ORDER : T.Vinod Kumar, J. This Writ Petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dt. 22.10.2008 in L.G.C.No.2 of 2003 passed by the Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, at Hyderabad in terms of Section 8 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein are the respondents before the Special Court in an application filed by the 1 st respondent herein under the provisions of the Act to declare the petitioners herein as land grabbers in terms of Section 2(d) and (e) of the Act in respect of land admeasuring 12,100 square yards (Acs.2.20 guntas) situated in Sy.No.74/E of Serilingampally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the 1 st respondent herein had filed application under Section 8(1) of the Act to declare him as owner of the application schedule property, namely, 12,100 square yards (Acs.2.20 guntas) in Sy.No.74/E of Serilingampally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and to declare the petitioners herein as land grabbers; to evict the petitioners from the application schedule land and to deliver vacant possession of the same to the respondent- applicant; to punish the petitioners – respondents under the provisions of the Act; to award mesne profits @ Rs.10,000/- per annum from the date of grabbing till the date of delivery of possession to the respondent - applicant; and to award damages of Rs.10,000/- per annum; and to award costs of the application to the respondent – applicant. 5. On the 1 st respondent – applicant filing the aforesaid application, the Special Court took cognizance of the same on 03.01.2003, a Gazette Notification dt. 27.01.2003 was published calling for objections from the persons interested in the application schedule land. However, no objections have been received. The Special Court had also called for a statutory verification report as required under Rule 6(2) of the Rules made under the Act, which was duly submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal. 6. 27.01.2003 was published calling for objections from the persons interested in the application schedule land. However, no objections have been received. The Special Court had also called for a statutory verification report as required under Rule 6(2) of the Rules made under the Act, which was duly submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal. 6. The case of the 1 st respondent – applicant before the Special Court is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.2.20 guntas in Sy.No.74/E situated at Serilingampally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same from the original owners and possessors, viz., M.Venkat Reddy and L.Satyanarayana Reddy and others under registered sale deed dt. 04.04.1981; that on the respondent – applicant purchasing the aforesaid extent of land, the revenue authorities have assigned sub- division number as 74/E and mutated the said application schedule land on to his name in the revenue records; that the 1 st respondent – applicant since the date of purchase is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by raising crops; and that prior to the purchase of the application schedule land by the respondent – applicant, his vendors were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. 7. The 1 st respondent – applicant further pleaded that since, the land in the neighbourhood being developed for residential use, the applicant did not undertake agricultural activities in the said land for the past 5 to 6 years; though the 1 st respondent – applicant was visiting the application schedule land occasionally, petitioners - respondents taking advantage of his absence have grabbed the land to an extent of 7260 square yards (Ac.1.20 guntas) out of Acs.2.20 guntas without any manner of right or title and have erected a temporary shed some time in the month of June, 2002 and further unauthorizedly raised crop in the application schedule property. 8. The 1 st respondent – applicant further contended that though his efforts to convince the petitioners – respondents that the subject land is belonging to him, and they have no right to enter into the application schedule land or to raise crops therein, the same proved futile and on the other hand, the petitioners - respondents in collusion with each other have illegally and forcibly grabbed the entire extent of his land admeasuring Acs.2.20 guntas. 9. 9. It is the further case of the 1 st respondent – applicant that since, the petitioners – respondents grabbed his entire land to an extent of Acs.2.20 guntas, he had filed interlocutory application, vide I.A.No.67 of 2004 to amend the application prayer claiming that the petitioners – respondents have grabbed the entire extent of land of Acs.2.20 guntas which was duly allowed by the Special Court. 10. It is further contended that on the Special Court taking cognizance of the application filed by the 1 st respondent – applicant, the 1 st petitioner – 1 st respondent filed counter – affidavit denying the averments made in the application and contended that one of the so- called vendors of the applicant, viz., M.Venkat Reddy was not only the Sarpanch but was also Patwari of the Serilingampally Village and being the Patwari, he manipulated the records and recorded his name in the revenue records in respect of the application schedule land along with others. 11. The 1 st petitioner – 1 st respondent by his counter contended that he is not only residing in the application schedule property but was also cultivating the said land for the past 40 years and had also claimed of he having raised Guava garden therein to an extent of Ac.0.15 guntas; and that the age of the trees is more than 12 years and the entire area is covered by trees, residential house and cattle shed etc. 12. By the counter-affidavit, the 1 st petitioner – 1 st respondent further claimed that he is in possession of the land for the past 40 years and perfected his title by way of adverse possession; that Venkat Reddy claiming himself as owner of large extent of lands in various survey numbers of Serilingampally Village, sold the lands including that of the respondent – applicant herein; and that the sale deed executed by M.Venkat Reddy, Sarpanch, in favour of the respondent – applicant is without any authority as the same has been done by manipulating the revenue records. 13. The petitioners – respondents 2 to 5 herein have filed a Memo adopting the counter filed by the 1 st petitioner – 1 st respondent before the Special Court. 14. 13. The petitioners – respondents 2 to 5 herein have filed a Memo adopting the counter filed by the 1 st petitioner – 1 st respondent before the Special Court. 14. The Special Court by considering the application filed by the 1 st respondent – applicant and counter filed by the 1 st petitioner – 1 st respondent had framed following issues for trial and determination: “(1) Whether the applicant is the owner of the application schedule property? (2) Whether the rival title set up by the respondents is true, valid and binding on the applicant? (3) Whether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of Act XII of 1982? (4) Whether the applicant is entitled for any compensation, profits and damages as prayed for in the application? (5) Whether the respondents perfected their title by adverse possession? (6) To what relief?” 15. To support his case, the 1 st respondent – applicant examined PWs.1 to 3, including himself as PW.1, and marked exhibits Exs.A.1 to A23; on behalf of the petitioners-respondents, RWs.1 to 8 were examined and marked Exs.B.1 to B.6; and since PW.3 is the Mandal Surveyor, the Special Court marked through him exhibits under ‘C’ series, vide Exs.C.1 to C.4. 16. The Special Court by considering the evidence that has been let in by the parties, taking note of the fact that the 1 st respondent – applicant is claiming title to the subject property under a registered sale deed dt. 04.04.1981; that the revenue authorities after conducting enquiry having mutated the subject land in favour of the 1 st respondent – applicant; that the petitioners – respondents not only claimed the land in Sy.No.74 but also claimed themselves of land in Sy.Nos.70, 71, 72 and 73 and also having admitted in their evidence, that they having not filed any documents to show that the land in the said survey numbers belongs to them, had held that the rival title set up by the petitioners – respondents is not true, valid and binding. 17. 17. The Special Court insofar as the claim of adverse possession put up by the petitioners – respondents of being in possession and enjoyment of the application schedule land over 40 years on the basis of Exs.B.1 to B.6 are concerned, by noting that bunch of electricity bills number to 32 marked as Ex.B.1, are for the period from February 2000 to 2006 only and as the petitioners – respondents did not file any electricity bills prior to 2000 for the period commencing from the date of purchase of the application schedule land by the 1 st respondent – applicant to claim that he was never in possession of the subject land. 18. Further, the Special Court also noted that Ex.B.2 marked by the petitioners – respondents shows that the electricity service connection is given to land covered by Sy.No.76 but not in respect of land in Sy.No.74, part of which is mutated in the name of the 1 st respondent – applicant by the revenue authorities in the year 1984. 19. The Special Court further held that Ex.B.3, i.e. copy of the report / particulars of electricity connection of the 1 st petitioner – respondent bearing service No.12003-2412 of APSEB shows the service connection is given to house in Sy.No.76/1 and not to any house situated in Sy.No.74. 20. The Special Court further noted that Exs.B.4 and B.5 which are also electricity bills numbering to 38 marked by RW.7 in respect of service connection No.12003 is in respect of house bearing No.2-34 situated in Sy.No.76 and are for the period 04.08.2000 to 20.02.2006 and do not pertain to any earlier period as claimed by the petitioners – respondents. 21. The Special Court further noted that Ex.B.6 being relied upon by the petitioners – respondents to claim to be in possession of the application schedule land for a period of over 40 years is a property tax receipt paid in the name of 1 st petitioner – 1 st respondent in respect of house bearing No.2-34 for the years 2003-2006 and as the said house is situated in Sy.No.76, the petitioners – respondents cannot claim to be in possession and enjoyment of the application schedule land in Sy.No.74/E over the last 40 or 45 years, and all the exhibits marked by them relate to some other property. 22. 22. The Special Court also noted that the 3 rd petitioner – 3 rd respondent examined as RW.7 admitted in his cross-examination that Exs.B.4 to 6 have no relevancy to the application schedule land. 23. The Special Court insofar as the claim of the petitioners – respondents that they having planted various trees and also having developed a guava garden which is 12 years old, had noted that the petitioners – respondents have obtained electricity connection to the land in Sy.No.76 only in the year 1999 and without having electricity connection, have not shown that as to how they have watered the garden claimed to have been planted by them to claim for being in possession of the subject land and thus held that whatever crops are claimed to have been raised by the petitioners – respondents, the same may have been raised in last 1-2 years, while some of the other trees may have existed on their own. 24. The Special Court with regard to the contention of the petitioners – respondents of being in possession and cultivating the land for long, had noted that the entries in revenue records, viz., pahanies show that the land is noted as ‘Padava’ meaning ‘uncultivated, however in column 13 of the pahanies, it is mentioned as Swantham (own) thereby meaning as belonging to the 1 st respondent – applicant. 25. The Special Court further noted that the petitioners – respondents except claiming to be in possession of the land for more than 40-45 years, did not adduce any evidence to establish they having perfected title to the subject land by adverse possession, being in continuance possession of the application schedule property for 12 years prior to filing of the application. 26. On the other hand, the Special Court held that the 1 st respondent – applicant having established his title to the land under a registered sale deed dt. 04.04.1981 and the same being mutated on to his name in the revenue records vide proceedings issued in the year 1984 by applying the principle of “title follows possession” held that the 1 st respondent – applicant to be the owner of the application schedule property and the claim of the petitioners – respondents who have set up a rival title is not true, valid and binding. The Special Court having come to the conclusion that the 1 st respondent - applicant to be the owner of the subject land, held that the petitioners – respondents have grabbed the application schedule property and thus, declared them as ‘land grabbers’ within the meaning of the Act XII of 1982 and directed petitioners – respondents to deliver vacant possession of the application schedule property i.e. Acs.2.20 guntas to the 1 st respondent – applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which, the revenue authorities were directed to evict the petitioners – respondents and handover vacant physical possession to the 1 st respondent – applicant within a further period of two months thereafter and file a compliance report. 27. On behalf of the petitioners – respondents, it is vehemently contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the 1 st respondent – applicant though claims to have purchased the application schedule property under a registered sale deed dt. 04.04.1981, and being in possession of the same, and having claimed of having undertaken agricultural activity till about 5 to 6 years prior to filing of the application before the Special Court, inasmuch as no land revenue receipts are filed by the 1 st respondent – applicant to prove the aforesaid claim, the Special Court had erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioners – respondents to be in possession of the subject land for over 40-45 years and they undertaking cultivation thereby, perfecting title to the subject land by adverse possession. 28. On behalf of the petitioners – respondents, it is also contended that since, the petitioners – respondents were in possession of the subject land for a period of 40-45 years, the necessary concomitant for being declared them as land grabbers under the provisions of the Act does not exist and therefore, the Special Court erred in declaring the petitioners – respondents as land grabbers on this ground also. 29. On behalf of the petitioners – respondents, it is contended that firstly in order to be declared as land grabbers, there should be an act of land grabbing by a person or group of persons without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking possession of such land, whereupon, only persons who resort to such act can be declared as land grabber. 30. 30. On behalf of the petitioners – respondents, it is further contended that since the petitioners – respondents were in possession of the subject land, even prior to the 1 st respondent – applicant purchase, and the 1 st respondent – applicant having purchased the application schedule land based on manipulated records without being in possession, the petitioners – respondents cannot be declared as ‘land grabbers’. 31. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in P.T.Munichikkanna Reddy v/s. Revamma , [ (2007) 6 SCC 59 ] ; Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Hyderabad v/s. Special Court (constituted under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982), Hyderabad and others , [ 2004 (6) ALT 772 (L.B.)] and M.Yadagiri Reddy v/s. V.C.Brahmanna and another , [ 2005 (1) ALT 56 (DB)] 32. Per contra, Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the 1 st respondent – applicant would contend that the petitioners – respondents merely by claiming to be in adverse possession of the subject land, cannot claim that the Special Court having wrongly declared them as ‘land grabbers’; that in order to claim and succeed in the case on the aforesaid ground, the petitioners – respondents are required to establish the factum of being in continuance possession of over 12 years; that being in possession of the subject land should be to the knowledge of the original/ real owner; that none of the documents marked by the petitioners – respondents show that they are in possession of application schedule land for 12 years; and above, though they claim to be in possession of the subject land for over 40-45 years; and that the Special Court had rightly negatived the claim of the petitioners – respondents with regard to the adverse possession noting that the same is without knowledge of the 1 st respondent – applicant as they admit to the fact of they coming to know of the 1 st respondent – applicant being the real owner only after filing of the present case. 33. 33. Thus, it is contended that in order to claim adverse possession, the same should be against the real/original owner and to his knowledge and inasmuch as the petitioners – respondents have failed to establish the fact of being in continuous possession for 12 years and more to the knowledge of the 1 st respondent – applicant, the Special Court has rightly rejected eh claim of adverse possession, more particularly, noting that the petitioners – respondents have no title to the application schedule land. 34. On behalf of the 1 st respondent – applicant, it is further contended that the decision of the Apex Court on which reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioners – respondents, would not advance their case as there is no evidence as to when the petitioners – respondents disposed the 1 st respondent applicant and also that the petitioners – respondents are in possession of the application schedule land to the knowledge of the applicant or for that matter, the petitioners – respondents being in continuous possession for more than 12 years prior to the filing of the case. 35. It is contended that the Special Court by noting as above had held that since the claim of adverse possession set up by the petitioners – respondents is not hostile to the applicant, the owner, the petitioners – respondents are not entitled to claim adverse possession. 36. On behalf of the 1 st respondent – applicant, it is further contended that since, he has shown and established his title to the subject property being claimed under a registered document dt. 04.04.1981 and the application schedule land having been mutated after due enquiry by the revenue authorities, by entering his name in the revenue records vide proceedings No.B1/8011/84 and B1/8021/84 dt. 04.04.1981 and the application schedule land having been mutated after due enquiry by the revenue authorities, by entering his name in the revenue records vide proceedings No.B1/8011/84 and B1/8021/84 dt. 29.11.1984, the 1 st respondent – applicant had discharged the initial burden cast on him in terms of Section 10 of the Act and thus, the burden of proving that the application schedule land has not been grabbed is on the petitioners – respondents; and that the Special Court relying on the decision of a Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Hyderabad (2 supra), had held that the petitioners – respondents have entered into the land of the 1 st respondent – applicant knowing fully well that they have no title and their entry is without any lawful entitlement and has thus rightly declared the petitioners – respondents to be ‘land grabbers’ under the Act XII of 1982. 37. On behalf of the 1 st respondent – applicant, it is further contended that though he had initially filed application claiming the petitioners – respondents having grabbed the land only to an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas, but by the time the Advocate-Commissioner is appointed, the petitioners – respondents had occupied balance land and thus, the 1 st respondent –applicant filed interlocutory application seeking for amending the application prayer which duly allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal on due consideration had allowed the same and the said order having attained finality, the petitioners – respondents cannot seek to raise a plea on the said issue claiming that change of cause of action being a question of law can be raised at any time. 38. By contending as above, the 1 st respondent – applicant, seeks for dismissal of the present Writ Petition. 39. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 40. 38. By contending as above, the 1 st respondent – applicant, seeks for dismissal of the present Writ Petition. 39. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 40. At the outset, it is to be noted that in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India against an order of Special Court, the scope of power of this Court has been dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of State of A.P. v/s. Prameela Modi & Others , [ (2006) 13 SCC 147 ] , wherein it was held that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot convert itself into the Court of Appeal and cannot indulge itself in re- appreciation or evaluation of evidence on record. 41. Further, the Apex Court in State Of Andhra Pradesh v/s. P.V. Hanumantha Rao (D) Thr. Lrs. and Anr. , , [ (2003) 10 SCC 121 ] held that against the decision of the Special Court, no appeal is provided and only remedy of aggrieved party is to approach the High Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. It is further held that remedy of writ petition available in the High Court is not against the 'decision' of the subordinate court, tribunal or authority, but it is against the 'decision making process'. It is also held that right of the High Court to interfere in orders of sub-ordinate courts and tribunals, is limited, where - (i) there is an error manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings, such as when it is based on clear misreading or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. 42. The Apex Court in the aforesaid decision further held that only when the Special Court refuses to admit admissible evidence and material evidence nor had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding it can be held that there is manifest error apparent on the face of the proceeding to issue a certiorari. 43. 42. The Apex Court in the aforesaid decision further held that only when the Special Court refuses to admit admissible evidence and material evidence nor had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding it can be held that there is manifest error apparent on the face of the proceeding to issue a certiorari. 43. Thus, from the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, it would be clear that the scope of power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited and the High Court cannot convert itself Court of appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence and the Court can interfere with the order of the Special Court where there is an error apparent on the face of the proceeding, resulting in gross injustice occasioning gross violation of justice. 44. Keeping in view the position of law as enunciated by the Apex Court, in the facts of the present case, though on behalf of the petitioners – respondents it is claimed of they being in possession of the application schedule land for over 40-45 years, inasmuch as all the exhibits marked by the petitioners – respondents do not establish the aforesaid claim, it cannot be said that the Special Court had failed to consider the relevant document and on the other hand, considered irrelevant documents. 45. Further, it is also to be noted that though petitioners – respondents claim to be in possession and having undertaken agricultural activities in the application schedule land being claimed by the 1 st respondent – applicant, as the revenue records indicate the name of the 1 st respondent – applicant being recorded as owner and the land being recorded as ‘padava’ (implying ‘vacant’), the claim of the petitioners – respondents of they cultivating the subject land under their possession also stands falsified. 46. 46. Further, the Special Court by taking note of the fact that the petitioners – respondents having admitted to the fact of the 1 st respondent – applicant being the owner of the subject land and they having come to know of the same only after filing of the case, also held that the claim of adverse possession can only be made against the real owner and since, the petitioners – respondents admit of the subject land being claimed by them as belonging to 1 st respondent – applicant only after filing of the case, cannot claim that their possession is open and continuous and hostile to the real owner in order to constitute adverse possession for more than 12 years as held by the Apex Court in P.T.Munichikkanna Reddy’s case (1 supra). 47. Though on behalf of the petitioners – respondents, it is contended that the 1 st respondent – applicant having initially filed application claiming the petitioners – respondents having grabbed the land only to an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas, and thereafter, having amended his pleading claiming that entire extent of land admeasuring Acs.2.20 guntas having been grabbed by the petitioners – respondents, and thereby changing cause of action which ought not to have been considered by the Special Court, it is to be noted that the Special Court had allowed the I.A. filed by the 1 st respondent – applicant, in the year 2014, and the parties thereafter, have proceeded with the matter knowing fully well the scope of consideration of the application before the Special Court cannot be allowed to raise the said plea more so when the order in I.A. having attained finality. 48. Further, the petitioners – respondents having taken part in the proceeding including the claim of the 1 st respondent – applicant, they having grabbed land of an extent of Acs.2.20 guntas and also adducing their evidence to the aforesaid effect, this Court is of the view that it is not open for the petitioners – respondents now to plead the aforesaid issue and the submission in this regard is devoid of merit. 49. 49. Further, the petitioners – respondents by the documents exhibited by them have sought to claim as that the application schedule land in Sy.No.74 being in their possession, the Special Court on examining the said exhibits having noted that the same pertain to land in respect of Sy.No.76 and not in respect of Sy.No.74 being claimed by the 1 st respondent – applicant, had rejected the claim of the petitioners – respondents. Consequence of rejection of the claim of the petitioners – respondents by the Special Court in respect of the extent of application schedule land in Sy.No.74/E, the natural corollary is that the petitioners – respondents have grabbed the aforesaid land of the 1 st respondent – applicant without any valid title and entitlement and thus, their possession has to be declared as only by way of land grabbing as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act, thereby, being liable to be declared as ‘land grabbers’. 50. The Apex Court in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v/s. Government of Andhra Pradesh , [ (2002) 3 SCC 258 ] having held that a person can be called ‘land grabber’ for the acts such as (a) unauthorizedly, unfairly, greedily, snatched forcibly, violently or unscrupulously any land (b) without any lawful entitlement and (c) with a view to illegally taking possession of such lands, and subsequent action with respect to subject land, the petitioners – respondents herein having grabbed the land of the 1 st respondent – applicant unauthorizedly, without any lawful entitlement, with a view to illegally taking possession of such land, i.e. the land in Sy.No.74/E to an extent of Acs.2.20 guntas, it cannot be held that the Special Court having erred in declaring the petitioners – respondents as ‘land grabbers’. 51. Further, in a decision rendered by the Apex Court on 15.05.2025 in CA@SLP(C) No.12570/2025, referring to the decision in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji, had held that though a claim is raised of adverse possession, as no proof was offered on which date such construction was commenced and concluded and consequently held that mere possession without legal right still constitutes land grabbing. 52. 52. In view of the aforesaid analysis, in the considered view of this Court the order of the Special Court in declaring the petitioners – respondents as land grabbers having resorted to grabbing land of the 1 st respondent – applicant to an extent of Acs.2.20 guntas in Sy.No.74/E of Serilingampally Village, cannot be said as without considering the relevant material or by considering irrelevant material, thereby having erred in law or resulting in justice for being interfered with by this Court. 53. Thus, Writ Petition as filed is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. 54. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.