ORDER : T. VINOD KUMAR, J. Since, the interlocutory application, Contempt Case are arising out of the writ petition vide W.P.No.24864 of 2008, they are taken up for hearing together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S.V.Ramana, learned counsel for writ petitioner/respondent in the contempt case, Sri Meher Chand Noori, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.L.Raju, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6 in the writ petition/petitioners in the Contempt Case, and Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for proposed respondent Nos.9 to 11, in the writ petition, and perused the record. W.P.No.24864 of 2008 3. This Writ Petition is filed being aggrieved by the order of the Special Court,dt. 15.09.2008 in LGC.No.41 of 2002 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’). 4. The petitioner herein is the 1 st respondent in the LGC before the Special Court. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein are the applicants, and respondent Nos.7 & 8 herein are respondent Nos.2 & 3 before the Special Court. 5. The respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein as applicants have filed the underlying LGC under Section 8(1) of the Act to declare them as owners of the application schedule land and to declare the respondents therein as land grabbers and to recover possession from the respondents and to hand over the same to the applicants. IA.No.1 of 2019 6. This application is filed seeking impleadment in the writ petition as party respondent Nos.9 to 11 claiming that the writ petitioner/1 st respondent in LGC had gifted the subject property admeasuring 1,000 sq. yards, cumulatively in favour of the proposed respondents under three separate gift deeds,dt. 16.03.2000. 7. The parties are referred to as per their position before the Special Court. 8. The applicants filed the underlying application before the Special Court claiming that the land to an extent of 1,202 sq. yards covered by plot Nos.3, 1, 2 & 4 in survey Nos.49 & 47(part) admeasuring 277.7 sq. yards, 284.5 sq. yards, 250 sq. yards and 390 sq. yards, respectively, situated at Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District, have been purchased by them under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.12745/1990,dt. 19.09.1990, 12732/1990,dt. 19.09.1990, 2592/1990,dt. 30.07.1990 and 6790/1990,dt. yards covered by plot Nos.3, 1, 2 & 4 in survey Nos.49 & 47(part) admeasuring 277.7 sq. yards, 284.5 sq. yards, 250 sq. yards and 390 sq. yards, respectively, situated at Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District, have been purchased by them under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.12745/1990,dt. 19.09.1990, 12732/1990,dt. 19.09.1990, 2592/1990,dt. 30.07.1990 and 6790/1990,dt. 13.08.1991 from respondent Nos.2 & 3 therein represented by their registered General Power of Attorney(GPA) Holder. 9. It is the further case of the applicants that respondent Nos.2 & 3 have appointed one K.Nagendra Prasad, as their GPA Holder by executing a registered GPA in his favour vide document,dt. 23.07.1991; and that from the date of their purchase of the application schedule land they are in possession and enjoyment of the same have also raised basement to the land purchased by them individually. 10. The applicants further aver that the respondent Nos.2 & 3 are true owners of land to an extent of Acres 2.03½ guntas situated in survey Nos.45, 46, 47 & 49 of Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having succeeded to the aforesaid extent of land by virtue of judgment and decree,dt. 08.09.1988 in OS.No.312 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District. 11. The applicants further contended that on receiving a message from the neighbours that 1 st respondent along with antisocial elements was trying to encroach upon the application schedule land and has taken measurements of the same, the 5th applicant had lodged a complaint with the police authorities of Madhapur. However, as no action was taken thereon, the 5 th applicant had lodged a complaint with the Municipality, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District, on behalf of the applicants and thereafter gave another complaint to police authorities on 24.02.2000. 12. The applicants further contend that the 1st respondent had dumped construction material in the application schedule land and tried to level the same to make construction. 13. It is the further case of the applicants that they had learnt that the 1 st respondent having filed a suit vide O.S.No.67 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Senior Judge, Ranga Reddy District for perpetual injunction and obtained an ad-interim injunction in I.A.No.158/2000 against the GPA holder of respondents No.2 & 3, through whom the application schedule plot of lands have been purchased by the applicants. 14. 14. The applicants further contend that the GPA Holder of respondent Nos.2 & 3 on being served with the summons in the aforesaid suit filed by the 6 th respondent had filed a petition for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit land and the trial Court by allowing the aforesaid petition appointed one T.Ramesh, as Advocate- Commissioner to note down the physical features of the land, who thereafter filed his report,dt. 02.03.2000, along with photographs. 15. The applicants contend that though they have initially filed LGC Nos.16 to 19 of 2000 and also filed interim applications therein for grant of injunction in the meantime, wherein notices have been ordered, the 1 st respondent in collusion with respondent Nos.2 & 3 had grabbed the entire land of the applicants and constructed a room and compound wall thereto. 16. The applicants further contend that LGC Nos.16 to 19 of 2000, which were pending for trial were returned due to technicalities, to be presented before the proper Court. 17. It is the further case of the applicants that since, the 1st respondent by colluding with respondent Nos.2 & 3 had grabbed application schedule land, the applications have preferred the underlying application before the Special Court. 18. The applicants further aver that the acts of the respondents in interfering with the plots of land purchased by them being plot bearing Nos.3, 1, 2 & 4, on which they have constructed a basement, is without any lawful entitlement; and that the 1 st respondent is a land grabber, who on grabbing the plot of land of the applicants had constructed a wall and room therein, without any valid and legal entitlement. 19. On the applicants filing the aforesaid application and complying with the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules made thereunder, the Special Court took cognizance of the application and issued notices to the respondents. 20. The 1st respondent on being issued with notice by the Special Court has filed his counter resisting the application contending that respondent Nos.2 & 3 are the owners and possessors of land admeasuring Acres 2.03 ½ guntas of land in survey Nos.45, 46, 47 & 49 of Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by virtue of judgment and decree,dt. The 1st respondent on being issued with notice by the Special Court has filed his counter resisting the application contending that respondent Nos.2 & 3 are the owners and possessors of land admeasuring Acres 2.03 ½ guntas of land in survey Nos.45, 46, 47 & 49 of Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by virtue of judgment and decree,dt. 08.09.1988 in OS.No.312 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District; that the 1 st respondent had purchased land to an extent of 1000 sq. yards out of land in survey No.49(part) from respondent Nos.2 & 3 under simple Sale Deed,dt. 16.02.1990, for a sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-; and that respondent Nos.2 & 3 had delivered physical possession of the said land to him on the date of sale i.e., 16.02.1990 and since, then he is in possession and enjoyment of the application schedule property in his own name. 21. By the counter affidavit, 1st respondent further claimed that on being delivered with physical possession of the land by respondent Nos.2 & 3, he had raised a compound wall around the said property, constructed two rooms and dug a bore-well therein; that he also obtained electricity connection to the said property; and that the said property is also assessed to tax by Serilingampally Municipality, since, the same bears door No.1- 103/B/4. 22. The 1 st respondent, by the counter affidavit, further claimed that the applicants did not obtain possession of the application schedule land pursuant to the registered sale deeds executed by one K.Nagendra Prasad, as a GPA holder of respondent Nos.2 & 3; that the claim of the applicants of having purchased plots bearing Nos.3, 1, 2 & 4 is also incorrect, as there was no approved layout for survey Nos.47 and 49; that in the absence of approved layout, the plot of the applicants cannot be identified on ground; and that since, the applicants claim to have purchased application scheduled plots, which are not identifiable on ground, the applicants cannot claim any right or title in respect of said plots. 23. The 1 st respondent further contended that since, he had obtained the possession of the application schedule land from respondent Nos.2 & 3 on execution of sale deed,dt. 16.02.1990, the question of respondents attempting to grab the application schedule land by dispossessing the applicants, does not arise. 24. 23. The 1 st respondent further contended that since, he had obtained the possession of the application schedule land from respondent Nos.2 & 3 on execution of sale deed,dt. 16.02.1990, the question of respondents attempting to grab the application schedule land by dispossessing the applicants, does not arise. 24. The 1 st respondent further claimed that when the applicants in collusion with the 2 nd respondent tried to interfere with his possession, he had filed a suit vide O.S.No.67/2000 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, and obtained an ad-interim injunction vide order in IA.No.158/2000,dt. 11.08.2000, restraining the 2 nd respondent and his GPA Holder-K.Nagendra Prasad from interfering with his possession over the suit schedule property. 25. The 1 st respondent by the counter affidavit further claimed that the Commissioner appointed in the said suit at the behest of the GPA Holder of the 2 nd respondent, filed his report to the effect that the 1 st respondent is in possession of the said land and that the said injunction order is subsisting. 26. The 1st respondent also contended that he has been in effective possession of the application schedule property from the date of its purchase and had constructed compound wall and raised structures in the land, much prior to the applicants filing the initial LGCs vide LGC.Nos.16 to 19 of 2000 before this Court; that his possession over the application schedule land is lawful; and that the applicants have no semblance of right whatsoever to the application schedule land. 27. The 1 st respondent by contending as above claimed that the application as filed by the applicants is frivolous in nature and the applicants are strangers to the application schedule land, and sought for dismissal of the application. 28. The 2 nd respondent filed separate counter affidavit denying all the allegations made by the applicants. The 2 nd respondent by the counter affidavit claimed that he is the absolute owner of the property admeasuring Acres 2.03½ guntas in survey Nos.45, 46, 47 & 49(part) situated at Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; that the land in survey Nos.45, 46, 47 & 49(part) has fallen to his share and the share of the 3 rd respondent in terms of the judgment and decree,dt. 08.09.1988 in OS.No.312 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District; and that neither he nor his GPA holder namely Nagendra Prasad obtained any layout for plotting the land in the aforesaid survey numbers at any point of time till the date of LGC proceedings. 29. The 2 nd respondent further contended that upon passing of the judgment decree and the land in survey Nos.45, 46, 47 and 49(part) being partitioned between the parties to the suit, the 2 nd respondent had sold land admeasuring 1000 sq. yards from the extent of land falling to his and 3 rd respondent’s share to the 1 st respondent herein by receiving the consideration in the year 1990 and delivered vacant possession on the date of execution of the sale deed. 30. The 2 nd respondent by the counter affidavit filed claimed that he is not aware whether the applicants have purchased the application scheduled plots; and that respondent Nos.2 & 3 have given GPA to K.Narendra Prasad to sell the remaining land in survey No.49(part) having already sold 1000 sq. yards of land to the 1 st respondent. 31. The 2 nd respondent further contended that as per Clause 5 of the GPA, the GPA holder is required to deposit the sale proceeds to his and 3rd respondent’s account; that their GPA holder, K.Narendra Prasad did not bring to his notice of any transaction nor deposited any sale proceeds to his account; and that for the said reason, he was compelled to cancel the GPA under Deed of Cancellation,dt. 21.02.2000, and also issued legal notice to GPA holder calling him to account for the transactions. 32. The 2nd respondent by the counter affidavit further claimed that the 1st respondent after purchase of the property is in continuous physical possession of the application schedule property from 1990 till date without interference and hindrance; that the 1 st respondent also constructed a compound wall and rooms therein; and that the 3rd respondent resides nearby to the plot of land sold to the 1 st respondent; and thus, finally prayed to dismiss the application. 33. The Special Court by considering the pleadings of the applicants in the application and the counters filed by respondents No.1 & 2, had framed the following issues for trail and determination: “1) Whether the applicants have title to the application schedule property? 33. The Special Court by considering the pleadings of the applicants in the application and the counters filed by respondents No.1 & 2, had framed the following issues for trail and determination: “1) Whether the applicants have title to the application schedule property? 2) Whether the rival title set up by respondents is true, valid and binding? 3) Whether the respondents are land grabbers within the meaning of Act XII of 1982? 4) To what relief?” 34. Before the Special Court, on behalf of the applicants, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exs.A1 to A24 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 to RW4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B19 were marked. 35. The Special Court had examined CW1 and CW2 i.e., Finger Prints Experts and marked Exs.C1 to C6 through them. 36. The Special Court by considering the evidence adduced before it in relation to the issues framed, had noted that while the applicants claim to be absolute owners of plot Nos.3,1,2 & 4, under registered sale deeds marked as Exs.A1, A7, A8 & A13,dt. 19.09.1990,dt. 30.07.1991,dt. 30.07.1990 anddt. 19.07.1990, respectively, in all admeasuring 1202 sq. yards cumulatively, the 1 st respondent on the other hand is claiming to have purchased plot of land admeasuring 1000 sq. yards of land in survey No.49(part) from respondent Nos.2 & 3 under Sale Deed,dt. 16.02.1990(Ex.B5) for a consideration of Rs.40,000/-. 37. The Special Court however, noted that the saledt. 16.02.1990(Ex.B5) is a simple Sale Deed, which was revalidated on 05.10.1999 by the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, nearly after 9 years of execution of the simple sale deed. 38. The Special Court further noted that the applicants having purchased the property under valid registered sale deeds from the GPA holder of respondent No.2 & 3, the claim of the 1 st respondent that the GPA Holder namely K.Nagendra Prasad, was not empowered to make the land into plots and sell the same, to be contrary to Clause 4 of the GPA marked as Ex.A11, and also the further claim of respondent Nos.2 & 3 that the said GPA Holder did not pay the consideration to respondent Nos.2 & 3, also to be contrary to Clause 5 of the said GPA. 39. 39. The Special Court also noted that respondent Nos.2 & 3 though claim of the GPA Holder not adhering to the covenants of GPA(Ex.A11), did not give any notice at any point of time after execution of the Sale Deeds(Exs.A1, A7, A8 & A13) by the GPA Holder in favour of the applicants stating that the sale amount was not paid and entered into their account. 40. The Special Court also noted that respondent Nos.2 & 3 had executed GPA,dt. 23.07.1991, in favour of K.Nagendra Prasad, who in turn had executed the sale deeds in favour of the applicants in the year 1990-91, prior to the cancellation of GPA by respondent Nos.2 & 3 on 21.02.2000 i.e., after a decade. 41. The Special Court by noting as above, observed that, if only the GPA Holder did not pay the sale consideration received by him, the respondent Nos.2 & 3 would have issued notice and would have cancelled the GPA and would not have waited for 10 years for cancellation of the GPA. 42. The Special Court further noted that the GPA Holder, pursuant to the power conferred on him under the GPA, has sold plots not only to the applicants but also to some others. 43. The Special Court also noted that the GPA Holder, who was examined as PW4 had claimed that he along with respondent Nos.2 & 3 made the land to an extent of Acres 2.03½ guntas into a layout of plots according to sizes and later applied for permission on 28.07.1990 with HUDA authorities and pending grant of said permission had sold plots in favour of the applicants. 44. The Special Court while dealing with the claim of the respondents, that the land being claimed by the applicants is not identifiable on ground as the boundaries mentioned in respect of land purchased by the 1 st respondent under sada Sale Deed,dt. 44. The Special Court while dealing with the claim of the respondents, that the land being claimed by the applicants is not identifiable on ground as the boundaries mentioned in respect of land purchased by the 1 st respondent under sada Sale Deed,dt. 16.02.1990(Ex.B5) records the boundaries as survey No.15 on North, road & land in survey No.49 (part) on the South, vagu and land in survey No.50 & 51 on the East, and land in survey Nos.47 & 48 on the West, while no such boundaries were depicted in any one of the sale deeds of he applicants, and thus, the applicants have failed to establish that their plots fall in the land, which came to the respondent Nos.2 & 3 in the partition, however, noted that the 1st respondent had mentioned those boundaries in the suit filed for injunction in respect of 1000 sq. yards forming part of land in survey No.49(part), while for the plots purchased by the applicants, boundaries of each plot are mentioned in the sale deed. 45. The Special Court also noted that in the suit filed by the 1 st respondent, a Commissioner was appointed for identification of the application schedule land; the 1 st respondent gave a work memo to identify and demarcate the land admeasuring Acres 2.03½ guntas in survey Nos.45, 46, 47 & 49(part) situated at Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District, which has been fallen to the share of respondent Nos.2 & 3 as per the decree and judgment in OS.No.312/1985; and that the Commissioner in his report has stated that the Mandal Surveyor expressed his inability to measure the entire land in survey Nos.45, 47, 47 & 49(part) and the work memo submitted by the respondents was not within the scope of warrant issued to him, and therefore could not file the report. 46. The Special Court also noted that the Commissioner was appointed to measure the land as per the measurements given in the sale deeds of both the parties; that the Commissioner along with his report, enclosed a sketch prepared by the Mandal Surveyor; that as per the report of the Commissioner the Mandal Surveyor has stated that the application schedule property is situated in survey No.49 only. 47. 47. The Special Court further noted that the extent of land admeasuring Acres 1.20 guntas in survey No.49 fell to the share of respondent Nos.2 & 3, out of which the applicants are claiming land to an extent of 1,202 sq. yards as having been purchased by them under registered sale deeds and that it is situated in survey No.49. 48. The Special Court by noting as above held that the claim of the respondents that the land is not identifiable is not tenable. 49. Though on behalf of the 1 st respondent it has been contended before the Special Court that respondents No.2 & 3 having executed a GPA in favour of K.Nagendra Prasad(PW4), excluding the land of 1,000 sq. yards sold to the 1st respondent under sada Sale Deed,dt. 16.02.1990(Ex.B5), the Special Court noted that since, in the GPA(Ex.A1) executed by the respondents there is no mention about sale of 1,000 sq. yards to the 1 st respondent, there is every doubt as regards genuineness of sada Sale Deed (Ex.B5) executed on 16.02.1990. 50. The Special Court by observing as above noted that the contention of the applicants that the 1st respondent in collusion with the 2 nd respondent brought into existence Ex.B5 and filed the suit to obtain injunction to grab their land. 51. The Special Court also took note of the contention of the respondents that there was no lay out and sale deeds are created by the applicants for the purpose of filing the application before it, had observed that PW4 admitted that layout plan is not filed. Though PW2 admitted that they have not filed layout plan, however gave an explanation that application made by him to HUDA seeking permission was returned with objections and later he addressed a letter fulfilling the objections and to release the layout. 52. The Special Court further noted that before executing the sale deeds, PW4 made an application on 28.07.1990 (Ex.A9) to the concerned authority and that even by the date of order in LGC, the said layout is not approved, and thus, it is clear from the evidence of PW4 that land was divided into plots and sold to intending purchasers, and hence, held that PW4 made a layout and sold plots before the obtaining lay-out approved from the HUDA and that for not filing of approved layout cannot be said that sale deeds are invalid. 53. 53. Insofar as the claim of the 1 st respondent that he having filed a suit vide O.S.No.67/2000 against the 2 nd respondent and the GPA Holder, and obtaining an ex-parte ad-interim injunction initially and thereafter the same having been decreed in favour of the 1st respondent, the Special Court noted that if the claim of the 1 st respondent of he having purchased the land under Ex.B5 from respondent Nos.2 & 3 is to be accepted as correct, there is no need to make the 2 nd respondent as 2 nd defendant in the suit, and that the 2 nd defendant, K.Nagendra Prasad, the GPA Holder of respondent Nos.2 & 3 having remained ex-parte, as they are no way concerned with the suit schedule land, shows that the 1 st respondent only to get an ex-parte decree filed the suit. The Special Court in fact had noted that the filing of the suit against the owner of the property from who the 1 st respondent claims to have purchased itself shows that it is a suit filed by the 1st respondent in collusion with the 2nd respondent. 54. As the recitals of the sale deed clearly show that the 2 nd respondent on receiving full sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- had delivered physical possession of the land on execution of the alleged sale deed,dt. 16.02.1990(Ex.B5), and thus, it cannot be inferred that there can be any threat from the 2nd respondent to interfere with the suit schedule property. 55. Since, the applicants question the genuineness of execution of Ex.B5/Sale Deed in favour of the 1 st respondent in the year 1990 and claim the same having been regularized in the year 1999, the Special Court had sent Ex.B5 viz., sada Sale Deed, and Ex.A11 is the executed by respondent Nos.2 & 3, to Finger Print Bureau for comparison with the admitted thumb impression of respondent No.3 thereon., and the report/opinion furnished to the Special Court was marked as Ex.C1. 56. The Finger Print Expert was also examined as CW1, who deposed before the Special Court and stated that the thumb impression on Exs.B5 and A11 are not identical and no common characteristics are found. 57. 56. The Finger Print Expert was also examined as CW1, who deposed before the Special Court and stated that the thumb impression on Exs.B5 and A11 are not identical and no common characteristics are found. 57. The Special Court by taking note of the aforesaid opinion of the Finger Print Expert held that Ex.B5/sale deed purported to have been executed in favour of the 1st respondent does not contain the thumb impression of the 3rd respondent, and therefore there is every force in the contention of the applicants that the 1 st respondent in collusion with the 2 nd respondent had created Ex.B5. 58. The Special Court further noted that Ex.B5 is originally an ‘agreement of sale’ executed and later it was converted into ‘Deed of Sale’ for the purpose of revalidation on 05.10.1999; that wherever the word “agreement” is typewritten in Ex.B5 was either scored out or erased, and at more than one place, the word ‘deed’ was typewritten. 59. The Special Court also noted that if really respondent Nos.2 & 3 executed sale deed on 16.12.1990 in favour of the 1 st respondent after full payment of sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-, the 1 st respondent would not have kept quiet for ten years for getting it revalidated by paying deficit stamp duty and penalty, that too when the GPA Holder executed the sale deeds. 60. The Special Court by noting as above, held that the 1 st respondent did not get valid title to the application schedule property as the sale deed was not executed by Fatima Bee, the 3rd respondent, who had got right and title to the property covered by Ex.B5 as per the judgment and decree in OS.No.312 of 1985. 61. The Special Court further noted that though the 2 nd respondent had claimed of the GPA Holder not entering the sale amount into the account of respondent Nos.2 & 3 on affecting sale of plots as a GPA Holder, the 2nd respondent did not initiate any action for recovery of the amount, which was not paid to him as alleged. 62. The Special Court also took note of the fact that the GPA does not mention of the 2 nd respondent selling the application schedule property of 1,000 sq. 62. The Special Court also took note of the fact that the GPA does not mention of the 2 nd respondent selling the application schedule property of 1,000 sq. yards under Ex.B5 Sale Deed in favour of the 1st respondent and the GPA holder being permitted to sell the remaining extent of land, it is also observed in the GPA that respondent No.2 & 3 having made a statement that they being owners of land admeasuring Acres 2.03½ guntas and not in a position to supervise or administer the property, having appointed K.Nagendra Prasad as GPA Holder. 63. Before the Special Court one Khaza Bee filed an application in IA.No.959/2006 seeking to implead herself as party respondent claiming that she had executed Ex.B5 along with her husband and that her share of consideration was not paid. 64. Though the said petition was dismissed, the Special Court in order to compare her thumb marks in the affidavit and the Vakalat, with that of the thumb marks in Ex.B5/deed of sale sent the same to Finger Print Expert for his opinion. 65. The Finger Print Expert, who was examined as CW2, gave his opinion, marked as Ex.C3, stated that none of the admitted thumb impressions which were marked as Exs.A2, A4, A5 & A6 tallied with the disputed thumb impressions marked as Exs.D1, D2 and D3, and the Special Court by considering the evidence of CW2 had held that the thumb marks on Ex.B5 is not that of Khaza Bee. 66. The Special Court considering in detail the evidence adduced by the parties and the contentions advanced, had held that the applicants have got title to the application schedule property, while the rival title set up by respondents is not true, valid and binding on the applicants. 67. The Special Court by holding as above further held that since, the respondents are in possession of the application schedule property, which does not belong to them, having no legal entitlement, declared the respondents as land grabbers within the meaning of Act XII of 1982, with a consequential direction to respondents to put the applicants in possession of the application schedule property within a period of two (02) months from the date of the order in LGC,dt. 15.09.2008. Consideration by the Court: 68. 15.09.2008. Consideration by the Court: 68. At the outset, insofar as the power of High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to examine the correctness or otherwise of the order of the Special Court is concerned, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of A.P. v. 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. 69. Further, the Apex Court in State Of Andhra Pradesh vs 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. 70. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Y.Amruthabai, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and Anr. vs. The Spl. Court under A.P. Land Grabbing Proh. Act and Ors., Orderdt. 28.09.2022 in W.P.No.3320 of 2006 by referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in P.V. Hanumantha Rao ’s case(2 supra) held that the scope of extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. The High Court, in exercise of Certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction, cannot convert itself into a Court of appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence. The High Court, in exercise of Certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction, cannot convert itself into a Court of appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence. The High Court can interfere with the decision of the Special Court only where there is an error manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings and where it resulted in grave injustice or gross failure of justice. 71. Keeping in view the law as enunciated above, let us examine the facts of the present case. 72. Though before us it is vehemently contended by the petitioner/1 st respondent that the applicants having filed LGC Nos.16 to 19 of 2000 initially and on the same being rejected by the Special Court, cannot file a consolidated application after six months by clubbing all the extents of land covered by (04) earlier LGC cases, and as such, the underlying LGC is not maintainable, as the Special Court had entertained the said application, and the petitioner/1st respondent having participated in the proceedings before the Special Court, it is not open for the petitioner/1 st respondent to raise the plea now before this Court in the Writ Petition. 73. Petitioner contends that though the applicants claim to have purchased the application schedule property under sale deeds,dt. 19.09.1990,dt. 30.07.1991,dt. 30.07.1990 anddt. 19.09.1990, respectively, as he is claiming title to the property on the basis of sada Sale Deed executed by respondents No.2 & 3,dt. 16.02.1990(Ex.B5) being prior in point of time and also put in possession of the said land on its execution, it is to be noted that the Special Court having stated that the subject land in survey Nos.45, 46, 47 & 49(part) having fallen to the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents’ share, pursuant to the decree & judgment in OS.No.312/1985,dt. 08.09.1988, and a partition between the parties to the suit having taken place only on 23.06.1990 as per Ex.A12, identifying the land fallen to their share, particularly, in respect of land in Sy.No.49 admeasuring Acres 1.20 guntas, and the same could not have found mention in the sada Sale Deed(Ex.B5),dt. 16.02.1990, stated to have been executed in favour of the 1 st respondent, even before being partitioned. 74. Thus, the fact of mentioning of details of partition deed,dt. 23.06.1990 in the sada sale deed,dt. 16.02.1990, stated to have been executed in favour of the 1 st respondent, even before being partitioned. 74. Thus, the fact of mentioning of details of partition deed,dt. 23.06.1990 in the sada sale deed,dt. 16.02.1990, itself goes to show that Ex.B5 was not executed on the date it is stated to have executed and was in fact executed subsequently by way of collusion between respondent Nos.1 & 2 in order to defeat the claim of the applicants, and as such, the findings of the Special Court that the rival title set up by the respondents is not true, valid and binding on the applicants, in the considered view of this Court, cannot be said as either erroneous or perverse. 75. Further, on behalf of the 1 st respondent though it is contended that the respondents being in possession of the application schedule land, unless the grabbing is alleged and proved, the application under Section 8(1) of the Act is not maintainable, it is to be noted that the applicants by filing the application before the Special Court had pleaded that the 1 st respondent by grabbing their land had not only constructed a compound wall and room therein, but also started dumping construction material in the site, which entitles them to maintain the application under Section 8(1) of the Act. 76. Further, the 1 st respondent by his own admission in the suit filed by him had claimed that he being in possession of the land and having constructed a compound wall and a room therein on the basis of Ex.B5, stated to have executed by respondents No.2 & 3, which document the Special Court had found as not having been executed by the 3 rd respondent, who has right, title and interest to the land, the claim of the 1 st respondent being in possession, would not confer any valid title in his favour. 77. The Apex Court, in a recent decision in V.S.R. Mohan Rao vs. K.S.R. Murthy & Ors. , [ 2025 INSC 708 ] held that possession without legal right still constitutes land grabbing. 78. Thus, the claim of the 1 st respondent of being in possession of the land pursuant to the sale deed,dt. 16.02.1990(Ex.B5), execution of which itself is in question, possession of the respondents would have to be only held as by way of grabbing without any valid title or lawful entitlement. 79. 78. Thus, the claim of the 1 st respondent of being in possession of the land pursuant to the sale deed,dt. 16.02.1990(Ex.B5), execution of which itself is in question, possession of the respondents would have to be only held as by way of grabbing without any valid title or lawful entitlement. 79. Though on behalf of the petitioner/respondent it is contended that the Special Court having not adverted to the issue of identity of the property and possession, it is to be noted that the Special Court had made reference to the report filed along with sketch of the Advocate Commissioner and the Mandal Surveyor in the suit filed by the respondents herein vide O.S.No.65/2000, identifying the lands of the applicants as falling in survey No.49, in the considered view of this Court, it is not open for the respondents to allege that the Special Court having not adverted to the issue with regard to the identity of the property and possession, and for the said reason, the order of the Special Court cannot be held as either being vitiated or suffering with any infirmity. 80. Further, the respondents though claim to be in possession and having filed a suit vide O.S.No.67/2000 and the said suit being decreed in his favour, it is to be noted that the said suit is only a simple injunction suit, and not a title suit wherein the Court could have examined as to whether the applicants or the respondents have title to the application schedule land. 81. It is also to be noted that the 1 st respondent has filed the aforesaid suit against the 2 nd respondent, from whom he had claimed to have purchased the application schedule land under Ex.B5 and against the GPA Holder of respondent Nos.2 & 3, and did not choose to make the applicants as parties to the said suit, while the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and their GPA, who had executed the Sale deed in favour of the applicants remained ex- parte therein, the said decree passed in the simple injunction suit cannot bind the applicants herein, who are claiming title to the application schedule land under registered sale deeds executed by the GPA holder of respondent Nos.2 & 3 during its currency. 82. 82. Further, it is also to be noted that the applicants have made claim to the subject land under registered sale deed, while the 1st respondent is laying claim to the application schedule land on the basis of a sada Sale Deed/Ex.B5, which was validated nearly after a decade. The affect of validation only for being marked as exhibit in evidence, while on the other hand, the execution of registered sale deed being notice to the world as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2012(1) SCC 656 the respondents cannot claim that the Special Court having erred in holding that they have failed to establish rival title set up by them. On the other hand, the Special Court rightly held that the said rival title set up is not true, valid and binding on the applications, and thus declaring the petitioner/respondent as grabber of the land belonging to the applicants before the Special Court. 83. Though on behalf of the petitioner/respondent it is contended that it is only after the jurisdiction and maintainability issues are decided, examination of documents as to whether the same is forged or otherwise, would arise and not before and since, the essentials of ‘grabbing’ as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act is missing, as the applicants only alleged of the respondents attempting to grab, which does not fall within the scope of land grabbing, it is to be noted that even the allegation of grabbing is sufficient to maintain the application before the Special Court, and once the application is maintained, the act of grabbing or not is to be proved. 84. In the facts of the case, as noted in detail by the Special Court, the 1 st respondent had laid claim to the land belonging to the applicants on the basis of a document i.e., Ex.B5, stated to have been executed by respondent Nos.2 &3, which the Special Court had found to be of not having executed on the date it is stated to have been executed or by the persons i.e., the 3rd respondent, who has right, interest and title to the land along with respondent No.2, the 1 st respondent cannot claim of he having set up valid rival title. 85. 85. Thus, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petition as filed against the order of the Special Court is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. I.A.No.1 of 2019 86. In view of the discussion made as above, since the 1 st respondent/writ petitioner is held to be not having any valid title to the subject property under the sada Sale Deed,dt. 16.2.1990, executed by respondent Nos.2 & 3, and as the proposed parties claim title under separate Gift Deeds executed in their favour on 16.03.2000 by the 1 st respondent, in all admeasuring 1000 sq. yards cumulatively, and since, the gift is only pendent lite, this Court is of the view that the proposed parties are not necessary parties to be impleaded in the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, IA.No.1 of 2019 is dismissed. C.C.No.1751 of 2017 87. This Contempt Case is filed aggrieved by the actions of the respondents in not obeying/violating the orders of status quo granted by this Court,dt. 13.11.2008 in WP.MP.No.32462 of 2008 in W.P.No.2484 of 2008. 88. However, this Court by order,dt. 28.09.2022 in W.P.No.24864 of 2008, vacated the said status quo order noting that the petitioner is not ready and not proceeding with the matter in spite of granting several opportunities. 89. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that nothing survives in the present Contempt Case. 90. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs. 91. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.