STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. DISHESH KUMAR SABALKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE of Andhra Pradesh filed the instant writ petition aggrieved by the order passed more than a decade ago by the Special Court constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereafter called, the Special Court and the Act respectively). Be it noted, the Special Court dismissed the land grabbing case being, LGC No.29 of 1990, filed by the STATE on 31.8.1995. About two years thereafter, the STATE unsuccessfully filed a review petition before the Special Court which was also dismissed at the stage of condonation of delay, being IA No.612 of 1997, dated 20.4.1998. Thereafter, the STATE waited for a long period and ultimately filed the instant writ petition on 26.12.2007 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Special Court passed on 31.8.1995.

(2.) IT is not necessary to summarize elaborately the factual background of the case. Suffice to mention that the State went before the Special Court alleging that an extent of about 804 square yards comprised in TS Nos.9/1 and 14, Block T, Ward No.11, correlated to survey No.403 of Shaikpet Village was grabbed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 opposed the LGC alleging that the petition schedule land is a private property, that it has been in their possession from times immemorial, that they purchased the property from Smt. Jani Begum, wife of Abdul Aziz, and that Government has no right, ownership or interest in the property.

(3.) LEARNED Assistant Government Pleader strenuously contends that the vendor of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herself had no title to the property and that in all the town survey records the property has been registered in the name of the Government. She also points out that though issue No.1 dealing with the title was framed, the learned Special Court committed an error in not going into the question in view of their finding in issue No.4 in relation to adverse possession. She also submits that Special Court has no jurisdiction to decide the question of adverse possession. This according to the learned Assistant Government Pleader is a grave error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference. Insofar as laches are concerned, she reiterated the position as obtaining in paragraph 8 of the affidavit accompanying the writ petition.