MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioners seek a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction calling for the records of the first respondent - Special court under A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad in I. A. No. 783 of 1997 in LGC No. 261 of 1995 dt. 1-9-1997 and to quash the same as illegal, unsustainable and without jurisdiction and to pass appropriate orders.

( 2 ) THE principal issue which falls for consideration in this writ petition is"whether the Special Court constituted under the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) act or the Tribunals constituted thereunder have jurisdiction to entertain cases and grant injunctive reliefs on the basis of complaints that the other party has been "attempting to grab the land"?

( 3 ) BEFORE we proceed to decide the controversy raised in the writ petition, few facts which are necessary to appreciate the crux of the matter are traced hereunder:

( 4 ) PETITIONERS purchased 6755 square yards of land in Habsiguda in execution of a decree of specific performance in OS No. 54 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, ranga Reddy District. While so, some persons claming to be the owners of the said land started interfering with the possession of the petitioners. Petitioners, therefore, filed o. S. No. 736 of 1992 on the file of the principal District Munsif Magistrate, hyderabad East and North for perpetual injunction. On contest, the said suit was decreed holding that the petitioners are in possession of the said property.

( 5 ) RESPONDENTS 4 to 20 in the writ petition filed O. S. No. 361 of 1993 on the file of the principal District Munsif, Hyderabad East and North against the petitioners for certain reliefs. Along with the said suit, they also filed I. A. No. 2211 of 1993 temporary injunction preventing the petitioners herein from allegedly interfering with their possession. Petitioners also filed O. S. No. 388 of 1993 for permanent injunction against the respondents herein. Along with the said suit, they also filed I. A. No. 2417 of 1993 seeking ad-interim injunction under order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The two suits i. e. , O. S. Nos. 361 and 388 of 1993 were clubbed and are being tried together. However, the two interlocutory applications were decided by a common order dated 9-12-1995. I. A. No. 2211 of 1993 in O. S. No. 361 of 1993 filed by the respondents 4 to 20 herein is dismissed while I. A. No. 2417 of 1993 in O. S. No. 388 of 1993 filed by the petitioners is allowed by granting ad interim injunction. Being aggrieved by the said common order, respondents 4 to 20 herein filed CMA Nos. 99 and 100 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Additional District judge, Ranga Reddy District. During the pendency of the CMAs, respondents 4 to 20 moved the Special Court under A. P. Land grabbing (Prohibition) Act, (for short "the special Court") filing LGC No. 261 of 1995 with the same allegations and sought the very same relief of permanent injunction. However, petitioners filed I. A. No. 783 of 1997 contesting the jurisdiction of the Special court for entertaining the LGC No. 261 of 1995 on the ground that the Special Court has no jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief and prayed the Special Court to decide the objection as a preliminary issue. The respondents 4 to 20 filed CRP No. 4512 of 1997 on the file of this Court seeking transfer of two suits and two CMAs filed before the civil Courts to the Special Court. However, the respondents withdrew the said CRP. Thereafter, the respondents 4 to 20 moved the Special Court in OP (SR) No. 277 and 278 of 1998 seeking transfer of OS No. 361 of 1993 from the Court of the District Munsif to the special Court for being tried along with lgc No. 261 of 1995. The Special Court withdrew only the CMAs filed by the respondents without transferring to itself the suit filed by the respondents in the Court of the District Munsif. On the IA No. 783 of 1997 filed by these petitioners, the Special cour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document