K NAGESHWARA RAO Vs. N RAYANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners, who are the appellants in L.G.A.No. 4 of 1997, filed the present writ petition challenging the judgement and decree passed in L.G.A.No. 4 of 1997 on the file of the Special Court constituted under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereinafter called 'the Special Court') wherein the appeal was dismissed confirming the judgement and decree in L.G.O.P.No. 103 of 1989 declaring the appellants as land grabbers and directed them to deliver the vacant possession and also pay mesne profits.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioners in L.G.O.P.No. 103 of 1989 on the file of the Special Tribunal filed a petition praying to declare the respondents as land grabbers and directing them to deliver the petition schedule property to them and they also claimed mesne profits. The petitioners contended that they purchased the petition schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 18.9.1981 together with a thatched house. The respondents 1 and 2, who are now the writ petitioners, requested the petitioners to allow them to live in the thatched house during the time when the terraced building was being constructed by the petitioners. The petitioners agreed for the said request and allowed them to live in the thatched house and subsequently they raised RCC terraced building and at the fag end, the respondents forcibly occupied the constructed building and also appropriated the building material worth Rs. 6,500/-. The respondents further created an agreement of sale deed dated 16.8.1986 in respect of the petition schedule property and thereupon they filed the suit. The 1st respondent filed counter which was adopted by the 2nd respondent. The respondents contended that they purchased the petition schedule land and thereupon the house was constructed by them. The petitioner borrowed amounts from the 1st respondent on different dates and the petitioners could not repay the amounts borrowed and therefore they decided to sell the unfinished building during August, 1986 and entered into an agreement of sale and the balance of sale consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the said property and that the respondents are not the grabbers and hence the petition is not maintainable.

(3.) On the above said pleadings, the Special Tribunal framed the following issues.