MOTILAL B. NAIK, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners, numbering three, have approached this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the award dated 4. 11. 1997 made by the Special Court under a. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, hyderabad, (for short "the Special Court") in L. G. C. No. 76 of 1996 on various grounds and to pass appropriate orders, which are deemed to be fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 2 ) THE respondent in the writ petition filed a complaint before the Special Court alleging that Sri Ramachandra Reddy, sri Anantha Reddy and their brother are the owners of 3 acres 28 guntas of land situated in Sy. No. 58, T. S. No. l56-J-36/2 of zamistanpur village, Musheerabad Mandal (New Balajinagar), Hyderabad District. According to the applicant, in a family partition a portion of the land was allotted to sri Ramachandra Reddy together with the schedule property to an extent of 300 sq. yards in T. S. No. l56/j/36/2. Sri Ramachandra reddy sold the property to an extent of 300 sq. yards to the applicant under a registered sale deed dated 21. 5. 1980 under ex. A. 2 and put the applicant in possession thereof and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. ( 3 ) THE applicant alleged before the special Court that the respondents, who are the petitioners in this writ petition, without any lawful entitlement grabbed his 300 sq. yards of property in the month of August, 1990 and raised illegal construction taking advantage of the fact that the applicant was working in a. P. S. R. T. C. at Visakhapatnam at the relevant point of time. ( 4 ) IN the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, who are the petitioners in this writ petition, it is admitted that the schedule property is a part of large extent of the property owned by the vendors sri Ramachandra Reddy and his brothers. But it was stated in the counter that the entire property in old Sy. No. 58 was agreed to be sold by Sri Ramachandra reddy and his brothers to the Gruha lakshmi Co-operative Housing Society limited (for short "the Society") under an agreement of sale dated 23. 1. 1976. But it was stated in the counter that the entire property in old Sy. No. 58 was agreed to be sold by Sri Ramachandra reddy and his brothers to the Gruha lakshmi Co-operative Housing Society limited (for short "the Society") under an agreement of sale dated 23. 1. 1976. The respondents, being the members of the society, were allotted 100 sq. yards of land each, which is the application schedule property, and they raised structures thereon subsequently. ( 5 ) IN the rejoinder, the applicant stated that though originally the entire extent was the subject matter of the sale in favour of the Society, the Society surrendered 2700 sq. yards of land out of the subject matter of agreement of sale dated 23. 1. 1976 to the vendor i. e. , Sri Ramachandra Reddy as it was found rocky and unsuitable for housing purposes. The said surrender was duly ratified by the Society at its meeting and later it was confirmed on 12. 1. 1987. ( 6 ) ON the basis of these claims, the special Court framed the following issues for consideration:"1. Whether the applicant is the owner of the application schedule property? 2. Whether the rival claim set up by the respondents is true and valid? 3. Whether this Land Grabbing Case is not maintainable in view of the pendency of O. S. No. 1266 of 1988 on the file of the Court of the i Addl. District Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad? 4. Whether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of A. P. Act XII of 1982? 5. To what relief?" ( 7 ) TO prove the settled issues, on behalf of the, applicant two witnesses were examined, PW1 being the applicant himself and PW2 being the President of the gruha Lakshmi Co-operative Housing society Limited and Exs. A. 1 to A. 13 were marked. On behalf of the respondents the 1st respondent was examined as RW1 and exs. B. l to B. 14 were marked. ( 8 ) ON the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the Special Court decided issues 1 and 2 in favour of the applicant and against the respondents, who are the writ petitioners before this Court. The Special Court, while deciding issues 1 and 2 in favour of the appellant, has taken into consideration the evidence of P. W. 2, who was the President of the Society. The Special Court, while deciding issues 1 and 2 in favour of the appellant, has taken into consideration the evidence of P. W. 2, who was the President of the Society. The evidence of P. W. 2 is to the effect that the Society had surrendered an extent of 2700 sq. yards of land to the owners i. e. , sri Ramachandra Reddy and his brothers and the said surrender of land Was ratified by the Executive Committee of the Society as it was found that the said extent of land was not useful for house building purpose. The Special Court at page 19 of its judgment held that the petitioners herein had failed to file a scrap of paper before it to show that they were the members of the society and that the Society allotted 100 sq. yards of land to each of them. Having found that the petitioners herein have failed to prove their case, as the burden was shifted on these petitioners to prove as to how they have come into possession of the schedule property, the Special Court decided both issues 1 and 2 in favour of the applicant and against the respondents i. e. , the writ petitioners. ( 9 ) WITH regard to issue No. 3, whether the Special Court has jurisdiction to entertain the L. G. C. , the Special Court held that when a complaint is lodged under the provisions of the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) act, 1982 (for short "the Act"), the Special court has jurisdiction. We agree with the view taken by the Special Court in this regard. Therefore, the writ petitioners cannot re-agitate the issue before us with regard to the jurisdiction of the Special Court to entertain the L. G. C. ( 10 ) WITH regard to issues 4 and 5, the Special Court held that since the respondents-writ petitioners have failed to discharge the obligation of proving their case by satisfactory evidence and as the applicant has discharged his initial obligation bringing to the notice of the Court that he purchased 300 sq. yards of land from sri Ramachandra Reddy, one of the members of the joint family from and out of 2700 sq. yards of land, which was surrendered by the society, the respondents-writ petitioners are land grabbers and decided both the issues in favour of the applicant and against the respondents-writ petitioners. yards of land from sri Ramachandra Reddy, one of the members of the joint family from and out of 2700 sq. yards of land, which was surrendered by the society, the respondents-writ petitioners are land grabbers and decided both the issues in favour of the applicant and against the respondents-writ petitioners. ( 11 ) IT is submitted by Sri C. Malla reddy, learned senior Counsel along with sri G. Anandam, learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the Special Court, though has framed several issues, but has missed the bus and has taken up the irrelevant issues and decided the matter which is not at all relevant for deciding the L. G. case. The learned senior Counsel also stated that as long as there is violation of the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act, the Special court ought not have entertained the complaint and that any transaction between the respondent herein with Sri Ramachandra reddy would negate the principles of the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and stated that on these two grounds, the order passed by the Special Court has to be set aside. ( 12 ) INSOFAR as the first limb of the submission about the decision of the special Court in declaring the writ petitioners as land grabbers, it is relevant to extract Section 10 of the Act, which is hereunder"where in any proceedings under this Act, a land is alleged to have been grabbed, and such land is prima facie proved to be the land owned by the Government or by a private person the Special Court or as the case may be, the Special Tribunal shall presume that the person who is alleged to have grab bed the land is a land grabber and the burden of proving that the land has not been grabbed by him shall be on such person. "a reading of Section 10 of the Act would reflect that the initial burden is on tht complainant who approaches the Special court or Tribunal complaining that the other side has grabbed his land and the initial burden of proving prima facie case is always on the complainant and then the burden would shift on the respondent before the tribunal or Special Court to prove that he is not a land grabber and he is validly holding possession of the land. ( 13 ) APPLYING this principle, if we examine the evidence on record and the finding of the Special Court, it appears to us that the respondent in this writ petition approached the Special Court complaining that an extent of 300 sq. yards of land, which is a part of the 2700 sq. yards of land surrendered by the Society as it was unsuitable for housing purpose, was purchased by him in the year 1980 from one Sri Ramachandra Reddy. The Special court held that the complainant has proved a prima facie case. In the counter filed on behalf of the present writ petitioners, they have taken a definite plea that they were the members of the Society and they were allotted 100 sq. yards of land each and by virtue of their allotment they have come into possession of the property. P. W. 2, the president of the Society, who was examined on behalf of the applicant deposed that out of the total extent of land agreed to be purchased from Sri Ramachandra Reddy and his brothers, the Society surrendered 2700 sq. yards of land to the owners i. e. , Sri ramachandra Reddy and his brothers as the said land was not suitable for housing purpose, and to that effect a resolution. was passed by the Executive Committee of the society, which was also ratified later and this fact is known to each and every member of the Society. The Special Court has given a finding that the writ petitioners herein have failed to file a scrap of paper to show that they were members of the Society and the Society allotted 100 sq. yards of land each to them. As required in part 2 of section 10 of the Act, the late burden is shifted on the respondents-writ petitioners, who claimed that they are in lawful possession of the property. As the writ petitioners have failed to discharge their burden by placing any document before the special Court, the finding of the Special court that the writ petitioners are land grabbers is just and proper and we entirely agree with the finding of the Special Court on this aspect. As the writ petitioners have failed to discharge their burden by placing any document before the special Court, the finding of the Special court that the writ petitioners are land grabbers is just and proper and we entirely agree with the finding of the Special Court on this aspect. ( 14 ) WHEN a complaint is lodged before the Tribunal or Special Court seeking remedy under the Act, and the initial burden is satisfactorily discharged by the complainant as required under section 10 of the Act, the Tribunal or the special Court has no other go except to declare the other side, who has failed to prove his possession as legal, as land grabber. In the set of circumstances, the Special court has rightly held that the writ petitioners herein are land grabbers and there is nothing before to us to take a different view than the view taken by the Special court. ( 15 ) WITH regard to the second limb of the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners that there was no permission from the competent authority under the provisions of the urban Land Ceiling Act, we feel that it is not necessary for us to examine the same, as in our view, these are the questions, which are away from the scope of this writ petition and not relevant for the purpose of deciding the principle issue whether the respondents in the l. G. C. No. 76 of 1996 are the land grabbers or not. ( 16 ) FOR all the above reasons, we hold that the judgment rendered by the Special Court is just and proper and no interference is required. According, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.