( 1 ) THE petitioners/respondents 3 and 4 filed the writ petition challenging the judgment in LGC No,. 1 of 1997 on the file of the Special Court under A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad (hereinafter called the Special Court) and to quash the judgment and decree dated 22. 10. 1997 being illegal and contrary to the provisions of the land grabbing provisions and to pass just and proper order. ( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as follows: the respondents 2 to 6 herein filed LGC 1 of 1997 on the file of the Special Court praying to direct the respondents therein to deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule property by removing the structures and to declare the respondents as land grabbers and for allied reliefs. The applicants in LGC 1 of 1997 contended that the petition schedule property is an extent of 696 sq. yards situated in new S. Nos. 774/1, 775/1 and 775/2 corresponding to old S. Nos. 674 and 719 of Raja Srinivasa Nagar, Mirjalaguda, Malkajgiri village, R. R District. The applicants contended that they are absolute owners of the property and the respondents grabbed the said property and hence they approached the Special Court for the reliefs prayed for. ( 3 ) THE 3rd respondent filed counter which was adopted by the other respondents. It is the contention of the respondents that the petition schedule property originally belonged to one Darjee Satteyya who was owner and patttedar and the 4th respondent purchased the said property under a registered sale deed dated 24. 3. 1990 and the 4th respondent in his term sold the property in favour of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the property in his own right. ( 4 ) ON the above pleadings, the Special Court framed and settled the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the applicants are the owners of the application schedule property? 2. Whether the respondents 1 to 4 have title to the application schedule property? 3. Whether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of Section 2 (d) and (e) of the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982? 4. Whether the applicants are entitled to any compensation? 5. To what relief? ( 5 ) ON behalf of the petitioners, Pws 1and 2 were examined and Ex. 3. Whether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of Section 2 (d) and (e) of the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982? 4. Whether the applicants are entitled to any compensation? 5. To what relief? ( 5 ) ON behalf of the petitioners, Pws 1and 2 were examined and Ex. A1 to A28 were marked. On behalf of the respondents Rws 1 to 3 were examined and Ex. B1 to B16 were marked. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, the Special Court allowed the application and directed the respondents 3 and 4 to deliver the vacant possession within two months from the date of judgment to the applicants. The Special Court also directed the respondents 3 and 4 to pay mesne profits till the delivery of possession. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED against the judgment and decree in LGC 1 of 1997, the respondents 3 and 4 filed the writ petition challenging the judgment and decree of the Special; Court contending that the Special Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the applicants proved their right and title to the disputed property. The Special Court erred in coming the conclusion that the respondents 3 and 4 are the land grabbers and thereby liable to be evicted. The Special Court further erred in directing the respondents 3 and 4 to pay mesne profits to the applicants. The Special Court ignored the documents filed by the respondents in particular the decree in O. S. No. 82 of 1989 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Hyderabad, East and North, R. R. District. ( 7 ) NOW the point for consideration is whether the writ petitioners have proved that the Special Court committed error of law in coming to the conclusion that the writ petitioners are the land grabbers liable to be evicted and also liable to pay mesne profits and if so whether the writ petitioners are entitled to any relief? the applicants filed LGC 1 of 1997 to declare the respondents as land grabbers and to evict them from the petition schedule property. The 3rd petitioneris examined as Pw1 and N. Srinivas Nemivant is examined as Pw2. Ex. A1 to A28 were marked on their behalf. the applicants filed LGC 1 of 1997 to declare the respondents as land grabbers and to evict them from the petition schedule property. The 3rd petitioneris examined as Pw1 and N. Srinivas Nemivant is examined as Pw2. Ex. A1 to A28 were marked on their behalf. It is in the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 that the disputed property was purchased by Raja Srinivasa Rao Nemivanth under a registered sale deed dated 24th Amardad 1336 Fasli from its original owner Yerava Krishna Reddy and the registration copy of the said sale deed, which is in Urdu, is marked as Ex. A1. The English translation is marked as Ex. A2. Raja Srinivas Rao who was in possession of the property died in the year 1954 and the applicants 1 to 3 and the father of the applicants 4 and 5 succeeded to the said Ac. 12. 24 gts of land in S. Nos. 674 and 719 of Raja Srinivasa Nagar, Mirjalaguda, Malkajgiri village, Ranga Reddy District. At the time of execution of Ex. A1, the land was vacate land and in the year 1956, the applicants 1 to 3 and the father of the applicants 4 and 5 made plots of the said Ac. 12. 20 gunts after obtaining sanction for the lay out from the Gramapanchayath of Malkajgiri village. Ex. A3 is the lay out sanctioned plan for 122 plots. The applicants 1 to 3 and the father of applicants 4 and 5 sold all the plots except the plots bearing Nos. 19, 20, 21, 23 and 25. The father of applicants 4 and 5 died in the year 1977. Pw1 obtained permission for construction of house in the disputed plots from Malkajgiri Gramapanchayath on 31. 7. 1979 and Ex. A4 is the sanctioned plan. When R1 to R4 tried to interfere with their possession, they filed O. S. No. 181 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif, East and North, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District seeking permanent injunction and subsequently they withdrew the said suit and filed the present LGC. In the year 1954 there was revisional survey and the revisional survey number for the old S. Nos. 674 and 719 of Malkajigiri were co-related for 774, 775/1 and 775/2. The applicants also filed certified copies of vasul baki and pahanies which are marked as Ex. A9 to A24. In the year 1954 there was revisional survey and the revisional survey number for the old S. Nos. 674 and 719 of Malkajigiri were co-related for 774, 775/1 and 775/2. The applicants also filed certified copies of vasul baki and pahanies which are marked as Ex. A9 to A24. The respondents adduced evidence to the effect that the property originally belonged to Darjee Satteyya and R-4 purchased the said property under a registered sale deed which was marked as Ex. B2. The 3rd respondent purchased the property from R4 under Ex. B1 sale deed. R-4 obtained permission for construction of building and he paid property tax also. The respondents did not produce any documents of title as to how Darjee Satteyya had title to the disputed property to sell the property in favour of R-4. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the title deeds of Darjee Satteyya has not been filed. On the other hand, Ex-A9 to A22 would clinchingly establish the title and possession of the applicants with regard to the disputed property. The documents filed by the applicants would prove the right and title to the disputed property. Thus, the respondents 3 and 4 grabbed the disputed property and they made illegal constructions without any right or title. The applicants by clinching documentary evidence proved their right and title to the disputed property. The Special Court discussed the right and title to the disputed property and rightly came to the conclusion that the respondents are land grabbers and they were liable to be evicted. In the light of the above discussion, the Special Court has not committed any error in appreciating the evidence. As decided by several judgments of the apex Court, the scope of writ petition is very limited and the writ petitioners have not proved that the Special Court committed any error of law in arriving at the conclusion. There are no merits in the writ petition and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.