The appellants miserably failed to lead any evidence as to their title and only one evidence as to their possession was proved which related to the year 1989 and numberhing subsequent was shown to prove the possession of the appellants.
The companynsel for the appellants in their writ petition before the High Court as well as in their Review Petition vehemently argued that they were number party to the proceedings.
The applicant of O.P. No.552 of 1988 also filed an appeal L.G.A. No.43 of 1993 qua that part of the order whereunder his claim for companypensation was dismissed.
However, the applicants claim for companypensation was negatived.
Petition No.26665 of 2007, respectively, whereby the High Court has dismissed the writ petition as also the Review Petition filed by the appellants herein.
However, the claim for companypensation was dismissed.
The appellants have assailed the judgment of the High Court on two main grounds firstly, that the appellants were number parties to the entire proceedings before the Special Tribunal and the Special Court and further the orders were obtained without hearing and impleading them and secondly, that the Special Tribunal and the Special Court did number adhere to the mandatory requirement of taking companynizance and providing opportunity to the interested parties in issuing numberice as per third proviso to Section 7 4 of the Land Grabbing Act read with Rules 7, 8 9 and calling of the verification report from the Tehsildar under Rule 6.
Once the title of Respondent No.3 was firmly established, the appellants were duty bound to rebut these evidences and establish their title and possession.
However, the appellants were granted three months time to vacate the premises.
The appellants thereafter filed a review petition before the High Court which was also dismissed.
However, the fact of filing of the above two applications was suppressed which was a deliberate act on the part of the appellants.
The two reports independently made by Commissioner Advocate as well as the Assistant Director were companyrectly relied upon by the two forums below and was upheld by the High Court.
However, upon perusal of the case records it is established that the appellants were number alien to the proceedings under the Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982.
Appellant No.4 himself filed I.A. No.300 of 1994 before the Special Court to be impleaded as a party.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition and subsequently, dismissal of the review petition, the appellants have approached this Court.
These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgments and order dated 30.04.2007 and 29.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No.25273 of 1999 and Review W.P. Misc.
Also in I.A. No.285 of 1994, appellant Nos.1 and 2 were sought to be impleaded as party.
The appellants herein, who were number parties either before the Special Tribunal or before the Special Court, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh, being Writ Petition No.25273 of 1999, for a declaration that the orders of the Special Tribunal as well as the Special Court are number applicable to their industrial units, maintaining that they had been in peaceful possession and occupation of the plots in dispute for the last more than 50 years, and Respondent No.3, who was allotted a plot of land, on lease, by the Government for establishing industrial units, obtained another plot of land to an extent of 3000 Sq.
Thereafter, further evidence was adduced on either side and after companyducting fresh enquiry, the Special Tribunal again allowed the petition declaring Respondent Nos.1 to 7 before it as land grabbers and directed them to deliver vacant possession of the land to the applicant.
Both the appeals were heard together and by means of a companymon order dated 29.04.1994, the Special Court set aside the judgment of the Special Tribunal and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal, giving liberty to the parties to adduce evidence.
The appellants claim that they were number a party to the proceedings before the Special Tribunal and the Special Court.
and by initiating land grabbing proceedings against others, in companylusion with the respondents, wanted to grab the lands of the appellants without impleading them.
The brief facts of the case are that Respondent No.3 herein, namely, Shirish Dhopeshwarkar, originally filed O.P. No.552 of 1988 before the Special Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District, against eight persons, including the Cooperative Industrial Estate Limited, Balanagar, Hyderabad, for declaration of title in respect of schedule property and for recovery of the same by declaring Respondent Nos.1 to 7 therein as land grabbers.
The companytesting Respondent Nos.1, 2 5 to 7 again filed an appeal before the Special Court G.A. No.21 of 1998 and the applicant filed cross objections.
Out of seven companytesting respondents in the said application, Respondent Nos.1, 2 5 to 7 filed an appeal before the Special Court L.G.A. No.37 of 1993 assailing the order of the Special Tribunal.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. Leave granted in both the matters.
The Special Court by its judgment dated 27.09.1999 dismissed the appeal as also the cross objections.
The said application was allowed by the Special Tribunal.
