M YADAGIRI REDDY Vs. V C BRAHMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the judgment of the special court under the Andhra Pradesh land grabbing (prohibition) act, 1982 (for short 'the act') made in l.g.c. No. 48 of 2002 dated 15-7-2004 directing the petitioner to vacate the schedule property and deliver vacant possession of the same to the 1st respondent herein has been impugned in this writ petition. Facts in brief:

(2.) the facts leading to the dispute between the parties are that, according to the 1st respondent, he had purchased the schedule land admeasuring an extent of acs. 12.00 located in sy.Nos.33/6 to 33/10 of chengicherla, ghatkesari mandal, ranga reddy district by means of a registered sale deed dated 21-5-1969 from one ponnapu chandraiah and others and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of purchase. He got fenced the schedule land on three sides and no fencing was made on the southern side of the schedule property. His manager one d. Venkata rao visited the land on 3-8-2002, to remove the shrubs in the land for the purpose of development. The petitioner obstructed his manager. Though a police report was submitted, no action was taken. The petitioner has no title to the schedule property. It is the further case of the 1st respondent that the petitioner has been trying to fabricate the documents with the connivance of the village assistant and revenue officials. Due to the acts and conduct of the petitioner in grabbing the land, he was unable to carry out the development operations in the land. The cause of action arose on 3-8-2002 when the petitioner grabbed the land and prevented his manager from proceeding with clearing of shrubs. It is alleged that the petitioner without any legal entitlement grabbed the land belonging to him.

(3.) the case of the petitioner in the counter affidavit filed on his behalf in the special court was that the total extent of sy.No. 33 is acs.122.00, there are no boundary stones or sub-division stones existing. The application has been filed by the 1st respondent only to usurp the land belonging to him. His own land is also in sy. No. 33 of chengicherla; he had no concern or interest in the application mentioned land. The description of the schedule land is incorrect. He has been in possession and enjoyment of an extent of acs. 20.13 guntas for the last 20 years located within the boundaries whose details have been mentioned in the counter. He claims to be the pattedar and possessor of the land in sy.Nos.33/10 and 33/11 in which there is an agricultural well with an electric motor; farmhouse belonging to him and also lemon and goa trees. The records reveal his possession of the land in respect of which he has been paying the land revenue. The land in his possession is fenced with barbed wire except on the eastern side, which is fenced with stone kadees.