P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against an order made in I. A. No. 732 of 1991 in O. S. No. 106 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate judge, visakhapatnam dated 29-11-1991. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 106 of 1985 is the present revision petitioner. The plaintiff filed an application I. A. No. 732 of 1991 in o. S. No. 106 of 1985 on the file of the subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam under sec. 7-A of the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1982 hereinafter called as the Act for brevity requesting the Court to make over the suit to the Special Tribunal under the Act on the ground that on the allegations made in the plaint the provisions of the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1982 are attracted and hence the civil Court cannot further proceed with the matter and the matter has to be transferred to the Special Tribunal under the Act. The Court below instead of granting that relief, had dismissed the petition without costs and also had rejected the plaint under Or. 7 R. 11 (d) C. P. C. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner plaintiff had preferred the present revision. ( 3 ) HEARD both sides. ( 4 ) THE main question which has to be decided in the present revision is whether on the allegations made in the plaint in o. S. No. 106 of 1985 the matter has to be transferred to the Special Tribunal or whether the Civil Court continues to have jurisdiction to continue the proceedings. It has been contended that in view of the section 7-A sub-section (6) of the Act the case pending before any Court or other authority immediately before the commencement of the Act shall stand transferred to the Special Tribunal having jurisdiction as if the cause of action on which such suit or proceeding is based had arisen after such commencement. Reliance was placed on Section 8 (8) of the Act. ( 5 ) SRI E. S. Ramachandramurthy representing the respondent had placed before me the plaint O. S. No. 106 of 1985 and had submitted that the dispute is purely a title dispute and even on the allegations made in the plaint. If they are taken at their face value, the provisions of the Act are not attracted. ( 5 ) SRI E. S. Ramachandramurthy representing the respondent had placed before me the plaint O. S. No. 106 of 1985 and had submitted that the dispute is purely a title dispute and even on the allegations made in the plaint. If they are taken at their face value, the provisions of the Act are not attracted. It was further contended that the relief prayed for also will not come within the purview of the act. Though it may not be relevant for our purpose the learned Counsel, for the respondent also had drawn my attention to certain portions of the written statement that is the defence taken by the defendant respondent. ( 6 ) SECTION 2 (d) of the Act defines land grabber as a person or a group of persons who commits land grabbing. The expression land grabbing is defined under section 2 (e) of the Act as every activity of grabbing of any land (whether belonging to the Government, a local authority, a religious or charitable institution or endowment, including a Wakf, or any other private person) without any lawful entitlement. ( 7 ) IT is the contention of Sri E. S. Ramachandramurthy that the allegations in the plaint, if taken as a whole do not fall under either of the definitions and hence the Act itself has no application. When the Act is not applicable there is no question of maintaining an application under the provisions of the Act seeking transfer of the matter either to Special Tribunal or Special court as the case may be. ( 8 ) IN Raghavaratnam v. State of Andhra pradesh while dealing with a similar fact situation, this Court was pleased to observe as follows:" The provisions of the Land Grabbing act. Which have been referred to by me, would show that it is for the special Court and Special Court alone, which is constituted under that Act, to come to a decision whether a prima facie case is made out for enquiry into the matter. I have already referred to the proviso to Sec. 8 Which states that if in the opinion of the Special Court, any application filed before it is printa facie frivolous or vexatious, it shall reject the same without any further enquiry. I have already referred to the proviso to Sec. 8 Which states that if in the opinion of the Special Court, any application filed before it is printa facie frivolous or vexatious, it shall reject the same without any further enquiry. In the present case two applications were filed, one by ramulu and the other by the State of andhra Pradesh, contending that the matter fell to be considered under the land Grabbing Act. Section 8 enforces power on the Special Court to take cognizance of these applications and to examine whether a prima facie case is made out or not. If the Special Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out, it is open to that Court to take all subsequent steps necessary for enquiring into the matter. I am unable to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the special Court is not competent to scrutinise the applications filed before it and come to a prima facie conclusion that a case for enquiry under the Land grabbing Act prima facie exists. The power conferred on the Special Court to record such prima facie satisfaction cannot be ousted because the learned subordinate Judge held earlier that the provisions of the Land Grabbing Act do not apply. As I have already pointed out the Subordinate Judge is not the competent authority to determine whether the provisions of the Land Grabbing Act are applicable or not. Any decision to that effect must be regarded as a nullity. It is for the special Court constituted under the land Grabbing Act to come to a proper conclusion in the matter. I am unable therefore to accept the plea that the impugned order of the learned district Judge as illegal. "in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Sathaiah at page 257 it was observed as follows:" No doubt, exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil Court cannot be readily inferred unless expressly provided or gathered by necessary implication. Section 9 C. P. C. may be usefully extracted hereunder: courts to try all civil suits unless barred. 9. "in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Sathaiah at page 257 it was observed as follows:" No doubt, exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil Court cannot be readily inferred unless expressly provided or gathered by necessary implication. Section 9 C. P. C. may be usefully extracted hereunder: courts to try all civil suits unless barred. 9. The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their congnizance is either expressly or implied barred in view of the language employed in sub-section (2) and (8) of Section 8 of the Act, the same has to be inferred as it provides that any case pending before any Court shall stand transferred, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of the civil Court to try such a case. The Words shall stand transferred clearly imply that there is automatic transfer to the Special Court and the bar of jurisdiction of the civil court is equally automatic. Sub section (2) of sec 8 which starts with a non-obstante clause, also clearly implies the bar of jurisdiction of the civil Court. " ( 9 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that a suit of this nature falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Court or Special tribunal under the Act. Furthermore, the plaint was rejected by the Court below under Or. 7 R. 11 (d) of C. P. C. , which reads as follows: " 11. Rejection of plaint. The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: (A) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (B) where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (C) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped and the plaintiff on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so. (D) Where the suit appears from the statement is the plaint to be barred by any law. (D) Where the suit appears from the statement is the plaint to be barred by any law. Provided that the time fixed by the court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp papers, as the case may be, within five time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff. " it is pertinent to note that the Court below had clearly passed an illegal order in rejecting the plaint on the ground that the plaint itself is barred by the provisions of the Act. The relief prayed for in the application itself was requesting for the transfer of the suit but instead of granting the same the Court below had rejected the plaint. The order is not only illegal but there is jurisdictional error also committed by the court below. ( 10 ) HENCE, in the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order in i. A. No. 732 of 1991 in O. S. No. 106 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, visakhapatnam is set aside and the Court below is directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. ( 11 ) CIVIL Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. As the suit is of the year 1985, in the interest of justice,, the court below is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible No costs.