4,40,000/ and the 2nd and 3rd respondents to pay Rs.
yards of land in Ward No.
Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant, the State of Andhra Pradesh, filed an application under the Act against the respondents in the Special Court alleging, inter alia, that the 1st respondent was in occupation of 470 sq.
After companysidering 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.
7360 of 2000 This appeal is preferred against a judgment and order dated 13th of October, 1998 of the High Court of Judicature for Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No.
Relying on the cross examination of PW 3, it was also held that only an extent of 7 acres and odd in N.T.S. No.
For proper disposal of this appeal, therefore, it would be necessary for us to companysider the findings of fact arrived at by the Special Court at this stage.
The respondent No.
yards after the death of Respondent No.
26 companyrelated to old N.T.S. No.
Accordingly, the Special Court, after companysidering the findings arrived at by it allowed the application holding that the land belonged to the State and directed the 1st respondent to pay Rs.
yards shown to have been grabbed by him as per Exhibit A4 and it was also admitted by Respondent No.
4,40,000/ and the 2nd and 3rd respondents to pay Rs.
1, 3 4 were in possession of the extents that were shown to have been grabbed by them.
yards situated in N.T.S. No.
26 belonging to the Government and number in N.T.S. No.
3,80,000/ by 12 monthly installments to the appellant.
In Exhibit A3, Adangal extract, the name of 2nd Respondent was shown as an encroacher into an extent of 190 sq.
yards under the original of Exhibit A11 and the site of an extent of 190 sq.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Special Court, the respondents filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was allowed, as numbered herein earlier, and the order of the Special Court was set aside.
4 was number companyered by that Sale Deed.
yards of land, out of which 190 sq.
An adverse inference was drawn against the respondents for number production of the title deeds who had placed reliance only on Exhibit A 8, which was in favour of Respondent No.
Relying on Exhibit A12, it was also held that N.T.S. No.
yards and that Respondent Nos.
The appellant further companyplained that the 2nd and 3rd respondents, being the heirs and legal representatives of the original respondent No.
The parties went into trial and they were permitted to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases.
yards also situated in N.T.S. No.
Accordingly, the Special Court directed the 1st respondent to pay Rs.
26 marked in red companyour belonging to the Government.
Exhibit A4 was the sketch showing the extents encroached by Respondent Nos.
However, the Special Court, after finding that the respondents had done companystruction on the Schedule Land, granted liberty to the respondents to pay the market value of the Schedule Land grabbed by them so that the title of the same companyld be perfected by them.
17/1 A/1 A of Vijaywada town for short the schedule land was by way of illegal encroachment.
Relying on the evidence of PW3, it was further found that the land of Gandhi Hill Society was in N.T.S. No.
3,80,000/ by 12 monthly installments to the appellant.
O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO.
52 belonged to Gandhi Hill Society and the Society had numbertitle ever in extent of N.T.S. No.
3 4, who were the legal representatives of the 2nd Respondent were companytinuing in possession of that 190 sq.
52 as per the 1965 survey, which was companyrelated to Old N.T.S. No.15 Al Part.
1, Vijaywada out of which 220 sq.
3 that his mother Respondent No.
yards adjoining East of 220 sq.
1, 3 4, which were in N.T.S. No.
It is this order of the Special Court, which was challenged by the respondents by way of a Writ Petition.
5, Block No.
Exhibit A5 was another sketch showing the encroached extents.
26 companyrelated to old N.T.S. No.
Accordingly, the State of Andhra Pradesh, the appellant, had prayed for a declaration that the respondents were land grabbers within the meaning of the Act and that the appellant was the owner of the Schedule Land.
2 had purchased only an extent of 350 sq.
The respondents, in their objection, denied that they were land grabbers in respect of the Schedule Land and pleaded that their predecessors in interest had perfected title of the land by way of adverse possession and alternatively, according to them, the Schedule Land belonged to Gandhi Hill Society and therefore, the question of grabbing the land of the appellant by the respondents did number arise at all.
17/1 A/1 A of Vijaywada town for short the Schedule Land was by way of illegal encroachment.
52 belonging to Gandhi Hill Society.
yards shown to have been grabbed by him and Respondent No.
52 was companyrelated to Old N.T.S. No.
2, were in occupation of 540 sq.
It was also held on companysideration of the evidence on record that the respondents had failed to prove that the Schedule Land belonged to Gandhi Hill Society.
No documents were filed to prove since how long the respondent Nos.
So far as the case of adverse possession of the respondents was companycerned, it was found that the respondents had failed to prove that they had acquired title by adverse possession.
1 and Exhibit A11 which was in favour of late Respondent No.
1 admittedly had purchased only an extent of 250 sq.
6452 of 1995, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court had allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondents and set aside the order dated 9th of June, 1994 passed by the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982 at Hyderabad for short the Special Court .
