ORDER : (T. Vinod Kumar, J.) This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 25-10-2007 passed by the Special Court constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Special Court’) in Land Grabbing Case vide LGC No.72 of 2002. 2. The petitioners herein are respondents in the aforesaid LGC. 3. The respondent herein have filed the subject Land Grabbing Case (LGC) under Section 8(1) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’) initially against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein as respondents therein. During the pendency of LGC, on the death of 1 st petitioner herein, petitioner Nos.3 to 5 herein were brought on record as Legal Representatives of the deceased 1 st petitioner herein. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents in LGC, Sri Challa Subba Rao, learned Counsel for Sri M.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5, 6, 8 and 9/applicants in LGC and Sri Gade Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.14 to 16/applicants in LGC. 5. On behalf of the petitioners/respondents, it is contended that the Special Court did not follow the procedure prescribed under the Act while taking cognizance of the application filed by the respondents/applicants to declare the petitioners/respondents as land grabbers having grabbed land admeasuring 3010 sq. yards out of Ac.1.81 cents covered by plot Nos.1 to 32 in Sy.No.53 part of Kowkur village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (now Medchal-Malkajgiri District). 6. The petitioners/respondents contend that, the Special Court while taking cognizance of the application filed by respondents/applicants, though had called for report from the Mandal Revenue Officer, did not consider the aforesaid report while deciding the application filed by the respondents/ applicants, and if only the aforesaid report was considered, it would be clear that the respondents could not have been declared as land grabbers under the provisions of the Act. 7. It is the further case of respondents that, the Special Court having called for a report, ought to have taken into consideration the aforesaid report, and non-consideration of the report, has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 8. 7. It is the further case of respondents that, the Special Court having called for a report, ought to have taken into consideration the aforesaid report, and non-consideration of the report, has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 8. It is also the further case of petitioners/respondents that, as per Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 (for short ‘the Rules’), though, it is for the Court to call for a report or not, but once report is called, the same is required to be considered as held by a Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Mohd. Siddiq Ali Khan and another etc Vs. Shahsun Finance Ltd. and another , [ 2005(2) ALD 675 ]. 9. It is also the case of petitioners/respondents that, since the 1 st petitioner/respondent had denied the execution of agreement of sale or receiving part consideration thereunder, the applicants did not discharge the initial burden cast on them as per Section 10 of the Act, before the burden getting shifted on to the respondents. 10. The petitioners/respondents also contended that the issues have not been properly framed by the Special Court. 11. The petitioners/respondents further contended that since, the respondents/applicants except claiming to have obtained layout from the Gram Panchayat, did not place on record any material to show that such a layout was obtained, and on the other hand, the information obtained by the 2 nd petitioner/ respondent subsequently under the Right to Information Act, 2005 shows that the said Gram Panchayat was not in existence on the date when the respondents/applicants claim to have obtained layout sanction, as by then the subject area has become Grade-III Municipality. 12. The petitioners/respondents would further contend that their land is an agricultural land wherein agricultural operations are being undertaken and as such, the respondents/applicants cannot claim to be in possession or the petitioners/respondents having removed the stones with a tractor for the respondents/applicants to claim that the respondents/applicants having grabbed their land. 13. It is also the case of the petitioners/respondents that, the land in Sy.Nos.52 to 54 of Kowkur village belongs to 1 st petitioner/respondent and is a joint family property of him and his family members. 14. 13. It is also the case of the petitioners/respondents that, the land in Sy.Nos.52 to 54 of Kowkur village belongs to 1 st petitioner/respondent and is a joint family property of him and his family members. 14. Petitioners/respondents further contended that, though the said land was declared as Ceiling Surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, since the said determination under the said Act, on a challenge, was set aside, the respondents/applicants cannot claim the subject land having vested with the applicants for the Special Court to declare the petitioners/respondents as land grabbers of the said extent of land. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/applicant Nos.5 and 6 would contend that the petitioners/respondents herein except denying of execution of unregistered sale deed by claiming it as fabricated, did not take any steps to prove the factum of alleged fabrication. 16. On behalf of the respondents/applicants, it is further contended that petitioners/respondents did not file any documents before the Special Court in support of their contention along with the counter-affidavit as to the subject property being joint family property and that there was no agreement entered into by them with the respondents/applicants. 17. On behalf of the respondents/applicants, it is contended that though a report was called for from the Mandal Revenue Officer, the said report cannot be taken as a conclusive proof in favour of petitioners/respondents as none of the authorities who have given the aforesaid report have been examined; and that since the petitioners/respondents are not disputing the claim of the respondents/applicants to be the owners of land, having entered into an agreement of sale for part of land, the report furnished by the authorities only confirms position as to who is the owner of the subject land is and not the transactions which the petitioners/ respondents had entered into with the respondents/applicants under the agreement of sale dated 01-11-1992. 18. On behalf of the respondents/applicants, it is also contended that not only the 1 st petitioner/respondent entered into agreement of sale marked as Ex.A-1 before the Special Court, the 1 st petitioner/respondent also executed a registered Power of Attorney (PoA) in favour of the respondent/applicant No.1 dated 01-12-1993 and respondent/applicant No.1, on the basis of the aforesaid PoA, had executed registered sale deeds in favour of other applicants marked as Exs.A-3 to A-9 spread over the period between 1994-2000. 19. 19. On behalf of the respondents/applicants, it is further contended that since, the 1 st petitioner/respondent had accepted the sale deeds executed by the PoA holder of 1 st petitioner/respondent, without taking any steps to get the PoA or the sale deeds cancelled, the petitioners/respondents cannot wriggle out of their obligation under the aforesaid sale deeds. 20. On behalf of the respondents/applicants, it is also contended that the 1 st petitioner/respondent though, had filed his evidence affidavit as R.W.1, did not subject himself for being cross- examined by the respondents/applicants before the Advocate- Commissioner appointed by the Special Court resulting his evidence being eschewed, and thus, has failed to prove his claim of non-receipt of consideration under agreement of sale or execution of PoA being fabricated. 21. On behalf of the respondents/applicants, it is further contended that in terms of Section 10 of the Act, the applicants having discharged the initial burden cast on them by proving the execution of agreement of sale, execution of PoA in favour of 1 st respondent/applicant and the subsequent sale deeds for and on behalf of 1 st petitioner/respondent, the burden stands shifted to the 1 st petitioner/respondent to prove that he is not a land grabber, which the Special Court on due consideration of the aforesaid material had held against the 1 st petitioner/respondent. 22. On behalf of the respondents/applicants, it is further contended that though the 1 st petitioner/respondent claims to be owner of land in Sy.No.52 to 54, by virtue of the proceedings under the ULC Act, the entire land in Sy.No.53 was held to be ceiling surplus land and possession being taken over by the concerned authorities in the year 2005, and thus, the claim of the 1 st petitioner/respondent was rightly rejected by the special Court apart from self-contradictory. 23. On behalf of the respondents/applicants it is further contended that the 2 nd respondent except claiming that the 1 st petitioner/respondent was an illiterate person and could only affix his thumb impression, did not bring on record any document or adduce any evidence to substantiate the aforesaid claim. 24. It is also contended that the 2 nd petitioner/respondent did not file separate written statement, though was represented by a separate counsel, and had only relied upon the written statement/counter filed by the 1 st petitioner/respondent, who had failed to offer himself for being cross-examined by the respondents/applicants. 25. 24. It is also contended that the 2 nd petitioner/respondent did not file separate written statement, though was represented by a separate counsel, and had only relied upon the written statement/counter filed by the 1 st petitioner/respondent, who had failed to offer himself for being cross-examined by the respondents/applicants. 25. Thus, the respondents/applicants seek for dismissal of the present Writ Petition. 26. The aforesaid arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6/applicants were also adopted by learned counsel for respondent Nos.14 to 16 herein 27. We have taken note of respective contentions urged. CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT 28. Before adverting to the respective contentions, it is to be noted that the scope of a Writ Petition filed assailing the order of the Special Court is limited i.e. as to examine whether the Special Court had excluded the material that was placed before it or considered irrelevant material. (See: State of A.P V. Prameela Modi , [ (2006) 13 SCC 147 ] and State of A.P V. P.V. Hanumantha Rao & another , [ (2003) 10 SCC 121 ] .) 29. The respondents/applicants in support of their case, before the Special Court marked EX.A-1 to A-9 while the respondents did not choose to mark any documents. 30. Though, on behalf of the petitioners/respondents, it is contended that the Special Court having not followed the procedure as prescribed under Rule 6 of the Rules and based its findings entirely on the documents marked by the respondents/applicants, a perusal of the order would show that the 1 st petitioner/respondent, though had filed his chief affidavit, did not make himself available for being cross-examined by the respondents/applicants, even though the Special Court had appointed an Advocate-Commissioner for the aforesaid purpose, resulting his evidence being eschewed. 31. Insofar as R.W.2 is concerned, though the said 2 nd petitioner/respondent had filed his chief affidavit and offered himself for cross-examination, no documents were marked by him in his chief-examination for this Court to hold that the Special Court having failed to consider the relevant documents while passing its order. 31. Insofar as R.W.2 is concerned, though the said 2 nd petitioner/respondent had filed his chief affidavit and offered himself for cross-examination, no documents were marked by him in his chief-examination for this Court to hold that the Special Court having failed to consider the relevant documents while passing its order. It is also to be noted that while the respondents/applicants were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and cross-examined on behalf of petitioners/respondents, the respondents/applicants were not confronted with any documents to disprove claim made by them as to the execution of unregistered agreement of sale, PoA and the subsequent sale deeds executed by the PoA holder in the name of R.W.1. 32. The Special Court by considering Application submitted by the respondents/applicants and the counter averments of the respondents, had framed the following questions:- (1) Whether the applicants are the owners of the application scheduled property? (2) Whether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of the Act? (3) To what relief? 33. The Special Court by considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who were also cross-examined by the petitioners/ respondents, noted that their evidence could not be discredited as the petitioners/respondents have not produced even a scrap of paper in support of their case. The Special Court also noted that though the 1 st petitioner/respondent filed counter and also evidence affidavit, did not submit himself for cross examination before the Commissioner appointed for his cross-examination and thus, his evidence was eschewed from consideration. 34. The Special Court while considering the evidence of R.W.2 who is the son of R.W.1 had noted that though he had disputed the claim of the respondents/applicants and also the signature of his father on Ex.A-1 and A-2, however, did not submit any document in support of his oral evidence. The Special Court also noted that though R.W.2 claimed that the entire land in Sy No.53 was declared as surplus land under ULC Act vide proceedings No.G2/111/80 and the said proceeding having been set aside and remanded the matter to the Special officer for fresh disposal in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Appeal No.206/96, did not submit any documents in support of his oral evidence to the above effect 35. The Special Court also noted that R.W.2 in his Cross- examination having stated that his affidavit in chief has been prepared by his brother and his brother has given instructions to his Advocate to prepare evidence affidavit and that during the year 1993 he was posted at Kazipet, had inferred that R.W.2 has no personal knowledge about execution of documents Exs.A-1 to A-9 relied upon by the applicants, and held that the evidence of R.W.2 cannot be relied upon as the same is not helpful to the stand taken by the respondents in their defence. 36. The Special Court also noted that after the death of 1 st petitioner/respondent apart from RW2 who is already on record, though petitioners/respondent Nos.3 to 6 were impleaded as legal heirs of 1 st petitioner/respondent, the said impleaded legal heirs did not contest the case and remained ex parte. 37. The Special Court thereafter considering the documents marked on behalf of the respondents/applicants and also considering the statutory report dated 09-01-2003 of the Mandal Revenue Officer concluded that the respondents/applicants have successfully established their title and possession to the application schedule property to an extent of 3010 square yards from and out of an extent of Ac.28.00 in Sy.No. 53 of Kowkur village acquired under Exs.A-1 to A-9 and discharged the initial burden as contemplated Under Section 10 of the Act. 38. The Special Court noting as above, held that the respondents/petitioners herein by adducing any acceptable oral or documentary evidence have miserably failed to establish that they are not land grabbers to claim the subject land. The Special Court by noting as above, held that the respondents/petitioners herein have unauthorizedly and forcibly entered into the application schedule land by removing the boundary stones of the plots purchased by the applicants/respondents by ploughing the entire land with tractor and as such, are in illegal and un lawful possession of the application schedule land and thereby they would come within the meaning of ‘land grabbers’ under section 2(d) and 2(e) of the Act and declared them to be so. 39. 39. The said finding of the fact recorded by the Special Court particularly with regard to the petitioners/respondents not having substantiated their claim more particularly in relation to the claim of land covered by ULC proceedings not being proved, this Court is of the view that the petitioners/respondents do not have any valid title to be in possession of the application schedule land being claimed by the respondents/applicants having purchased the same under Exs.A-1 to A-9 which remained uncontroverted. 40. Insofar ass the contention of the petitioners/respondents by placing reliance in the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Mohd. Siddiq Alikhan and another (supra) to contend that the Special Court having called for report from MRO as per Rule 6 of Rules, the said decision having been overruled by the Apex Court in Pesara Pushpamala Reddy v. G. Veeraswamy and others , [ (2011) 4 SCC 306 ] , wherein it was held that the object of Rule 6 of the Rules is to assist the Special Tribunal or the Special Court to arrive at a correct decision and if the very object can be achieved without referring the application to MRO, there is no compelling duty to refer the application to MRO under Rule 6 of the Rules, no reliance can be placed on the said decision. Further, the Apex Court having held that referring to MRO under Rule 6 of the Rules is not mandatory, non-consideration of the report furnished cannot be put on higher pedestal. Thus, the submission of the petitioners/respondents on this ground is without any substance and is liable to be rejected. 41. Further, the petitioners/respondents having failed to prove their claim of the land in Sy.No.53 being declared as non-surplus land under ULC proceedings, this Court cannot hold that the Special Court had failed to consider the relevant material or excluded the material that has been placed before it or considered irrelevant material while holding the petitioners/respondents to be land grabbers. 42. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the judgment of the Special Court does not suffer from any error for being interfered by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 43. Accordingly, the Writ petition is devoid of merit and it is dismissed. No costs 44. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.