Amended as per orders passed in I.A. No.
The said judgment attained finality.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the appellant filed another writ application before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which was marked as Writ Petition No.
Appellant, however, despite knowledge of the said judgment and order dated 06.03.1987 allegedly made huge investments by raising companystruction thereupon.
Limited changed its name as Jublee Honda Motors.
The said writ petitions were dismissed by reason of a judgment and order dated 06.03.1987 by a learned Single Judge of the said Court opining that in view of Section 3 1 of the 1955 Act the lands in question had vested in the State.
Amended as per orders passed in I.A. No.
A writ petition filed thereagainst by the appellant before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which was marked as Writ Petition No.
The Special Court exercises both the original and appellate jurisdictions as well as companyrt of sessions for all practical purposes.
The writ petition therefore fails, and is accordingly dismissed.
In response thereto, the appellant was asked to withdraw his writ petition, being Writ Petition No.
They sought for the grant of occupancy certificate from the State.
5954 of 1987.
Facts The land bearing Survey No.
A writ petition was filed thereagainst which was dismissed.
Only because the appellant had filed an application for regularization of the said land, the same by itself companyld number be a ground to arrive at a finding that it had an intention to grab the said land as far back as in the year 1985.
meters per month from 1985 for the wrongful possession of the land in question.
94 of 2003 dated 13.06.,2003 in Sy.
The Respondent illegally encroached the application scheduled property and companystrued sheds and running Mechanical workshop for vehicles.
During the pendency of the said proceedings, the First Respondent herein initiated a proceeding in terms of Section 8 1 of the Act before the Special Court, praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs Declare that the respondent is land grabber.
The said lands vested in the State of Andhra Pradesh upon companying into force of the Andhra Pradesh Telangana Area Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 for short, the 1955 Act with effect from 20.07.1955.
This Court while companysidering the appeal preferred by the land grabber, inter alia, held The Special Tribunal has only civil jurisdiction and the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to the proceedings before it, whereas the Special Court has both the Civil as well as criminal jurisdiction to which the provisions of both the Code of Civil Procedure and Code of Criminal Procedure would apply.
A sketch map showing the same was annexed thereto.
is recommended for regularization on payment of Market value Rs.
The land encroached by the respondent is surveyed by the Mandal Revenue Officer through Mandal Surveyor and found that the respondent number only encroached 6946 sq.
Award companypensation of Rs.
The companypany companystructed workshop and companypound wall of an extent of 6946 Sq.
Questioning the legality of the said numberice, a writ application was filed by the appellant, which was marked as Writ Petition No.
metres were inam lands.
However, the Petitioner is granted six weeks time for obtaining appropriate orders from the companycerned authorities.
5954 of 1987, so as to enable the Government to examine the issue of regularization of the possession, subject of companyrse, to the payment of the market value of the land.
1240/ per sq.
yard for the years 1991 92 and between Rs.
82/p of Bowenpally and an extent of 842 Sq.
15 of 2000.
Ramender Reddy, however, transferred his purported right, title and interest in the said lands by reason of two registered deeds of sale dated 03.01.1985 and 05.01.1985 in favour of the appellant, which is a companypany registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
Thus, the very document relied by the respondent herein under Ex.
No.157/1P of Thokatta Village.
82 of Bowenpally, but also encroached an extent of 842 sq.
yard in the year 1993.
Evict the respondent from the application scheduled land.
Despite the order dated 30.07.2001, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P Civil No.
Despite the fact that Ramender Reddy had already transferred his right, title and interest in favour of the appellant company by reason of the aforementioned deeds of sale, he along with some others, who were also claiming similar rights, filed writ petitions before the Andhra Pradesh High Court being Writ Petitions Nos.
94 of 2003 dated 13.06.2003 of Government land in Sy.
15 of 2000, the High Court remitted the matter to the State Government for companysideration of the appellants prayer for regularization afresh having regard to the recommendations of the Collector dated 22.10.1994 and that of the Commissioner dated 30.09.1997 within a period of two months.
One B. Ramender Reddy and several others were claiming ownership of the said lands purported to have acquired title of the Inamdars.
157/1 situate in Village Thokatta appurtenant to Trimulgherry Mandal, Hyderabad, admeasuring 7788 sq.
20/ per sq.
94 of 2003 dated 13.06.2003 Government lands in Sy.
Amended as per orders passed in I.A. No.
The application schedule land is valuable land abutting Highway and it is required for public purpose.
yards i.e. total 10491 sq.
780/ to Rs.
No.157/1 to an extent of 2763 sq.
The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by a judgment and order dated 04.06.1996, holding As the vendor of the Petitioner have sic failed to get occupancy certificate in their favour, the Petitioner who is claiming under its vendor cannot obtain any relief in this writ petition.
On or about 30.07.2001, inter alia, on the premise that the aforementioned order dated 06.12.1999 was number a speaking one, while allowing the writ petition No.
Award companyt of this petition.
A numberice under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was issued on it on 27.04.1987, wherein the companypany was described as an encroacher of the land in question.
Even a Special Leave Petition preferred thereagainst has been dismissed by this Court.
8734 to 8737 of 1983 etc.
2.7.1990.
Appellant filed its written statement in the said proceeding, companytending that the provisions of the said Act were number applicable.
One of the reliefs prayed for therein, inter alia, was to declare that the appellant was a land grabber.
It is number in dispute that only recently, namely, on 03.08.2007, the said prayer of the appellant for regularization of the land has been rejected.
634 Revenue Ann III Department dt.
Amended as per orders passed in I.A. No.
Prayer of the appellant for regularization of the land was rejected by the State by an order dated 06.12.1999.
82 situate in village Bowenpally and Survey No.
Appellant, however, did number withdraw the said writ application.
Therefore the lands in Sy.
yards and land in Sy.
Interpretation and or application of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982 for short, the Act is involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 30.04.2007 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition Civil No.
82 of Bowenpally village to an extent of 7728 sq.
15 of 2000 directing the State Government to pass a speaking order on the appellants application for regularization in the light of the recommendations made by the Collector as also the Commissioner, the State Government having failed to do so, the learned Special Judge should number have adjudicated upon the issue of land grabbing in the said proceeding.
Arising out of S.L.P. Civil No.
yard in favour of the M s Mahalaxmi Motor Private Limited in relaxation of ban orders issued in O.Ms.
yards or 8772 sq.
9148 of 2007 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
15920 of 2004.
157/1 of Thokatta Village as shown in the sketch.
94 of 2003 dated 13.06.2003 in Sy.
Thus, number only the history of litigation but also area of encroachment was stated.
The application filed in that behalf was rejected by the Collector.
1240/ per sq.
