TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondents and set aside the order dated 9 th of June, 1994 passed by the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 at Hyderabad (for short the Special Court ). 2. The only question that needs to be decided in this appeal is, Can the High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, set aside a finding of fact arrived at by the Special Court, under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short the Act ) when such finding of fact of the Special Court was made on consideration of the evidence on record and could not be said to be perverse or arbitrary.? 3. Briefly stated, the facts leading t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the application under the Act filed by the State of A.P. must be rejected. 5. The parties went into trial and they were permitted to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases. 6. The Special Court before which the application for land grabbing was filed by the appellant, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the respondents were land grabbers within the meaning of the Act. The Special Court also held, on consideration of the materials on record and evidence adduced by the parties, that the respondents had failed to prove that they had perfected the title in respect of the Schedule Land by way of adverse possession. It was also held on consideration of the evidence on record tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of 220 sq. yards in Exhibit A2. In Exhibit A3, Adangal extract, the name of 2 nd Respondent was shown as an encroacher into an extent of 190 sq. yards and that Respondent Nos. 3 4, who were the legal representatives of the 2 nd Respondent were continuing in possession of that 190 sq. yards after the death of Respondent No. 2. (iii) Exhibit A4 was the sketch showing the extents encroached by Respondent Nos. 1, 3 4. (iv) Exhibit A5 was another sketch showing the encroached extents. (v) After considering the evidence of PW3, it was found that Exhibit A13 was a true extract of 1965 survey plan showing the extents grabbed by Respondent Nos. 1, 3 4, which were in N.T.S. No. 26 marked in red colour belonging to the Government. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent No. 2. (xi) The respondent No. 1 admittedly had purchased only an extent of 250 sq. yards adjoining East of 220 sq. yards shown to have been grabbed by him as per Exhibit A4 and it was also admitted by Respondent No. 3 that his mother Respondent No. 2 had purchased only an extent of 350 sq. yards under the original of Exhibit A11 and the site of an extent of 190 sq. yards shown to have been grabbed by him and Respondent No. 4 was not covered by that Sale Deed. (xii) So far as the case of adverse possession of the respondents was concerned, it was found that the respondents had failed to prove that they had acquired title by adverse possession. Accordingly, the Special Court, after considering the findings arrived at by it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e judgment of the Special Court on the question of title of the first respondent and that of the appellant and his lessor Inamdar we are satisfied that neither was any relevant material excluded from consideration nor was any irrelevant material relied upon by the Special Court in recording its finding. There was, therefore, no scope for the High Court to interfere with those findings. In our view, the High Court committed no error of law in not interfering with the findings of the Special Court in regard to the title of the first respondent and absence of title in the appellant to the land in dispute (See : Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT).... 10. We have already discussed the findings of the Special Court and we find from the same th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act that the respondents had perfected their title in respect of the Schedule Land by adverse possession or that the Schedule Land belonged to Gandhi Hill Society. Such being the position, we are unable to sustain the order of the High Court, which had set aside the findings of fact arrived at by the Special Court, which, in our view, were arrived at on consideration of the materials on record and which, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be said to be based on no evidence or surmises or conjectures and therefore, it was not open to the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, to set aside the findings of fact arrived at by the Special Court which were based on sound consideration of the materials on record. 11. Accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
