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 31.08.1995. 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 l.A.No.612 of 1997, dated 20.04.1998. 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 31.08.1995.

(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 T.S.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.l 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.) The Special Court comprising Hon'ble Chairman, the Judicial Member and Revenue Member framed four issues. Issue No.4 related to the question whether respondent Nos.l and 2 perfected their title by way of adverse possession. Whereas issue No.1 related to the question of title. The learned Special Court considered issue No.4 and came to the conclusion based on evidence, both oral and documentary, that respondent Nos.l and 2 who had been in possession from 1957 onwards perfected their title by adverse possession. In view of this, the learned Special Court did not elaborately consider the other two substantial issues. As noticed supra, the State filed a review petition with delay of 516 days, but the same was dismissed on 20.04.1998. Thereafter, as presently seen, armed with a decision of the Supreme Court wherein it was laid down that the Special Court constituted under the Act cannot decide the complicated questions of title or adverse possession, the present" writ petition is filed. Ground No.20 is specifically raised which reads, "Hon 'ble Supreme Court of India categorically decided that the L, G. Court has no jurisdiction to decide the title on adverse possession ".