The material allegation is that application was that the first appellant encroached upon the government land to an extent of 5 acres in Survey No.
It was alleged that as per the government records plot number.
The Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda, representing the State of Andhra Pradesh, the first respondent, filed an application under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982 hereinafter referred to as the Act numbered as LGC 21 of 1988 in the Special Court under the Act for short the Special Court .
On the material placed by the Revenue Officer as per the verification report, persons who had been in possession of the disputed land were also issued numberices.
It was made clear that numberice under proviso to sub section 7 of Section 8 was number issued.
Though they were parties to LGC 21/88 in the Special Court, they are number impleaded in this appeal.
Thus the application filed by the first respondent LGC 21/88 was allowed by the Special Court on June 1, 1989.
680/1992 dated July 23, 1992, companyfirming the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No.
2001 Supp 1 SCR 383 The following order of the Court was delivered CA 6731/1994.
After companysidering the evidence placed on record the Special Court held that the government was the owner of the disputed land and that the respondents were land grabbers and ordered them to be evicted from the disputed land.
11,12 and 13 in Survey No.
Appellants 2 to 4 who were number parties before the Special Court, joined appellant number 1 in challenging the validity of the said order of the Special Court before the High Court in W.P. No.
403/1, situated at Shaikpet Village, Banjara Road, No.
On that application the Special Court took companynizance of the case and issued numberification under Section 8 6 of the Act in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette Extraordinary of November 7, 1988.
9846/l989.
He denied the allegation that he grabbed the disputed land.
10, Hyderabad for short the disputed land , made plots and sold them to respondents 2 to 15 before the Special Court who were treated as interested persons.
403/1 of Shaikpet Village were unrecognised plots and were treated as government lands.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No.
WITH Writ Petition No.
The first appellant pleaded, interalia, that he had agreed to purchase the disputed land from its owners and possessors, appellants 2 to 4, and obtained possession under the agreement for sale.
904/1992.
It is against that order the present appeal is filed by Special Leave.
9846/1989 dated June 16, 1992 by which the writ petition filed by the appellants, was dismissed.
The learned Single Judge who dealt with the case took the view that 1 the appellants had the opportunity of having the impugned order revewed under Section 17 A of the Act 2 if they felt aggrieved by the judgment of the Special Court numberhing prevented them from filing a suit for declaration of their title and right and 3 on the merits of the case the judgment of the Special Court was perfectly justified on the basis of the evidence placed before it, there was numberlack of jurisdiction in the Special Court, numbererror apparent on the face of the record and numberviolation of principles of natural justice.
