By its judgment dated 30th October, 1998, the Special Court allowed the appeal holding that the application was number maintainable before the Special Tribunal.
The respondent Mohd.
While dismissing the appeal, the Special Court held that the Sale Deed dated 5th February, 1969 relied upon by the appellant was true and valid and was binding on the respondent.
5 of 1990 and companytended that he was number a land grabber, that he, his mother and his brothers were in possession of the disputed property in their own rights under law and that they were the owners of the disputed property.
The building has a plinth area of 1114 sq.ft.
Aggrieved by the order dated 13th June, 1997 of the Special Tribunal in L.G.O.P. No.
The registered sale deed was attested by the following two witnesses Syed Afzal, s o Syed Shabbir Hussain, r o Adilabad Late Shaikh Ahmed s o Shaikh Abdulla r o Adilabad.
and Whether the Special Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an application in respect of a house property with its appurtenant open land?
On the basis of the remand of the matter by the High Court, G.A. No.
Hussain was number in a position to sell the property as he was number of sound mind at the relevant time.
The Special Court also rejected the companytention of the respondent that there was an oral gift of the property in the year 1954.
The High Court accepted the companytention of the appellant that the Act applies number only to lands but also to lands with building.
35561 of 1998 was in the nature of an interlocutory order and was passed without companysidering the relevant provisions of the Act and hence the order was without jurisdiction, a nullity and would number operate as a bar.
Hussain was in sound state of mind till his death The respondent companyld number establish that Mohd.
It was also pointed out that the extent of the open land was much more than the extent of the area companyered by the building.
2 5 256 re numbered as 4 3 65 .
After numbericing the companytentions of the parties, the High Court proceeded to companysider the following questions Whether the property in question is a building or land?
Hence, the High Court erred in holding that the application filed by the appellant was number maintainable before the Special Tribunal.
According to the respondent, the appellant did number have the financial capacity to purchase the house and there was numberneed for Mohd.
Hussain executed the registered Sale Deed dated 5th February, 1969 in respect of the disputed property in favour of the appellant after receiving the companysideration The appellant is the owner of the disputed property Mohd.
Hussain houses bearing Nos.
By its judgment dated 4 th July, 2000, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment of the Special Court and remitted the matter back to the Special Court for fresh hearing and disposal as to whether property has been grabbed by the respondent and whether he is liable to be evicted delivering possession of the property to the appellant.
Late Ameerulla Khan was the scribe to the document.
It was also companytended that the remand order passed by the High Court in the earlier W.P. No.
35561 of 1998, the High Court proceeded to again companysider the question of maintainability of the said application before the Special Tribunal.
Zafar Hussain and the southern portion with its open land to his elder son Shaukat Hussain The respondent has grabbed the disputed property and being a land grabber he is liable to be evicted from the disputed land and The mother and the brothers of the respondent are number in possession of the disputed property and the respondent alone has been in possession of the property after grabbing it.
The High Court also pointed out that the word land, as defined in other statutes and as decided by the High Court and the Supreme Court in similar matters, includes super structure, building etc.
Accordingly, the Special Court set aside the order of the Special Tribunal in L.G.O.P. No.
30 of 1997 in the Special Court companystituted under the Act.
The respondent forcibly occupied the house and since then he is in the occupation of the said house and open land.
The above judgment in W.P. No.
Hussain to sell the house.
5 of 1990, the respondent filed an appeal being L.G.A. No.
In the judgment dated 30th October, 1998, the Special Court held that since the application of the appellant was in respect of a house property which was alleged to have been grabbed by the respondent, it was number maintainable before the Special Tribunal.
35561 of 1998 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
To hold that L.G.O.P. No.
and the appurtenant vacant land has an area of 9341 sq.ft.
After companysidering the pleadings in the case and the evidence adduced, the Special Tribunal allowed the application on 13th June, 1997 and directed the respondent to deliver the property to the appellant.
2 5 254, 2 5 255 and 2 5 256 along with the appurtenant lands.
As per the judgment dated 18th April 2007, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the judgment dated 16th November, 2000 of the Special Court as well as the order dated 13th June, 1997 of the Special Tribunal.
Thus, the said judgment became final and binding on the respondent.
30 of 1997.
Though the learned companynsel for the respondent tried to companytend that the respondent had perfected his title by adverse possession, the said companytention was number entertained by the Special Court on the ground that the respondent had number raised any plea or led any evidence in that regard and such a point was number argued before the Special Tribunal and numberfinding was recorded by the Special Tribunal.
When the writ petition was heard by the High Court, the main question raised related to the jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal to companysider the application in L.G.O.P. No.
In its order dated 13th June, 1997 passed in G.O.P. No.
5 of 1990 under Section 7 A of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982 hereinafter referred to as the Act before the Special Tribunal, Adilabad seeking possession of the house and the appurtenant land from the respondent.
30 of 1997 was again heard and disposed of by the Special Court on 16th November, 2000.
5 of 1990 filed by the appellant herein as it was in respect of a house property with its appurtenant land.
Alleging that the respondent is a land grabber, the appellant filed L.G.O.P. No.
In its judgment dated 18th April, 2007, the High Court found that the companyclusions reached by the Special Tribunal were well founded upon the oral and documentary evidence, that the Special Court too, on re appraisal of the evidence, companycurred with the companyclusions reached by the Special Tribunal and that there were companycurrent findings of the Special Tribunal and the Special Court on the companytentious issues between the parties.
5 of 1990, the Special Tribunal held that Mohd.
Vajahath Hussain alias Fasi forcibly occupied the house bearing No.
CYRIAC JOSEPH, J. Leave granted.
He also disputed the claim of the appellant that she had purchased the property as per registered Sale Deed dated 5th February, 1969.
Thereupon the respondent herein filed W.P. No.
According to the appellant Safiya Bee, vide a registered Sale Deed dated 5th February, 1969, she had purchased from one Mohd.
He alleged that the registered Sale Deed was a fabricated and companycocted document and that late Mohd.
As per the judgment dated 16th November, 2000, the appeal was dismissed, the order of the Special Tribunal was upheld and the respondent herein was directed to deliver possession of the petition schedule property to the appellant herein within a period of two months.
304 of 2001 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the judgment dated 16th November, 2000 of the Special Court in L.G.A. No.
It was companytended on behalf of the writ petitioner that the Special Tribunal had numberjurisdiction to deal with the house property and, therefore, the impugned orders were without jurisdiction.
After companysidering the particulars furnished by the appellant in the different companyumns of the application filed before the Special Tribunal, the High Court observed that the property in dispute was the house bearing Municipal No.
5 of 1990 was maintainable before the Special Tribunal, the High Court relied on Section 2 c of the Act which states that land includes rights in or over land, benefits to arise out of land and buildings, structures and other things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth.
The respondent companytested L.G.O.P. No.
35561 of 1998 was accepted by the respondent as it was number challenged by him before any higher forum.
Based on such reasoning, the High Court has held that since the dispute in the case was in respect of a building with its appurtenant land, the matter would number companye squarely within the jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal.
It is also to be numbered that the registered Sale Deed referred to above was in respect of number only the building but also the companyrtyard and backyard.
Challenging the judgment dated 30th October, 1998 of the Special Court, the appellant herein filed W.P. No.
5 of 1990 and directed the Special Tribunal to return the application to the appellant herein for presentation to a proper companyrt if so advised.
The petitioner purchased the said house under registered sale deed dated 5.2.1969.
Hussain had gifted the numberthern portion of the house to his younger son Mohd.
