MOHAMMAD IQBAL Vs. N PRABHAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order dt. 29-1-1990 passed by the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, in L.G.C.No. 21/89 rejecting the request of the petitioner to take action under Sec. 8 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', to evict the respondent herein from the schedule property and put him in possession of the same and take criminal action against the respondent.

(2.) The averments made by the petitioner in his application filed under Sec. 8 of the said Act before the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Court', are that the petitioner's father Md. Razzak, s/o Md. Ali had purchased 8500 Sq. yards of land in S.No. 218/3 on 6 Amardad 1344 Fasli under a registered sale deed. He was the Deputy Accountant General in the erstwhile Government of Hyderabad. The earlier boundaries of the said plot that was purchased by the petitioner's father were as follows North: Plot of Mir Laiq Ali South: Plot of Moin Nawaz Jung East : Makte Bhole Saheb West: Begumpet Road. The present boundaries of the said plot are as follows:- North: House of the respondent South: House of the Raja of Ghallapally East: Makta Bhole Saheb West : Begumpet Road. The petitioner's father did not put any construction in the land. Where as the other two persons, namely Mir Laiq Ali and Moin Nawaz Jung made constructions in their respective plots. During Hyderabad Police Action, Mir Laiq Ali and Nawaz Jung migrated to Pakistan. Their properties were declared evacuee properties by the Government. The house of Mir Laiq Ali was allotted to a refugee Devi Dayal Marwah who in turn sold the same to one N. Veeraswamy Naidu, father of the respondent. The house of Moin Nawab Jung was allotted to Raja of Challapally. After the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner came in possession of the application schedule property. In the year 1970, the petitioner found that the respondent not only grabbed the land but also constructed a wall over the land of the petitioner. The petitioner asked the respondent to vacate the schedule property but in vain. Instead of vacating and handing over possession of the schedule property, the respondent further constructed a building consisting of four flats in the property. The remaining plots the respondent converted them into sites. The respondent has no right or title over the said land. As he is land grabber he shall be evicted and be dealt with in accordance with law.

(3.) The Special Court after taking cognizance of the case under Sec. 8(1)of the said Act issued notices to the respondents. The respondent in turn put appearance and filed his counter. The respondent in his counter submitted that the Act has no application to the property in question, and the Special Court has no jurisdiction to consider the petitioner's claim. The respondent denied the right and title of the petitioner over the property, but took a contention that both in earlier civil and criminal proceedings, the possession and enjoyment of the respondent including title over the schedule property was observed in his favour. Though the petitioner is aware of the same, subsequently resorted to making a claim under the said Act. It is further averred in the counter that after Mir Laiq Ali escaped to Pakistan his property was declared an evacuee property and was auctioned in 1955 in which one Mr. Devi Dayal Marwah, a displaced person from Pakistan, purchased it who in turn agreed to sell the property of Laiq Ali to one Mr. Veeraswami Naidu, an IAS Officer. The said Veeraswamy Naidu paid the sale consideration. The Regional Settlement Commissioner issued a sale certificate in respect of the house bearing E.P. No. F-2-1112 situated at Somajiguda. When the property was declared as evacuee property the Government started housing its Ministers. At one stage the Government expressed their willingness to Veeraswami Naidu to purchase the said property but the sale transaction was not materialised. Thus, Veeraswami Naidu continued to be in possession of the said property.