ORDER 1. THE APPELLANT, WHO WAS UNSUCCESSFUL BEFORE THE TWO TRIBUNALS AND THE HIGH COURT, IS BEFORE US IN THIS APPEAL. HE WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 2 ACRES 39 GUNTAS WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY OF LAW AS AN ENCROACHER. THE PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AGAINST HIM UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH LAND GRABBING (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1982 ("THE ACT" FOR SHORT). THE SPECIAL COURT UNDER THE ACT, AFTER INQUIRY, CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS A LAND GRABBER AND CONSEQUENTLY, PASSED AN ORDER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT DIRECTING DELIVERY OF POSSESSION AS WELL AS PAYMENT OF PROFITS @ RS 500 PER MONTH FROM 1-3-1986 TILL THE DATE OF DELIVERY OF POSSESSION. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SPECIAL COURT, THE APPELLANT FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE SPECIAL TRIBUNAL UNDER THE ACT. THE SPECIAL TRIBUNAL DID NOT FIND ANY GOOD REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW AND AFFIRMED THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE SPECIAL COURT. THE APPELLANT, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL TRIBUNAL, FILED WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE DIVISION BENCH PARTLY ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION TO THE EXTENT OF SETTING ASIDE THE DIRECTION FOR PAYMENT OF PROFITS @ RS 500 PER MONTH FROM THE YEAR 1986 TILL THE DATE OF DELIVERY OF POSSESSION. HOWEVER, THE HIGH COURT AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN OTHER RESPECTS, INCLUDING DELIVERY OF POSSESSION. HENCE, THIS APPEAL BY THE APPELLANT TO THE EXTENT HE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT. 2. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT IN VIEW OF DEFINITION OF "LAND GRABBING" GIVEN UNDER SECTION 2(E) OF THE ACT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ANY INTENTION TO ILLEGALLY OCCUPY THE LAND IN QUESTION. EVEN THOUGH HE WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW OR WITHOUT ANY ENTITLEMENT, THAT ITSELF WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO HOLD THAT THERE HAS BEEN LAND GRABBING BY HIM IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INTENTION TO OCCUPY THE LAND ILLEGALLY. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF GOUNI SATYA REDDI V. GOVT. OF A.P.1 3. PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS MADE SUBMISSIONS SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT. 4. THE TWO TRIBUNALS AS WELL AS THE HIGH COURT, ON THE FACTS, FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT WAS A "LAND GRABBER" AND THERE HAS BEEN LAND GRABBING BY HIM. OF A.P.1 3. PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS MADE SUBMISSIONS SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT. 4. THE TWO TRIBUNALS AS WELL AS THE HIGH COURT, ON THE FACTS, FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT WAS A "LAND GRABBER" AND THERE HAS BEEN LAND GRABBING BY HIM. IN DOING SO, PARTICULARLY IT WAS NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HIMSELF APPLIED FOR ASSIGNMENT OF THE LAND TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND HAD PAID TAXES UNDER THE ANDHRA PRADESH LAND ENCROACHMENT ACT, 1905, THAT IS "SIVAI JAMABANDI" PENALTY FOR BEING IN UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION AND CULTIVATION OF THE LAND. FROM THE FACTS FOUND IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NEITHER CLAIMED TO BE THE OWNER OF THE LAND NOR HAS HE CLAIMED HIS ENTITLEMENT TO BE IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE FACT IS THAT HE HAD NO RIGHT OVER THE LAND, HE HAS BEEN IN UNAUTHORISED POSSESSION AND HAD PAID "SIVAI JAMABANDI" AND PENALTY BEING IN UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION. THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD THE INTENTION TO ILLEGALLY OCCUPY THE LAND CAN BE GATHERED FROM THE FACTS WHICH WERE RIGHTLY FOUND SO BY THE TRIBUNALS, AS AFFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT. THE DECISION IN GOUNI SATYA REDDIL DOES NOT HELP THE APPELLANT. THAT WAS A CASE WHERE THE APPELLANT ENTERED THE LAND AS A PURCHASER ON THE BASIS OF SALE DEED WHICH WAS GOOD ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT HE DID NOT ENTER THE LAND WITH A VIEW TO ILLEGALLY TAKE POSSESSION. THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. 5. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL. THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. NO COSTS.