondent had grabbed their land to an extent of 3000 square yards, he comes within the purview of the land grabber as defined under Section 2(d) and 2(e) of the Act and to direct eviction of the petitioner/respondent from the encroached portion and demolition of the unauthorized structures raised therein with delivery of vacant possession and Award of cost and damages.

11. On behalf of the petitioner/respondent it is contended before the Special Court that he is in possession of land to an extent of Ac.1.21 gts. in Sy. No.199 which is lawfully owned by him and is making construction within the said extent only.

12. On behalf of the petitioner/respondent, it is contended that the respondents/applicants have filed the underlying LGC with a malafide intention to harass him and wrongfully dispossess from his property.

13. The Special Court by considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents/applicants and the petitioner/respondent, had issued warrant of commission to Assistant Director, Sur