( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order-dated 28-4-2000 made in L. G. C. No. 85 of 1996 on the file of the Special Court constituted under A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, the Act ). The writ petitioner is the respondent in the l. G. C.

( 2 ) THE 2nd respondent herein viz. , Kasula Raghumani, filed the above LGC in the special Court for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the land to an extent of 1102 Sq. yards equivalent to 922 sq. metres comprised in Sy. No. 63/2 of sankeswar Bazaar, Saidabad village and mandal of Hyderabad (the then Charminar mandal), (hereinafter referred to as the schedule land ), by declaring the writ petitioner as the land grabber and to punish him under the provisions of the Act. The said application filed by the 2nd respondent herein was allowed by the Special Court holding that the petitioner herein is a land grabber within the meaning of the Act and directing him to vacate the schedule land within a period of two months from the date of the order and also directing prosecution of the petitioner for the offence of land grabbing as provided under the Act. Hence this writ petition by the respondent in the lgc.

( 3 ) THE case of the 2nd respondent-applicant pleaded before the Special Court in the LGC is, in brief, as follows: The applicant purchased the schedule land for valuable consideration from the owner viz. , gajaraj Singh s/o late Ramsingh by a registered sale deed dated 4-4-1968 bearing document No. 960/68. The total extent of sy. No. 63/2 is Ac. 16-00 and odd and the said land was originally owned and possessed by Gajaraj Singh. Gajaraj Singh was the owner of certain other lands also and there is a big palatial building with large extent of abutting open land in Sy. No. 63/2 and the Municipal Corporation has assigned d. No. 17-1-411 to the said building. The schedule land purchased by the applicant abuts the western compound wall of the premises of her vendor viz. , Gajaraj Singh s/o late Ramsingh. The applicant was inducted into possession of the schedule land on the date of the sale deed and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same in her own right as the owner of the schedule land. The applicant s husband was a Government employee and he has been transferred from one place to another. In view of lack of funds, house could not be constructed in the schedule land immediately after the purchase. While so, the applicant received the suit notice filed by the writ petitioner, wherein ex parte interim injunction was obtained by him in respect of the schedule land restraining the applicant from interfering with the alleged possession of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner is a milk vendor in the locality. The writ petitioner, claiming to have purchased the property comprised in Sy. No. 78/3 of Saidabad village from one Misaiah by a registered sale deed dated 4-8-1992, grabbed the schedule land without any right or title. In the concise statement filed before the Special Court, it is stated that the writ petitioner is claiming his title to the schedule land through one sri Syed Mahamood in Sy. No. 78/3 by stating that originally the schedule land belonged to one Sri Syed Mahamood from whom the schedule land was purchased by one Narasimha Reddy, and from sri Narasimha Reddy, the schedule land was purchased by one Misaiah, and from misaiah, the writ petitioner purchased the schedule land. It is further alleged that taking advantage of the absence of the applicant and her husband from the city of hyderabad, the writ petitioner trespassed into the schedule land and grabbed the same under the guise of an interim injunction obtained by him in the suit. The applicant also claimed that the schedule land is not covered by Sy. No. 78/3, but it is covered in sy. No. 63/2.

( 4 ) THE Special Court having taken cognizance of the case under Section 8 of the act, issued notice to the writ petitioner. A notification