High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or orders one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declarlng the order passed in LGA.17l2O03 on the file of Special Court under the Land Grabbing Prohibition Act confirming the order passed in Op 755/93 on the file of Special Tribunal Cum Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad as bad, I illegal, arbitrary, u n r;o nstitutional against the principal of naturar . ustice, null and void and further declare the respondent No.2 to 6 as Land Grabberrs. Counsel for th,s Petitioner: SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR Counsel for th,: ResFrondent No..l: Gp FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for thr: Resprondent No.2 & 3: SRI S.JAGADISH The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BIE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA Writ Petition No.U199 of 2OO4 ORDER: (per Uonble Sri lustice 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 opt of 12641.40 square yards as having been grabbed by respondent Nos.3 to 6; and that the 2nd petitioner is the purchaser of the aforesaid propety bearing House No.14-4-167 situated at Osmanshahi, Hyderabad, r{/e document dt.23.03. 1993. l I I I t 2

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 clair to the subject property, the said respondents cannot be declared as; larrrl grabbers in terms of Section 8 of the Andhr;r Pradesh Land Grabbing iiProhibition) Act, 1982 (for short, 'the Act').

5. Tle Spr:r:ial Court in LGA had recorded a categorical flnding that the respondent:; have established their ownership and possession over the petition s;chedule right from 1958 onwards by ;rroducing documentary oridence covered by Exs.B.1 to 8.104 marked before the Court below.

6. Tl'e Spr-.,:ial Court by taking note of the aforesaid documents marked, had cc,me to a conclusion that the 1$ 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 Tlibunal in LGOP anl the Special Cout in LGA, in the considered vielv of this Cout, cannot be said to be either suffering from any irregr.tlarity or illegality lbr this Court to interfere in exercise of power conferred under Afticle 226 of the Constitution of India. I I I 3

8. Fufther, 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. lsee State of A'P' v/s' Prameela Mod/\

9. Further, the Apex Court in State of A'P' v'/s' P.V.Hanumantha Rao & Anothel 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 jurisdictlon under Nticle 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 Punjaf 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 findinq, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally ' (zoos) r: scc uz '(zoo:) ro scc rzr t lrszol z scc aoa, alR 1976 sc 232 4 inadrnissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence*ot if the linding 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 posilion, this Court is oF the '/ ew that the Writ Petition is devoid of merit.

11. Acr:ordingly, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellanr:ous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order, No order as to costs. /ITRUE GOPY// SD,'.T. JAYASREE AS,S ISTAI.IT REGISTRAR i,-j SECTION OFFICER To,

1. OneCC o SRI SURESH SHIVSAGAR, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC'o SRI S.JAGADISH, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR ASSIGNMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OIJT]

4. Two CD ,lopies BSR t/A _ LS 1r' .'-.,.2::=:=__ . , - ! . ::::i:-.j::::3mrc.r-._ ryG-.,,...:_,i _. :.:.r'1r I HIGH COURT DATED: 0ei10312025 ORDER WP.No.17199 of 2004 HE:)I ?r- ( 02 \Pi ( J \ t DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT ISOSTS