1. N.S.Uday Kumar v. Special Court for Cases Under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition

suspend the operation and effect of the judgment dated 11-B-2OO4 in L.G.C No.124 of 1996 of the 'l st respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition and grant such other relief as it deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the Petitioner to file the copy ot G.O.tvls.No. 1047, M.A. Housing, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department dt.08/09/1981 as additional material paper in W.P.No.15931 of 2004. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 : GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SMT.D.MADHAVI, SC FOR HMDA The Court made the following: ORDER THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA WP. No. 15931 of 2OO4 ORDER (per Hon'bte Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumqr) This Writ Petition is filed feeling aggrieved by the order' dt- 11 08 2004' in LGC.No.124 of 1996 passed by the Special Court under AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short'the ActJ at Hyderabad'

2. The petitioners herern are the respondents in the LGC before the Special Court.

3. The rcspondent Nos 2 & 3 herein have hled the underlying LGC before theSpecialCourtclaimingthatthepetitionershereinhavegrabbedlandtoan extentof416osq'mtrsi.nTS.No.S/PofKhairatabadVilllage,Golkonda Mandal, Hyderabad District. Bricf facts of the case as stated in LGC : The 2"d respondent herein had frled application under section 8(1) of 4. the Act, claiming that the application schedule property viz',4160 sq' mtrs ' of land in TS.No.S/ P of Kha-rratabad Village forms part of Revenue Survey No.9 of Hussainsagar ald is a government }ald' It is the case of the 2"d respondent/ applicant before the Special Court 5. that Kharatabad Village was a SarfekJ-ras Village i e', Private Estate of Nizam' but the cntire property vcsted with the Diwani by virtue of Sarfekhas Merger Regulation 1358 Fasli in the year 1949, free from all encumbrances' 2

6. It is also the further case of the 2"d respondent/ applicant that the schedule property was handed over t<t the Hyderabacl Urban Development Authority (HUDA) by the State Government ujde GO.Ms.No.1O47, M.A. Housing, Municipal Administration & Llrbarr Development, dt.0g.09.1991 for the purpose of malagement and der.elopment of the sarne as ar1 agent to Government

7. TLe 2-d respondent/applicant further claimed that the entire village was surveyed during the Nizam regime in accordalce with the provisions of Hyderabad Lald Revenue Act, r3r7 Fasli and the same became final a-nd the entries made in the revenue records were also corrected on the orders of the Collector, Hyderabad, dt.05. 10. 1959.

8. The 2"d N.B. Satyanarayana, respondent/applicant further claimed that one the father of the 1"r petiLioner herein/ l"t respondent before the Special Court, who dicd on O1.01. i996 claimed the application schedule property as part of Naimatultah Shah Makta and to be a lessee of one of Makta viz.. Mohcl_Ospal, who clatmed the subject lald as having been given in Inarn.

9. The 2"d respondent/ applicant further ciaimed that neither Mohd.Osman nor his predecessors in interest have any legal right or title or interest in the property as tirere was no re grant by Nizam and tJ e application schedule property is a tank bed.

10. The 2"d respondent/applicanl. further pleaded that the N.B.Saya,arayana, claiming to be a leaseholder for 75 years, frled a civil suit for Perpetual Injunction on the basis of his unauthorized a, ,legar possession vide OS.No.3766 of 199O on the file of the IV Assistant Judge' City Civil Court' Hyderabad, and obtained a77 ex-parte decree on 09'08'1991 and the sarne ls pending on the date of presentation of the present application' which was set aside subsequentlY

11.The2^drespondent/applicantfurtherclaimedthatneither N. B. Satyanaraya or his lega1 heirs are in authorized possession of the subject land and they are continuing to be in illegal occupation of the application schedule property without vacating it and also trying to change the nature alrd character of thc property, ald thus, are to be declared as larrd grabbers and are liable to be evicted from the application schedule property'

12. On the Special Court taking cognzance of the aforesald apPlication frled by the 2'd respondent/ appiicant ald issuing notice' the 1st petitloner the application frled counter resisting the sard herein/ l"t resPondent in appli.caLion. petitioner/ 1"1 respondent while denying the application 13. The l averments, claimed that the application schedule property forms part of Sy.No.9/2 of Khairatabad Village, and was registered a Dastgardha Inam held by Mohd.Osman and 8 others in the revenue records of Khairatabad village; that the father of the l't petitioner/ l"t respondent obtained a permanent lease under registered lease deed bearing document No'1739/1996' dt 13'07'1966 from Motrd.osmal of an extent of 4160 sq. mtrs in Sy'No 9/2 and since then his father is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the sarne; that he also constructed a compound wali torvards the frontage of tJle schedule property after obtaining due permission from MCH uide permit' dt 22'05 1969; that in the year 1980, they also applied to tJ..e municipal authoriLies for constmction ' 4 of a building in a portion of the property; that the MCH after satis$,ing the title of the father of the respondenl. accorded sanction uide permit dt.24.O4.79aO; and that the t"t petrtioner/ 1st respondent,s father constructed a building and is running a school in the name and style of .,Santosh Memorial public School" since about 19g1. developed initially is also contended that the aforesard

14. On behatf of the I"t petitioner/ I.t respondent it was contended that aJter the demise of his father, Sri N.B.Satyanarayana, the 1"t petitioner/ lst respondent is looking after the management of the said school a,d the vacant land ofthe schedule property is being used as a playground for the school. 15. By the counter afhdavit it application schedule property was by his father and thereafter by him by investing huge amounts, artd the sarre was done to the knowledge of the applicant, who recognized them as owners by collecting property tax, non-agricultural tax in respect of the applicaLion schedule property; and that in order to usurp the application schedule property, the 2nd respondent/ applicant have corrected the entries in revenue records showrng the schedule lald as govemment land under the guise of the orders of the Collector, ald no notice of the proceeding has been given to their predecessors in title' and as such ttrey are not bouna by the said orders, as the same are unilateral and brought into existence behind the back o1.the landl0rds of the application scheclule property.

16. By t]le counter alhdavit, the 1$ petitioner/ l"t respondent has also claimed that since, their predecessors in tifle a,,d the ."t petitioner,s father have been in continuous, open and peaceful possession ald enjoyrnent of the application schedule property as owners thereof for more than statutory 5 period of 3O years, they have perfected their tifle to the application schedule property by adverse possession and the applicalts never questioned their possession at any point of time and thus, sought for dismissal of the application.

17. The Special Court by considering the application hled and the stand taken by the petitioners/ respondents in the counter, had framed the following issues for enquiry:

1. Whether the schedule land? applicant/State is the owner of the application

2. Whether the respondcnts or any of them acquire title to the schedule land by adverse possession?

3. Whether any of the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of AP Act XII of 1982?

4. To what relieP

18. To substantiate ttre claim, tJle respondents/applicants examined Mandal Revenue Ofhcer(MRO) as PWl, and Mohd Sujdullah Ghori, Mandal Surveyor as PW2 a;rd Ex.A1 to AIO were marked in support of their case. On behalf of the writ petitioner/ respondent, lst petitioner/ lst respondent was examined as RW1, one Dhanam Vittal Rao a;rd M. Rarni Reddy, the neigbouring plot owners, were exarnined as RW2 and RW3 respectively, and on behalf of the respondents, Ex.B I to 829 were marked.

19. The Special Court further marked copy of the judgment of the High Court in CCCA.Nos.132 /1979, 2O911981, and 5411985 as Ex.Al1 for convenience sake.

20. The Special Court by considering the evidence let in by each of t1 e parties and the documents marked and also the judgment of the High Court 6 in CCCA No.54/ 1985 marked as Ex.A11 had held t1at the application schedule land is to be confined to arr extent of 1390 sq. mts. on1y, and not 4160 sq. mts as claimed by the 2"d respondent/ applicant; that as per the judgment under trx.Al1, as it is declared that the Electricity Department is the owner of the application schedule lald being' in their occupation for construction of power house since 1909, and also having constructed number of buildings therein to the knowleclge of the plaintiffs in the suit uide OS.No.38/ 1969, against which the aforesaid CCCA is filed, the claim of the petitioner/ respondent under Ex.Bl of they being the lease holders of the applicatron schedule land is not sustainable, since, by thc judgment of the High Court in CCCA No. i32 of 1979, rhe lessor of the respondent was hcld as having no right, title or interest over the application schedule lald for the petitioner/ respondent to claim of having acquired arly right, title or interest over the application schedule land.

27. The Special Court further held the plea of adversc possession taken by the petitioner/respondent would not be available, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Karnatakd. Board. Wakf o- Got)er-nment of India 6L Otherst as possession without legal right still constitutes lald grabbing

22. The Special Court further held that the 3.a respondettl2od applicant - HUDA cannot seek eviction of the respondent as it is not a title holder of the lalrd and it cannot acquire any right to t}le application schedule property, as the G.O., under which the 3d respondent hereir, f 2"d applicant is claiming of '1zoo+1 ro scc zzs 7 the possession of the application schedule land having been handed over to them, has not been produced before the Court'

23. The Special Court further noted that Ex'Al1 judgment was pronounced by the High Court on 12.O4.2OO4, alrd when t1'e case is pending before the High Court and rs subjudice, the action of the 2"d respondent/ 1'! applicant in issuing any G.O. cannot claim that the same as having been acted upon'

24. The Special Court having held as above in respect of issue No'1 and 2 framed above, further declared the petitioners herein/ respondents being in possession of the application schedule land to arr extent of 1390 sq mts ' wlthout any legal entitlement and therefore, held the petitioners/respondents asiarrdgrabberswrthinthcmeaningofActXlloflgs2anddirectedthe petitioners/ respondents to vacate the application schedule lald within two months from the date of the order, else the Reverure Division OIIicer was directedtoevicttherespondentsfromtheapplicationschedule}aldarrdhand over vacant possession of the same to the applicant/State within a period of two months after the expiry oi the period of two months fixed above and submit comphance report to the Special Court as per Rule f 5(2) of the Rules framed under the Act

25. Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings recorded by the Special Court in declaring the petitioners as land grabbers and being liab1e to be evicted from the land to an extent of 1390 sq. mts, the present Writ Petition is fi1ed'

26. Heard Sri Vedula Venkatarama, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the 2"4 respondent, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3.d respondent, and perused the record Submissions made before this Court: 27 . On behali of the petitioners it is vehemently-contended that since, the respondents herein having filed application before the Special Court claiming the petitioners having grabbed land to an extent of 416O sq. mts., and the Special court having found that the lald in possession of the petitioners to be only 1390 sq. mts., the claim as made try the respondents hcrein before the Special Court could not have been proceeded with, since, the responclents did not take afly steps to amend its prayer on noticing thc variation in the extent in the application.

28. On behalf of the petitioners, it is further contended that since, the respondent while hling the application before tlle Special Court having given specihc bounclaries of the land of 4160 sq. mts., a,,d the Spcciat Court hawing found the extent of the said applicatron is to be restricted to only 1390 sq. mts., the boundaries, which are shown the in the application would stand altered and in absence of the boundaries of the reduced extent of land as determined by Special Court not being vcrihabie, the petitioners / respondents cannot be declared as land grabbers since, the person alleging himself to be owner of the land arld the said land being grabbed by the persons named in the application, has to discharge initial burden cast on them for the respondents to show that they have not grabbed the said lald 9

29. On behalf of the petitroners it is contended that since ' the father of the 1"t petiLioner had entered into lease agreement for a period of 75 years under registered lease agreement with Mohd'Osmal, dt I3'07' 1966 w'e'f' 01.01.1966, the petitioners cannot be declared as land grabbers'

30. On behalf of the petitioners it is further conten"ded that Ex'Al1 i'e'' the judgment of this Court in CCCA on which much reliance is placed by the Special Court to hold that the entire land in SyNo'9/2 to 9/15 belongs to Electricity Board, is due to misreading of the order of the Civil Court' as the saidCourthadonlydecreedthesuitinfavouroftheplalntiffsinoS.No.3Sof 1969 only to an extent of land in Sy'No.9/3 and not in respect of the lands in other sub-divided survey numbers and the 2"d respondent/ state being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the trial Court having frled appeals rzde CCCA Nos.132 of 1979,2O9 of 1987 and 54 of 1985 cannot claim that the said order would be applicable in respect of all lands, which were claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit.

31. On behalf of the petitioners i.t is also contended that since, inams were abolished under Inams Abolition Act, the Inam Holder was recognized as owner of the said land arld thus, Mohd.Osman, the lessor of the petitioners' was entitled to possess the land held by him as Inam, ald out of the said extent of land, land to an extent of 4160 sq' mts', has becn leased out to the lsr petitioner's father under registered lease deed dt 13'O7' 1966, and thus, the provisions of the Act do not stand attracted, much less the petitioners cal be declared as land grabbers in terms of section 2(e) of the Act'

32.Onbehalfofthepetitionersitisfurthercontendedthatsince,the petitioners were put in possession of tlle subject land by N{ohd'Osman, long I ! 10 back, under a rcgistered lease deed executed on 13.07.1966, the respondent calnot allege of the petitioners grabbing their lald without aly legal entitiement, and the respondent in order to claim the petitioners to be declared as lald grabbers are required to allege ald prove the act of grabbing.

33. It is also contended by the petitioners that since, the application fi1ed by the respondent herein under seclion g(r) of the Act is not in accorda,ce with the provisions of the Act, the Special Court ought to have rejected the said application under Section g(2) of the Act, and instead the Special court proceeded to deal with the application by holding that the respondent/ applicant as having dischzrrged the burden cast on them in terms of SecLion 1O of thc Act and the peLitioners/respondents herein having failed to show that they are not the grabbers ofthe said land, and accordingly, held that the petitioners/respondents to be lald grabbers.

34. It is further contended that since, the judgment of this Court in CCCA.Nos.132 / 1929, 2O9 / 1981, and 54 / lgBS is between different parties, the same is no1 admissible and thus, the reliance placed by the Special Court in adjudicating the underlying application is a wrong approach and is fallacious. 35 Further on behalf of ttre petitioners it is contended that the Speciar court having noted that the application schedure la.d alreged to be grabbed by the petitioners herein is to be restricted only to 1390 sq. mts., the Court ought not have decrared the petitioners as rand grabbers a,d ought to have relegated the parties to estabrish their craim before competent court of civil jurisdiction. LI

36. In support of the aforesaid submission, on behalf of the petitioners' relialce is placed on the follorring decisions: i). Mohd Siddiq AIi Kho;rt & Others u' Sha'hsun Ilinance Ltd" Chennai & Anothera ii) Om Praklzsh Singh as M.Lingamaiah & Ors3 iii) TIE Staite oJ Bihar & Ors. Vs. Ro.dha Krishnrr Singh & Ors'4

37. Per contra,learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 2"4 respondent by drawing attention of this Court to the order in CCCA'No' 132 of 1979, wouid contend that a Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision had held that the land in sy.No.g 12 to g /Is though originally v/as subdivided, such subdivision was calcelled and the entire land was given one number i.e., Survey No.9 and was held to be in the possession of the Electncity Board, since 19O9, for setting up of power house therein, which had made various constructions therein, and petitioners/ respondents calnot claim of the subject land having been thus' obtarned by them under permarent lease of 75 years from Mohd'Osman' who himself had lost claim to the subject land in OS'No 38 of 1969, wherein he was arrayed as Sft defendant and also having failed to assail the findings recorded by t1'e trial Court and also by the High Court in CCCA'

38. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since, the petitioners are clairning title to the subject property from Mohd.Osman by way of a lease deed/Ex.Bl and said Mohd.osmal himself having lost his claim to ttre subject lald, the petitioners cannot maintain their claim of having valid right, ' zooslzl aro ozs 1ra1 ' (zoos) rz scc or: o nro tg83 sc 68+ 72 title and interest in the property on the basis of the lease deed, purported to have been exccuted by said Mohd.Osmarr on 13.07.1966.

39. Learned Government pleader would further contends that the lessor of rhe petitioners in the suit filed ulde os.No.3g of 1g6g having not pleaded of he having acquired title by adverse possession. the petiLioners herein cannot maintain the said plea.

40. Learned Government pleader further submits that in the Torvn Survey conducted during the years 1964 to l9Z7,land to an extent of 4g,65,9g4 sq. mts., in part of Sy.No.9 was assigned a Town Survey No. 5/ l, Block B, Ward No.SO, and is recorded as Shikam Hu ssainsagar and the said Town Suney has became fural as no civil suit is filed challenging the same, and therefore, the claim of the petitioners that the judgment in OS.No.38/ 1969 is applicable only in relation to lald in Sy.No.9/3 and not to other sub diwisions of Sy.No.9 cannot be accepted, as a,l the sub divisions were cancelled a,-'d the entire extent was assigned only one survey number i.e., Sy.No.9 afld the owner of the entire extent of land is Electricity Board. 4I. Learned Government pieader would further submit that the issue involved in the present writ petition was a-lso subject matter of consideration before a Division Bench of this Court i.e., with regard to the land in Sy.No.9 of Hussainsagar Tank in yako;ri pochaiah a. Storte of A.p.s, and this Court by its order, 25.1O.2OO2, having affirmed the order of the Special Court in LGC.No.145 of 1994, by the present chanenge, the said decision cannot be calied in question. ' zoo31t1 nro tsr l5

42. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3'd respondent herein wouid contend that the Government had handed over the subject land to HUDA uide G.O.Ms.N o.lO487 , dt'08 09' 1981 for the purpose of maintenance and development, aS it is Government land; and that GO.Ms.No.1047 having been Sazetted, the same is to tre considered as notice to general Public. 43- Learned Standing Counsel would further contend that since' the CCCA filed by the 2"d respondent herein was allowed by the High Court' and being an instrumentality of the State, the Government had decided to vest the subject lald with the 3'd respondent, which is a'1so an instrumentality of the State for better management of the land in Sy No-9, aj1d thus' the Special Court could not have held that the subject IaId is of the 2"d respondent/ aPPlicant.

44. On beha-lf of the 3'a respondent it is also contended that since' the lessor of the petitioners having lost the case uide OS No 38 of 1969 and having not challenged the said order, whereby the entire land was held to be in actual possession \^rith APSEB since 1909, the petitioners herein who are only lessees of the original owner cannot claim a better title thart the original owner himself.

45. By contending as above, learned Standing Counsel seeks for sustaining the order of the SPecial Court.

46. We have taken note of the respective contentions urgeci' 47 . At the outset, it is to be noted that in a r!.rit petition filed against the order of the special court under Arncle 2261227 of the Constitution of India 1,4 the Writ Court is only required to consider as to whether the Special Court had excluded the relevalt material ancl considered irre]evant material.

44. Further, the Writ Court while examining the correctness or otherwise of the order of the special court cannot re-appreciate the evidence adduced before the Special Court on factual aspects. since t]ie findings recordcd by thc Special Court on factual aspects ar.e conclusive in terms of g(6) of the Act. The limited interference by a Writ Court in exercise of jurisdiction wtder 226 against a_n order of Special Court is to the extent of examning as to whether on the basis of evidence, the Special Court had erred in law in arriving at the said conclusionlsee: State Of And.hra pradesh u p.V. Hqnurnantha Rao (D) Thr. Lrs. and Anr.6, Konda Lo.kshmana Bapuji u. Gottt. of A.p.z, and State oI A.P. a. prameela Mod.i & Otherss, o. Gout. o.f A.p.sl

49. Considering the aJoresaid position of law, in the facts of the present case, though the 2"d respondent herein had claimed the petitioners of having grabbed land to arr extent of 4160 sq. mts, the said claim however was restricted to 1390 sq. mts., by the Special Court ard there is no appcal preferred thereagainst by ths l"a respondent herein.

50. Insofar as Lhe claim to an extent of 1390 sq. mts is concerned. admittedly, the petitioners are not the owners of the subject land and are laying claim only o, trre basis of the lease deed executed by one Mohd.osman along with 8 others, who had claimed themselves to be the owners of the subject land. However, a reading ofthe rease deed dt. 13.07.1966, executed by ' lzoo:1 to scc rzt '1zooz1 : scc zss = 2oo2 rNSC s3 ' 1zooo1 t: scc taz '1zooz1 3 scc zss = 2oo2 tNsc s3 15 sard Mohd.Osman in favour of lst petitioner's father does not show as to how Mohd.Osman and 8 others have got possession of the subject land'

51. Further, in the suit frled by one Md.Nooruddien Ansari and Others urde OS.No.3S/ 1969 claiming land admeasuring Acres 75 O8 guntas comprised in Sy.No.9/2 to 9/ 15 situated at Khairatabad against the State as well as t}re Electricity Board, the said Mohd.osmal has been arrayed as 8*' defendalt, and the Court of Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, having noted that the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit is only entitled to un-reclairned portion of land comprised in Sy.No.9/3 of Khairatabad Village and the said order of the cir.il court having been set aside by a Division Bench of this court in CCCA.Nos.132l1979and54llg85byitsorderdLl2'O42OO4,whereinthis court had held that the documentar5z evidence on record disclose that tl.e Electricity Departrnent occupied the suit land i.e., land in Sy No 9/2 to 9 / 15 admeasuring Acres 75.08 guntas for construction of power house in the year 1909, the also having constructed number of buildings in the suit land to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title, destroys the theory of pcrmissive possession claimed by the plaintiff therein '

52. The Division Bench of this Court further held that defendants No. I & 2 in the suit OS.No.3S of 1969 i.e., the State and the Electricity Board, perfected their right by adverse possession; and that there was no re-grant by Nizam and the property rnerged with the Government, altd no patta was granted in favour of the plaintiff in the a-foresaid suit and mere entries in Khasra Pahanai cannot confer any right to the plaintiffs. 76

53. Since, the lessors of the subject land, from whom tire petitioners are claiming the subject property having been obtained on lease, had claimed that the subject rand having been given in Inam and on aborition of Inarn, the said iand having vested with Mohd.Osman, and he thereafter having granted lease in favour of the l"t petitioner,s father, since, the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid CCCAs having categorically held that the Electricity Board to be in possession of the subject land since 1909 and there being no re_grant by Nizam, the claim put forth by the petitioners of their lessor having got the subject land as Inam and on aboiition of inam under Inam Abolition Act, the said la.d havi,g vested in the holder, it is to be noted that if at a, a.y person is to be considered as being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, it is the lessors of the petitioners who ought to have taken steps to assail the said order in CCCA. Admittedly, no such steps are taken ald the order of this Court in CCCA had attarned finality.

54. Further, the petitioners being only lessees er.en though claimed themselves to be a permanent lessees for a period of 75 years, by virtue of registered lease deed, dt. 13.07. 1966, it is to be noted that even the petitioners who have stepped into the shoes of the lessor aiso did not take any steps on behalf of the lessor to assail the said order of this Court.

55. Further, as noted herein above, the recitals of the lease deed does not mention as to how the petitioners, lessor has got title to the subject property for him to grant lease in favour of the petitioners.

56. It is also pertinent to note that a Division Bench of this Court in Yakari Pochaiah's case (supra), filed against a, order oI the specia] court in L7 LGC.No.145/ 1994 dt.O5'12'2O01, had a occasion to consider the issue relating to the land in Sy.No'9 and heid the same as forming part of Hussainsagar Shikam Ta'1ab, arrd is co-related to TS'No'S/P Block B' Ward No.8O

57. Further, the Special Court by considering the evidence of PWl & PW2' who were a]so cross-examined by the petitioners/ respondents before the Special Court and having noted that nothing was elicited from the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses to discredit the authenticity of Exs'A6 & A7 in identifying the application schedule land, this Court is of the view that mere non exarnination of author of Ex A6, i e , Sketch' showing the application be fatal, to consiCer the case of the schedulc land, vrould not respondents / aPPlicalts.

58. The Special Court further noted that the clarm of the petitioners herein as to adverse possession on the basis of being in possession of the application schedule land by constructing a compound rvall' thereafter a building by obtarning permission in the year 1980, calnot plead adverse possession' as the petitioners having setup a claim of rival title on the basis of lease deed'

59. Further it is also to be noted that the clairn of adverse possesslon should be against the real owner' Since, the Special Court as well as this Court in CCCA.Nos. 132 /1,g7g, 2Og llg81, and 5411985 had held the subject land as belong to electricity department and being in occupation since 19O9' for the purpose of setting up of a power house, the claim of the petitioners firstlg as to they having valid title, interest on the basis of the lease deed or in 18 the alternate by way of adverse possession, are mutually inconsistent pleas and carnot be accepted

60. Further, Hon'ble Srrpreme Court in a recent decision in V,S.R.Mohan Rq.o a. K.S,r.Murthg & Othersto, referring to Konda Lrrkshmana Bapuji,s case(supra) held that peaceful possession without legai right constitutes land grabbing. Thus, this Court is of the view that the clarm of the petitioners as to the adverse possession is without;rny substance and the special court had rightly rejected the same

61. Since, the Special Court based on the documents produced by both sides, in the facts of the case hat ing come to a conclusion of the petitioners being in possession of the land to an extcnt of 139O sq. mts., without ary valid right and title, this court is satisfied that the special court did not exclude arry material from consideritrg or having considered any irrelevant material relied upon bv the pedtioncrs/ respondents before the Special court in recording its frndings, requiring interference by this Court. 62. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the view that thcre are no tenable grounds to interfere with the rrndings of the special court as it had not committed any error of law and thus, Writ petitton as f,rled is devoid of

63. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. No order- as to costs " MANU/SCl0704/2o2s L9 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this hnal order. SD/.A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR h6., SECTI6N OF FICER /TTRUE COPY// l!!iBf;:'s] 8flif; Bt3ffs?r',l!,;' A P'Land Grabbins (Prohibition' Act 1e82' \ \ t'"''

2. One CC to SRI V VENKATARAIvIANA' Advocate' IOPUC] 3.TwoCCstoGPFoRASSIGNMENT,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana. SC FOR HMDA. [OPUC]

4. One CC to SMT D'MADHAVI' 5. Two CD CoPies' BSK BS HIGH COURT DATED:0910612025 ORDER WP.No.I5931 of 2004 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \t s'iArE O ST $6? !; \ * a x 5c \' FAT