- (1.) The State of Andhra Pradesh is in appeal against the common judgment dated 18-9-1996 passed by the High Court of A.P. in W.P. No. 10074 of 1992 and batch of writ appeals whereby the judgment dated 30-7-1992 of the Special Court, Hyderabad under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act of 1982') has been reversed with declaration that the respondents are not 'land grabbers' within the meaning of definition clause contained in Section 2 (d) of the Act of 1982.
(2.) The principle submission made before us by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh is that the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction had no justification, as in appeal, to re-appreciate the whole evidence led by the parties before the Special Court and record contrary conclusions. Reliance is placed on Swarn Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1976 SC 232 and J.M.D. Alloys Ltd. v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors., 2003 (5) SCC 226, Paras 14 and 15 at pages 237-238.
(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the judgment of the High Court contending that the Special Court, established under the Act of 1982, overlooked vital documents of title produced by the occupants of the disputed land and gave undue importance to the fact that in revenue papers, the names of the occupants are not recorded as being in lawful possession of the lands in question. The submission made is that where a Special Court exercising exclusive jurisdiction conferred on it to determine whether the occupant of a land is a 'land grabber' or not, ignores vital piece of evidence and takes decision by giving importance to unimportant facts and circumstances, the power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 is wide enough to correct such gross errors of the Special Court. Reliance is placed on Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., 2003 (6) SCC 675.;