The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.N.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.2to8 : SRI B.V.RAMA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BI-E SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA WRIT PET'ITION No.623 of 20ll ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice 'l'.Vircd Kumar) This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated

09. I I .20 10 in LGC No. I I of 2004 passed by the Special Courr ar Hyderabad under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Acr, 1882.

2. The L.G.C. No.l t of 2004 is filed by respondent Nos.2 ro 8 herein claiming that the pctitioner/respondent herein has grabbed theil land in Sy. No.200 of Moosapet village, Balanagar Mandai, Ranga Reddy District to an extent of3000 square yards. l. On the Special Court taking cognizance and issuing notice, the petitioner/respondent filed his counter claiming that he is the owncr of land in Sy. No. t99 to an extent of Ac.l.2I gts. out of Ac.6.05 gts. and that he has not grabbed,/claimed any part of land of the respondentsi app licants.

4. The Special Courl by considering the application filed by respondents/applicants and the counter filed by the petitioner/respondent had framed the following issues: Whether the applicants are thc owners ol tlte application schedule propertl,? Itt IV Whether the rival title sct up by respondcnt is tlue. valid and binding on the applicants? Whether the respondent is a land grabber within the meaning of Section 2(d) and € oi tlic Act XII of I 9g2? To what relicf?

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

6. On behalf of the Couft, K. Muratidhara Rao. S/o Narasimha Rao, Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Rcddy 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 Courr.

7. On behalf of respondents/applicanrs before the Special Courl, 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.5.2g gts. in Sy. No.200, in which Ac.0. 12 gts. was acquired by the Govemment fol IDPL. a/// -1 3

8. Before the Special Courl, the respondents/applicants had claimed that the petitioner/respondent illegally encroached 3000 square yards olland 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 vrde LGC Nos. l29 of 1995 and 4 of 1996, the Special Cotrt 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.1.2l gts. in Sy. No.l99 and does not have right or title in respect of the land in Sy. No.200.

10. The respondents/appl icants 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 porlion and demolition of the unauthorized 4 structures raised therein with delivery of vacant possession and Award of cost and damages. I I. On behalf of the petitioner/respondent it is contended befbre the Special Court that he is in possession of land to an exterlt of Ac.l.21 gts. in Sy. No.199 which is lawfully o,"vned by hin.r and is making construction within the said extent only.

12. On behalf of the petitioner/respondent, it is conter-rded that the respondents/applicants have filed the underlying LGC with a malafide intention to harass him and wrongfully dispossess lrotn his properly

13. The Special Courl by considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents/applicants and the petitioner/rcspondent, had issued warrant of commission to Assistant Director, Survey of Land Records to conduct Survey of the land being claimed b1' the respondents/applicants in Sy. No.200 and to see as to whether any part of the application sub.iect land has been encroached/grabbed by the petitioner/respondent.

14. Pursuant to the direction of the Special Cour1, the Assistant Director had conducted Survey and submitted a repoft on 5

21.02.2001 whereby it was stated that the petitioner/respondent herein had encroached land to an extent of Ac.0.09 gts. in Sy. No.200

15. The Speciat court once again directed the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy to conduct survey of the land being claimed by the respondents/applicants in Sy. No.200 as having been encroached by the petitioner/respondent; and that the Assistant Director by conducting survey through ETS (Erectronic Total Station) submitted his reporl dated 30. 1i.2007 noting that 4c.0.15% gts. in Sy. No.200 was encroached by the petitioner /respondent.

16. T'he Special Courr thereafter directed the Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records to superimpose the site sketch of C.W- I over Ex.C-7 and to verif, the extent of land encroached/grabbed by the petitioner/respondent in Sy. No.200. The Regional Deputy r)irector sur-vey and [-and Records on 09.06.2010 conducted superimposition of Ex.C_3 over. Ex.C_7 and concluded that the petitioner/respondent had encroached the land to an extent of Ac.0.14 gts. in Sy. No.200. On the Regional Deputy Director submitting his report superimposing the site sketch Ex.C_3 6 as filed by C.W-1 along with his report over Ex.C-7 (reconstructed f ippons), concluded that the petitioner/respondent has grabbed the land, to an extent of Ac.0. 14 gts. in Sy. No.200

17. The Special Court by consideling the documents rnarked on bchalfofrespondents/applicants and by the Courl, had held that the respondents/appellants have successfully proved the ownership of application-land in Sy. No.200 to an extent of Ac.5.28 gts; and that the respondent had illegally occupied the land to an extent of Ac.0. l4 gts. in Sy. No.200 and thus, to be declared as land grabber undcr the Act

18. The Special Court directed the petitioner/respondent l"o and deliver vacant possession of the said land to thc ",acate respondents/applicants herein within two months from the date of the judgment. The Special Court further'directed that in the event of pctitioner/r'espondent not complying with the aloresaid direction, the R.D.O. was instructed to take necessary action to evict the petitioner/res'pondent and deliver vacant possession to the respondents/applicants

19. -lhe petitioner/respondent by the present Writ Petition assails the findings of the Special Court

7. 7

20. It is contended on bchalf of the petitioner herein that he got the land to an extent ol Ac. l.2l gts. in Sy. No. 199 out of the total extent of land of Ac.6.05 gts. and being in possession of only the said extent of land, it is to be noted that in the three surveys conducted by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records on two occasions in the year 2007 and the Regional Deputy Director in the year 2010, it was found that the petitioner/respondent to be in possession of land in Sy. No.200. 21. Admittedly the petitioner/respondent did not possess any land in Sy. No.200 and is only claiming his land to be siruated in Sy. No. 199. Though on behalfofthe petitioner it is contended that the petitioner having filed objection to the superimposition undertaken by the Regional Deputy Director and the said objections having been not considered, it is to be noted that on the Assistant Dirbctor, Survey and Land Records conducting survey and submitting his report on 21.02.2007, the petitioner/respondent did not file any objection thereto. In the said reporl filed by the Assistant Director, Survey and land Records as C. W_ I categorically records the petitioner having encroached the land to an extent of Ac.0.09 gts in Sy. No.200. 8

22. Though on behalfofthe petitioner it is contended that since no proper survey was conducted after issuing notice to all the parties concelned, and thus, the responden[ authorities may bc directed to conduct resurvey, it is to be noted that even in the second survey that was done by the Special Courl through the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records Ranga Reddy District, who is examined as C.W-2 in his report dated. 30. 11.2007 had categoricalLy stated that the petitioner/respondent 15 ln occupation of land to an extent of Ac.0.15% gts. in Sy. No.200 Though it is contended on behalf of the petitioner/respor.rdent that despite their Counsel giving a work memo to the officials of Survey and Land Records to conduct survey of land in Sy. Nos.l99 and 200 in order to determine the total extent of land, no such survey was conducted and thus, the report is vitiated, it is to be noted that thc Special Court while directing the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, had given specific direction to strrvey the land in Sy. No.200 to see whether the entire extent of land being clairned by the respondents/applicants is in their possession or any porlion thereof has been encroached/grabbed by the petitioner/respondent herein 7 9 Pursuant to the said direction of the Special Court, the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records had conducted survey and found the petitioner to be in possession of Ac.O. 15% gts. of land in Sy. No.200 belonging to the respondents/applicants. 23. Further, it is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Regional Director whose report has been relied by the Special Courl has not been examined or offered for being cross_examined and as such the said repoft cannot be relied upon, it is to be noted that the said authority has only undertaken the work of superimposition of the sketch furnished by C.W_l over Ex.C_7 and having only filed his report, it cannot be said that the Regional Deputy Director has been examined in the matter and therefore ought to have been offered for being cross_examined by the pel i t ioner/respondent.

24. On the other hand the survey repofts filed by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records in the year 2007 to which the petitioner did not submit any objection clearly show the petitioner having encroached on to the land in Sy. No.200 to an extent of Ac.0.09 gts. or Ac.0. l5% gts. under the said two reports. 10

25. On behalf of the petitionev'respondent it is contended that the respondents/app licants have land to an extent of Ac.5.00 gts tn Sy. No.200, but are clairning the land of Ac.5.28 gts. the petitioner except claiming to have got land to an extent of Ac. l.2l gts. in Sy No. 199 did not mark any document showing his entitlernent to the said extent of land or the boundaries of the said land being claimed by him. The respondents/applicants on the other hand in order to establish their title to the land have marked pahanies E,xs.A-l to A- l3 ofthe years 1978-1994. The petitioner/respondent did not mark any docurnents to show his title to the land in Sy. No.l99

26. Fr.rrther, it is also to be noted that though the petitioner had clairned that the 3'd Surveyor not being examined, while his report is sought to be lelied, firstly as noted hereinabove the Regional Deputy Director was only called upon to-superimpose Ex.C-3 over Ex.C-7 and to give a repoft and was not directed to conduct survey like C.W-1 and C.W-2 for him to be offered for cross-exam ination Furlher, the petitiondr/respondent having cross-examined C.W- I and C.W-2 who by their report submitted to the Special Court having categorically noted that the petitioner/respondent having encroached the land of the respondents/applicants to an extet'tt of \ 7 11 Ac.0.09 gts. and Ac.O.1 S%gts. and the petitioner/respondent having c|oss-exarnined them cannot claim of not being given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the said Couft witnesses. F urther, as noted hereinabove the petitioner/respondent did not file anv objections to the report fired by the court witnesses as c. w_ i wheleby it was noted that the petitioner had encroached on to the land in Sy. No.200 to an extent of Ac.0.09 gts. 2.7 . Orr behalf of the respondents/applicants, it is contended that the pleas that are urged before this Court by the petitioner/respondenl were neither taken by him in the counter filed by him before the Special Court nor the petitioner/respondent disputed the entries in pahanies filed by them. It is not open fbr the petitione r/rcspondent now to make out altogether a new case. 28. On behalf of the respondents/applicants it is contended that the superirnposition by the Coufi through the Regional Deputy Direcror ol Ex.C-3 with C_7 clearly shows the petitioner has encroached on to the respondents/applicants in Sy. No.200 without any legal entitlement thereto and thus has rightly been declared as land grabber and by the present Writ petition the order of the Spccial Court does not call for any interference. lt is to be noted t?. that the Special Court while declaring the petitioner/respondent as land gabber had scanned the entire evidence that has been let in by the respondents/applicants as well as on behatf ol the petitioner/respondent. The petitioner/respondent except examin ing himself did not mark any documeut even to establish his title to the land to an extent of A.1.21 gts. in Sy. No. 199. Further, P.W-l the resporident/applicant who had hled the Land Grabbing Case on behalf of the respondenl/applicant herein was cross-examined in detail by the petitioner/respondent wherein the petitioner/respondent could not elicit any answers which would advance thc case of the rival claim set up by him

29. The Special Courl by considering all the aforesaid aspects had found that the petitioncr/respondent having encroached the land to an extent of Ac.0.14 gts. equivalent to Ac.1694 square yards as against the clairn rr-radc by the respondent/applicant o1- petitioner/respondent having grabbed the land to an extent of 3000 square yards. The said finding ofthe Special Court is based on due consideration of the evidence adduced, which is conclusive proof as per Section 8(6) of the Act. It is also to be noted that in a Writ Petition filed under Afiicle 226 or 227 of the Constitution of lndia 7 13 agarnst an order of Special Court, the scope of the Court to interlere with the order of the Special Court and the findings recorded on lactual aspect is limited and a Writ Court does not sit in appeal and undertake the exercise of re_appreciation or re_ evalualion of the evidence. (Snfe of A.p. v. prameela Modit and the State of A.P. v. p.V. Hanumanlha Rao (Dead) Through LRs ond another)). TIte Apex Court had held that the remedy of Writ Petition to the High Court is not against the decision of the Subordinate Court, the Tribunal or the authority but it is against the decision making process. The Apex Court also held that the right of High Court to interfere with the Subordinate Courts and T'ribunals is limited rvhere (1) there is an error manifest and apparent on the face olthc proceedings such as when it is based on clear misreading or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (2) a grave injustice or gross failure ofjustice has occasioned thereby. 30. From the above decisions of the Apex Court, since this Couft cannot re-appreciate or re_evaluate the evidence that has been led in betbre the Special Courl based on which the Special Court had '1:ooo) t: scc rtz '(2001) i0 scc l2r 14 ). recorded its conclusions, this Coutl is of the vicw that the Special court had considered irrelevant material and excluded relevant material war-ranting intet lcrence v"ith the [rndings of fact as noted therein 31. In the instant case as noted hereinabove, t[-re petitionet/respondent having laited to prove his claim of land to an extent of Ac.0.2l gts. in Sy. No. t99 ol Moosapet village and on the other hand the respondents/app Iicants having established their light, entitlement to land to an exlent of Ac.5.28 gts in Sy' No'200 and also the Courl witnesses i.e, the Assistant Director, Surwey and Land Records by their survey t'epofl having cate gorically lound the petitioner/respondent to have encroacl.rcd the land in Sy No 200, this courl is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Special Court in declaring the petitioner to bc a land grabbel in terms of the provisions of the Act cannot be said as either suffering from error or perversity causing injustice to the petitioner/respondent, thereby calting lor interfet'ence by this Court. 32 Accordingly, the Writ Petition as filed is devoid of merit and is disnrrs6d 7/ 15 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs. To, //TRUE COPY// n SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 The Chairman of The Special Court Act. Hyderabad. (With records if any under A.P. Land, Grabbing (Prohibition) )

2. One CC to SRI M.N.NARAS|MHA REDDY, Advocate. [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana

4. One CC to SRI B.V RAMA RAO, Advocate. tOpUCI 5. Two CD Copies. BSK PVL HIGH COURT DATED:0910612025 ;:h\\ ,: zE AUE zo5 ,ll ,,^ ,,,,,/ ORDER WP.No.623 ot 2011 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS' 8