PHATRU PATEL Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.03.2000 in Writ Petition No. 24706 of 1996 by which the prayers made by the Appellants to declare that the action of the District Collector Rarigha Reddy District, in seeking to evict them from the lands bearing Survey Nos. 130 to 133 of Village Fathenagar, Mandal Balanagar, District (sic) Reddy, A. P., which are in their possession, by demolishing the residential houses/business premises situated in those survey numbers, is arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution and to issue consequential direction to the Respondents not to interfere with their peaceful possession of the residential houses/business premises located in those survey numbers as well as to set aside the order dated 20.01.1992 rendered in LGC No. 3 of 1988 passed by the Special Court established under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1982 (the Act, for short) declaring them to be land grabbers, under the Act, are rejected.

(2.) The Appellants claim that they had derived title to the lands in question through one Hukumlal and that they had constructed residential houses/business premises therein and are in possession of the same. The Respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 initiated LGC No. 3 of 1988 in the Special Court established under the Act seeking possession of Survey No. mentioned above on the ground that they are owners of the same and 58 persons against whom the said case was instituted were land grabbers within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act of 1982. On application being presented, the Special Court took cognizance and thereafter issued notices as contemplated by the proviso to Section 8(1A) of the Act read with Rule 7 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988. After hearing the parties, the Special Court, by judgment dated 20-01-1992 declared the Appellants to be land grabbers. The said order was sought to be executed by the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 against the Appellants. Therefore, the Appellants invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad under Article 226 of the Constitution, by filing W.P. No. 23019 of 1996 and challenged the warrant of authorisation issued by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. The High Court, by order dated 13.10.1996 disposed of the Writ Petition directing the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to serve copy of warrant of authorisation on the Appellants as contemplated under Sub-rule 3 of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1988, before taking possession of the lands. The prayer was made by the learned Counsel for the Appellants to grant some time to enable the Appellants to vacate the lands, which was granted by the High Court Thereafter, the Appellants filed another Writ Petition being W.P. No. 24706 of 1996 and claimed the reliefs which are referred to earlier. As observed earlier, the High Court has rejected the petition giving rise of the instant appeal.

(3.) This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the parties and considered the documents forming part of the instant appeal. It may be mentioned that vide order dated 09-08-2001, the SLP against the Respondent No. 6 Hukumlal was treated as having abated because no steps were taken to bring on record his legal representatives.