THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION No. 29943 of 2012 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T. Vinod Kumar This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated

25.06.2012 in L.G.O.P No.138 of 2010 passed by the Special Tribunal Cum Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short, ‘Special Tribunal’) under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘Act’).

2. The petitioner herein is the respondent before the Special Tribunal in the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 herein as applicant under the Act vide L.G.O.P No.138 of 2010, seeking a direction against the petitioner herein to deliver vacant possession of the subject property.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that, respondent No.2/applicant filed the underlying L.G.O.P before the Special tribunal alleging that writ petitioner herein (respondent before the Special Tribunal) has grabbed land to an extent of 225 square yards being plot No.2 in Sy.No.54 located at Chilakanagar, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’).

4. The respondent No.2/applicant contended that he is the absolute owner of the subject property, inasmuch as had purchased the subject property vide registered sale deed dated 04.01.1993 from G. Panduranga Rao, who in turn had purchased the same vide a registered sale deed dated. 25.03.1968 from One Annapu Eashwar Reddy.

5. The respondent No.2/applicant contended that in his absence, the writ petitioner herein without any right, title or interest unlawfully occupied the subject property, constructed a compound wall, and erected a temporary shed. In December 2008, the respondent No.2 approached the revenue authorities to take action against the writ petitioner. However, as no action has been taken, the land grabbing case was filed against the writ petitioner herein.

6. The writ petitioner herein filed counter before the Special Tribunal denying the allegations made by the respondent No.2 herein and contended that he never encroached the land of the respondent No.2, which is alleged to be situated in Plot No. 2 in Sy.No.54. The petitioner further contended that he had purchased an open plot of land admeasuring 200 square yards being Plot No. 95 in Sy. no. 54, located at Chilakanagar, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District, vide registered sale deed dated 13.12.2007 from one Sakku Bai: who in turn purchased the same from Momeen Bee vide a registered sale deed dated 07.07.1993, acting as a General Power of Attorney holder of one Bal Reddy and others who had executed a General Power of Attorney dated.

17.12.1991 in her favor.

7. The petitioner herein further contended that on purchasing the open plot bearing No. 95, had constructed a house bearing No. 2-20-6/12 after obtaining permission and is in possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption and therefore, he could not be called as land grabber, since he is a bona fide purchaser of the property and prayed to dismiss the LGC.

8. Basing on the above pleadings, the Special Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:

(1) Whether the petitioner is owner and possessor of the petition schedule property?

(2) Whether the respondents are the land grabbers of the petition schedule property?

(3) To what relief?

9. To substantiate the claim before the Special Tribunal, the respondent No.2 got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Ex. A1 is a certified copy of a registered sale deed dated 25.03.1968, through which Panduranga Rao had acquired the suit plot. Ex. A2 is the registered sale deed dated 04.01.1993, through which the respondent No.2 purchased the plot from Panduranga Rao. Exs. A3 and A4 are encumbrance certificates confirming the purchase of respondent No.2.

10. On behalf of the respondents, the writ petitioner herein was examined as RW.1 and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. The Certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 13.12.2007 marked as Ex. B1, through which he purc