ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 12.12.2008 passed by the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad (for short, ‘Special Court’) in L.G.C.No.36 of 2007. 2. Heard Sri Jogram Tejavath, learned counsel for petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent no.1. 3. Petitioner herein is the applicant and the respondent no.2 herein is the respondent before the Special Court. Respondent no.1 herein is the Special Court. 4. The brief facts as narrated in the application filed before the Special Court are that petitioner is claiming to be the owner of house bearing No.12-10-379/A, admeasuring 48 square yards situated at Erukala Basthi, Zamistanpur, Sithaphal Mandi, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to ‘schedule property’). The petitioner is claiming ownership by virtue of patta certificate issued in the year 1996 by the Revenue Department in her name; that due to family problems and ill-health, petitioner shifted from Zamistanpur village to Ramnagar on the advice of elders; that taking advantage of absence of petitioner, respondent no.2 grabbed the schedule property; that despite repeated demands made by the petitioner, respondent did not vacate the house and therefore, petitioner got issued legal notice dated 27.11.2006 to the respondent no.2 to vacate the premises; that respondent got issued reply legal notice dated 14.12.2006 denying the contentions of the petitioner. In those factual background, petitioner filed the Land Grabbing case against the respondent to declare the respondent as land grabber and to deliver the possession of the schedule property. 5. The respondent No.2 filed counter contending that petitioner was never granted any patta and she never constructed a house bearing No.12-10-379/A and in fact, the schedule property belongs to Smt. Sayamma and she was residing in the said house. It is further contended that 2nd respondent and his family members are residing in H.Nos.12-10-379/1 and 12- 10/379/2 at Erukala Basthi, Zamistanpur and their possession was also regularized by the Revenue Divisional officer, Hyderabad on 24.07.1996 and D-form patta certificate Nos.G/4740/96 (7) and G/4740/96(10) was issued in the name of his wife K.Laxmamma and his mother K.Pochamma and they are in continuous possession of the said property. It is further contended that certificate relied upon by the petitioner is forged and petitioner had approached the MCH and Tax authorities and got issued a special notice in her name by GHMC only to create a false case. In fact, notice under Section 4 of A.P. Agricultural Land Assessment Act, 1963 (Act, 1963) was issued to his father during the year 1972-78 to pay assessment amount., which itself shows that his father was in possession and later a patta was issued in the name of his wife in the year 1996 and they are paying electricity and water bills regularly and finally it is contended that petitioner has no locus standi to claim schedule property. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Special Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the applicant is the owner of the application schedule property ? (2) Whether the rival title set up by respondent is true, valid and binding on the applicant ? (3) Whether the respondent can be termed as a land grabber within the meaning of the Act ? (4) To what relief ? 7. To substantiate the case, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A14 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B15 were marked. 8. The Special Court, on due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, came to conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish title over the schedule property and therefore, held issue no.1 against the petitioner. Insofar as the issue No.2 is concerned, the Special Court held that 2nd respondent could able to establish title over the schedule property and therefore, held the issue no.2 is in favour of respondent. 9. The Special Court while coming to the said conclusions has made the following observations: (i) P.W.1 deposed that she cannot give the names of several other persons who were given pattas by the Mandal Revenue Officer along with her. She has not filed copies of the pattas granted to others by the Mandal Revenue Officer nor filed list of the persons to whom D-form pattas were issued in that locality along with the applicant. The applicant has not examined the revenue officials to establish that 48 square yards of land was allotted to her and also for how many persons D-form pattas were given. The applicant has not examined the revenue officials to establish that 48 square yards of land was allotted to her and also for how many persons D-form pattas were given. Ex.B10 is the certified copy of the patta certificate issued in the name of M.Ramulamma. it shows that the said Ramulamma was given D-form patta for 12 square yards. She was granted D-form patta on 24.07.1996 and the house number is noted as 12-10-372/A, Erukalabasti. It probabalizes the contention of the respondent that D-form pattas were issued to an extent of 12 square yards for about 20 to 25 families in the locality and in Sy.No.20, 11 B-D&P W-141. (ii) That petitioner failed to adduce any evidence to prove that she was staying in the schedule property prior to the date of issuance of D-form patta and her name is also not found in the list of allottees. It is also observed that according to the petitioner, she constructed a house after issuance of D-form patta, however, as per the report of the MRO, D-form patta was issued in favour of the existing dwelling units. Applicant has not established that by the time of allotment of the house under Ex.A1, there was a dwelling house and she was staying there, by any documentary evidence. She filed the property tax notice, Ex.A2, issued to the applicant by the MCH on23.05.2006. Ex.A3 is the property tax receipt dated 20.07.2006. By that date, the respondent is in possession of the application schedule property bearing different door numbers. So, Exs.A2 and A3 do not relate to the application schedule property. When she is not residing in the application schedule property since 2002 and filing Exs.A2 and A3 of 2006, supports the contention of the respondent that the applicant got the notices issued by MCH just before filing the case for the house bearing No.12-10-379/A. The house situated in the application schedule property is H.Nos.12-10-279/1 and 12-10/379/2. No tax receipts were filed from 1996 to 2002. Hence, Exs.A2 and A3 do not help the applicant to contend that she was residing in that house till 2002. No tax receipts were filed from 1996 to 2002. Hence, Exs.A2 and A3 do not help the applicant to contend that she was residing in that house till 2002. When the applicant is not residing there and admittedly, the respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the house situated in the application schedule land, even if Exs.A2 and A3 were issued in the name of the applicant, it can be said they do not relate to the house situated in the application schedule land. 10. The Special Court observed that the Report of the Mandal Revenue Officer under Rule 6 of the Rules framed under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act was received. In the report of the MRO, it was stated that on verification of the record in the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad in File No.G/4740/96, it is revealed that (26) D-form pattas were issued in respect of already existing dwelling units in Erukalabasthi in T.S.Nos.19 and 20, Block-D and T.S.Nos.10 and 11, Block-E of Ward No.141 of Zamisthapur village duly acquiring the land in T.S.Nos.19 and 10 which are patta lands. It is further stated by the MRO that on verification of the list of beneficiaries of D-form patta holders, the name of the applicant is not there. On ground one Sri K.Ramesh is in occupation of premises No.12-10-379/1, Erukalabasthi. In support of occupation, he has produced two D- form patta certificates i.e., one in the name of his wife Smt. K.Laxmamma and the other in the name of his mother, Smt. K.Pochamma. They were listed in the S.E.S. list of Revenue Divisional office file bearing No.G/4740/96 at Sl.Nos.7 and 10. 11. The Special Court has come to conclusion that D-form patta certificate (Ex.A1) filed by the petitioner is not genuine and only to claim schedule property, which is in the occupation of the respondent, she seems to have filed the application. The Special Court further observed that list of beneficiaries of D-form filed by the petitioner appears to be tampered, wherein the word ‘not’ was struck off and the same was not attested by the MRO and it is also in different ink and pen and after striking out the word ’not’, the petitioner seems to have obtained certified copy. 12. The Special Court further observed that list of beneficiaries of D-form filed by the petitioner appears to be tampered, wherein the word ‘not’ was struck off and the same was not attested by the MRO and it is also in different ink and pen and after striking out the word ’not’, the petitioner seems to have obtained certified copy. 12. In the light of above observations, the Special Court has come to conclusion that petitioner failed to establish her title over the schedule property and issue no.1 is accordingly held against the petitioner. 13. Insofar as the issue no.2 is concerned, the Special Court has observed that the document filed by the 2nd respondent would clearly establish possession and title of the 2nd respondent. The Special Court has specifically referred to Ex.B3-notice issued to the wife of 2nd respondent demanding water cess, Ex.B4-sanction of water connection in respect of the premises bearing No.12-10-379/1 owned by K.Laxmamma, Exs.B5 to B8 which are electricity bills and payment receipts in respect of House No.12-10-379/1. The Special Court further observed that Exs.B11 to B13 shows that 2nd respondent purchased material for construction of the house on the schedule property and Ex.B15 is the proof of payment of processing fee for sanction of water connection. The Special Court by referring to the above documents marked on behalf of 2nd respondent and also the list of beneficiaries of Dform pattas, has come to conclusion that respondent could able to establish title over the schedule property and answered the issue no.2 in favour of the respondent No.2. 14. Insofar as issue no.3 is concerned, the Special Court has observed that 2nd respondent was in possession and enjoyment of schedule property in view of D-form patta certificate issued in favour of his mother’s name and there is no act of land grabbing on the part of the 2nd respondent and thus, held that 2nd respondent is not a land grabber. 15. In the light of findings on issue nos.1, 2 and 3, the Special Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 16. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that taking advantage of ill-health of the petitioner and being a woman, the respondent had grabbed the schedule property and therefore, petitioner was constrained to approach the Special Court to declare the respondent no.2 as land grabber and also for delivery of possession of the schedule property. 17. 16. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that taking advantage of ill-health of the petitioner and being a woman, the respondent had grabbed the schedule property and therefore, petitioner was constrained to approach the Special Court to declare the respondent no.2 as land grabber and also for delivery of possession of the schedule property. 17. Learned counsel for petitioner further contended that despite filing voluminous documents i.e., Exs.A1 to A14, the Special Court failed to appreciate the same and has come to erroneous conclusion that petitioner failed to establish her title. Learned counsel primarily contended that petitioner was issued D-form patta certificate in her name, however, the Special Court did not consider the same on erroneous interpretation. Further, Ex.A2-special notice of house tax, Ex.A3-proeprty tax payment receipt and Exs.A9 to A14 - electricity bills, amply establish ownership and possession of the petitioners. However, the Special Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and material placed on record and therefore, impugned order is unsustainable and finally, prayed to set aside the impugned order and pass appropriate orders. 18. Though the learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that petitioner is the owner of the schedule property, no valid, legally admissible evidence is placed on record establishing the title and ownership of petitioner in respect of schedule property and further, the learned counsel for petitioner also failed to point out specific document under which the title of the petitioner can be established. 19. Insofar as D-form patta (Ex.A1) is concerned, as mentioned supra, the Special Court has come to categorical conclusion that Ex.A1 is not genuine and has been tampered with on detailed examination of list of beneficiaries of D-form patta and the learned counsel for petitioner failed to point out any irregularity or illegality in the observations and conclusions of the Special Court. Further, electricity bills, which are marked as Exs.A9 to A14, pertain to House No.116/1, Miryalagadda, Seethaphalmandi, which is not the schedule property and therefore, cannot be even looked into. Insofar as Ex.A2-special notice of house tax and Ex.A3-property tax receipt are concerned, the Special Court has specifically observed that the same do not relate to the schedule property. Exs.A4 and A5 are the legal notice and postal acknowledgment. 20. It is appropriate to refer to Section 10 of the Act, 1882. “S.10. Insofar as Ex.A2-special notice of house tax and Ex.A3-property tax receipt are concerned, the Special Court has specifically observed that the same do not relate to the schedule property. Exs.A4 and A5 are the legal notice and postal acknowledgment. 20. It is appropriate to refer to Section 10 of the Act, 1882. “S.10. Burden of proof:- 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 grabbed 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. ” 21. Section 10 of the Act specifies that the applicant, who approaches the Land Grabbing Court, has to establish prima facie his title and thereafter, the burden lies on the respondent to disprove that he is not a land grabber. 22. The Special Court categorically held that petitioner failed to establish prima facie title to the subject property, therefore, in fact, there is no necessity even to verify or examine the title of the 2nd respondent. However, the Special Court has also verified the said aspect and on due consideration of oral, documentary evidence placed on record, has come to conclusion that respondent no.2 has title and ownership over the schedule property. 23. As explained supra, none of the documents filed by the petitioner establishes the title or possession of the petitioner over the schedule property, whereas the 2nd respondent has filed Exs.B1 to B15 in support of his title and possession and the same are related to schedule property and thus, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. Thus, Writ Petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. 24. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.