Order: (V. Eswaraiah, J.) Heard both sides. 2. These two writ petitions arise out of a common judgment and decree, dated 22-06-2004, in L.G.C.No.157 of 1996 on the file of the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad. The said L.G.C. was filed by Y.S.M.Lakshmi and fifteen others against the petitioners and the 1st respondent in both the writ petitions, under Section 8(1) of the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, (for short ‘the Act’) through their G.P.A. Holder Sri P.Koteswara Rao stating that the petitioners herein grabbed an extent of 800 sq. yards of land in Sy.No.403 of Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad and, therefore, they are liable to be prosecuted and punished for committing the offence of land grabbing under the provisions of the Act and also to restrain them by way of perpetual injunction from grabbing the application schedule land either by way of causing interference with the applicants’ possession in any manner whatsoever or in the alternative the applicants be put in possession over the schedule property by evicting the respondents. 3. The Special Court took cognizance of the case under Section 8 of the Act and the same was published in the A.P. Gazette No.216, dated 30-09-1996, under Section 8(6) of the Act calling for the objections, but no objections were received. In response to the said notice, the Mandal Revenue Officer filed his report as required under Rule 6 of the Rules framed under the Act. 4. It is the case of the applicants before the Special Court that they were allotted the land admeasuring 50 sq. yards each totaling an area of 800 sq. yards in Sy.No.403, Indiranagar Slum, Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad, and the premises numbers were also given independently in relation to the lands allotted to them. The said property was assigned to them by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad, vide proceedings, dated 15-08-1989 in File No.F/8406/84 under “Welfare Scheme of State Government” and the said Authority issued Form “D” Certificates in their favour way back in 1989 and since then they have been enjoying the continuous and peaceful possession of the said property. While so, the petitioner in W.P.No.15316 of 2004 along with the Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda, tried to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question. While so, the petitioner in W.P.No.15316 of 2004 along with the Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda, tried to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question. Aggrieved by the said action, the applicants filed W.P.No.10522 of 1996 before this court, wherein interim stay of dispossession was granted. 5. It is further stated that the petitioners herein filed O.S.No.1819 of 1996 on the file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the State for perpetual injunction in respect of 792 sq. mtrs. of land giving same descriptive particulars of the property claimed by the applicants. In the said case, the Government filed a counter stating that the property, which the petitioners herein claimed, actually belonged to the Government and the same was assigned in favour of the applicants. The Government also filed an application in the said suit to appoint a Surveyor to locate the property in dispute in the said suit. After filing the said application by the Government and also the implead petition filed by the applicants, the petitioners herein had withdrawn the said suit. 6. It is further stated that the applicants also filed O.S.No.3102 of 1996 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for perpetual injunction and the applicants sought to withdraw the same, in view of the changed circumstances. In the said case, a counter has been filed by the G.P.A. holder of the petitioner in W.P.No.17409 of 2004 stating that an extent of 20 acres of land in Sy.No.129/11/Paiki was originally belonged to one Narayana, Ramulu and Ramaiah, who sold the same to one T.V.Ramachandraiah, S/o.Venkataramaiah under two registered Sale Deeds, dated 16-04-1964. The petitioner in W.P.No.17409 of 1994, who is the 2nd respondent in the said L.G.C., purchased Plot No.22, out of the layout bearing No.13/65 from the said T.V.Ramachandraiah under a registered Sale Deed, dated 10-12-1966 for an extent of 792 sq. mtrs. Since the date of purchase, he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. After purchase, the petitioner in W.P.No17409 of 2004 executed a G.P.A. in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.15316 of 2004 on 16-04-1988 for obtaining necessary sanction from various authorities for construction of the building in the scheduled land. The petitioner in W.P.No.15316 of 2004 obtained sanctioned plan on 09-08-1995. After purchase, the petitioner in W.P.No17409 of 2004 executed a G.P.A. in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.15316 of 2004 on 16-04-1988 for obtaining necessary sanction from various authorities for construction of the building in the scheduled land. The petitioner in W.P.No.15316 of 2004 obtained sanctioned plan on 09-08-1995. After obtaining permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, while the petitioner in W.P.No.15316 of 2004 was constructing ground floor and first floor, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda, issued a notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, against which, the petitioner in W.P.No.15316 of 2004 filed W.P.No.13083 of 1996 before this court and initially obtained stay of all other proceedings. During pendency of the said writ petition, he applied for regularization of encroachment to the Government and subsequently, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. 7. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.17409 of 2004 before the Special Court that the applicants in the said L.G.C. have no right, title and possession over the property in question and they have no locus standi to file the said L.G.C. The G.P.A. executed by the applicants to sell or make any construction etc., is contrary to the provisions of Act 9 of 1977. 8. It is the case of the Government before the Special Court that the property in question belongs to the Government and the assignment was made in favour of the applicants and ultimately they have violated the terms and conditions of the assignment orders and also obtained pattas by misrepresenting the officials, and therefore, the assignment was cancelled. 9. On behalf of the applicants, only one witness was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-54. 10. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2 therein, the 1st respondent therein was examined as RW.1. 11. On behalf of the 3rd respondent therein, the Mandal Revenue Officer was examined as RW.2 and the Mandal Surveyor was examined as RW.3 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-28. The Commissioners report and sketch were marked as Exs.C-1 and C-2 respectively. 12. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Special Court held that the said land is a Government land and the Government is the owner of the said land. Admittedly, the applicants are the assignees and whose assignments were cancelled and, therefore, they are not the owners of the scheduled land. 13. 12. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Special Court held that the said land is a Government land and the Government is the owner of the said land. Admittedly, the applicants are the assignees and whose assignments were cancelled and, therefore, they are not the owners of the scheduled land. 13. It is further held that even RW.1, power of attorney holder of the petitioner in W.P.No.17409 of 2004, admitted that he did not verify the survey records to find out whether Sy.No.129/11/Paiki is existing or not at the time of entering into development agreement with the petitioner in W.P.No.17409 of 2004. He has also admitted that he filed an application for regularization of the application schedule property accepting that it is a Government land. Though the petitioners herein raised a plea that the application schedule property is situated in Sy.No.129/11/Paiki, they accepted it as a Government land and applied for regularization. Therefore, it was held that the application schedule property is not situated in Sy.No.129/11/Paiki as claimed by the petitioners herein and it is situated in Sy.No.403 of Shaikpet Village. Thus, it is held that the petitioners herein have no right and title over the said property. 14. There is no dispute that the house site pattas granted in favour of the applicants were cancelled by the District Collector, through proceedings No.D4/2474/1997, dated 19-04-1997, and the cancellation of the said patta certificates for violation of the terms and conditions has become final. Admittedly, the applicants had violated the terms and conditions of the assignment by entering into development agreement with their general power of attorney holder Sri P.Koteswara Rao, who constructed commercial complex. Therefore, the Special Court held that the petitioners herein are the land grabbers and they have no legal entitlement and they are in unlawful possession. As the petitioners herein are in possession of the application schedule property without any legal entitlement, in fact, they have applied for regularization of their occupation, which is said to have been pending before the authorities concerned, the Special Court while dismissing the L.G.C. directed the petitioners herein to handover vacant possession of the application schedule property to the State. 15. 15. Though these two writ petitions have been filed on various grounds stating that they have perfected their title by adverse possession, during the course of examination, the petitioners realized that admittedly the assignment of the house sites in favour of the applicants has been cancelled for violation of the terms and conditions of the assignment orders and in fact, it is not disputed that they filed an application for regularization of their illegal possession, accepting that the land in question is not situated within the survey number as claimed by them, but it is situated in the survey number which belongs to the Government. They only restricted their relief that in a case filed by the applicants before the Land Grabbing Court, it is not open for the Special Court to grant relief in favour of the Government, more so, when the Land Grabbing Case has been dismissed. It is stated that the State Government is not the applicant in the L.G.C. and though the Special Court recorded a finding that the State Government is the owner of the said property and the petitioners herein are in illegal possession without having any legal entitlement, without taking recourse by the Government in appropriate proceedings either under the Land Encroachment Act or the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 before the Special Court, it is not open for the Special Court to direct the petitioners herein to vacate and handover vacant possession to the Government, as the Government is not an applicant, and more so, in somebody’s application, the Special Court cannot direct the petitioners herein to vacate and handover vacant possession to the Government. 16. We are not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the aforesaid contentions as the said contentions go beyond the scope of the controversy in the L.G.C. The controversy in the L.G.C. is whether the applicants are the legal owners and whether the petitioners herein grabbed their land. The Special Court held that the land admittedly belongs to the Government and the said land was assigned in favour of the applicants and for violation of the terms and conditions of the assignment, the house pattas have been cancelled, and in fact, notices given under the Land Encroachment Act are pending, it is always open for the Government to evict the encroachers. But, we are of the opinion that in a Land Grabbing case filed by the applicants, which was dismissed, no relief can be granted directing respondents 1 and 2 therein, who are petitioners herein, to handover vacant possession of the application schedule land to the Government. 17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we set aside the operative portion of the judgment, which reads as follows:- “……… As respondents 1 and 2 are in possession of the application schedule land without any legal entitlement, they are directed to handover vacant possession of the application schedule land to third respondent-State within two months from the date of this order. Else, the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer shall take possession of the same within two months after expiry of two months fixed above and submit compliance report to the Court as per Rule 15(2) of the Rules framed under the Act.” We confirm all other findings that the said land belongs to the Government and the possession of the petitioners herein in respect of the scheduled land is without any legal entitlement. 18. The writ petition is accordingly allowed-in-part as indicated above, keeping it open for the Government to recover possession of the land in question by evicting the petitioners herein, either by initiating proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act or taking any other legal recourse in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.