N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.

( 1 ) ). THESE two writ petitions are directed against the order and decree dated 05-03-1990 in L. G. C. No. 32/89 on the file of the Special Court under A. P. Land grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) SINCE the question involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same they are disposed of by a common order.

( 3 ) ). Respondents 1 to 10 in the Land Grabbing Case No. 32/89 are the petitioners in W. P. No. 4991/90. Respondent No. 11 in LGC No. 32/89 is the petitioner in W. P. No. 4026/90. All the applicants in the said Land Grabbing case are the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in both the writ petitions. The 11th respondent in the land grabbing case had acted as G. P. A. Holder of respondents 1 to 10. The applicants who are respondents herein filed the said land grabbing case alleging that the petitioners herein are the land grabbers. After discussing the evidence both oral and documentary, the Special Court under A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, hereinafter referred to as the special Court , allowed the case holding the petitioners 1 to 10 in w. P. No. 4991/90 and the petitioner in W. P. No. 4026/90, being the G. P. A. Holder of the petitioners in W. P. No. 4991/90, as land grabbers and ordered registration of a criminal case against them. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners and their G. P. A. Holder have filed these two separate writ petitions.

( 4 ) ORIGINALLY W. P. No. 4991/90 was filed by petitioners 1 to 10. During the pendency of this writ petition, petitioner Nos. 3 and 7 died. Hence, the legal representatives of the 3rd petitioner are impleaded as Petitioner Nos. 11 to 18 and the legal representatives of the 7th petitioner are impleaded as petitioner nos. 19 to 21 as per the orders of this Court dt. 17-4-1997 in W. P. M. P. No. 9440/97. Some third parties are also added in the writ petitions as respondents 7 to 16.

( 5 ) FOR purpose of convenience, the reference of the parties is mentioned in the writ petitions as arrayed in the Land Grabbing Case.

( 6 ) THE facts that led to the filing of the Land Grabbing Case in brief are as follows: Late Uppari Ramaiah, husband of the 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 to 10 was the protected tenant of Kaneez Patima Begum in respect of the land covered by S. Nos. 65 to 74 of Yousufguda village and he purchased an extent of Ac. 14. 06 guntas of land from her covered by the same survey numbers under a registered sale deed dated 1-5-1961 for a sum of rs. 13,000/ -. A certificate was also obtained by him from the Revenue divisional Officer, Hyderabad (West) under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, 1950. Prior to the sale transaction, the said Ramaiah had sold an extent of 20,086 Sq, yards of land from out of Ac, 14. 06 guntas to one Mr. Riasat Ali under a registered sale deed dt: 8-2-1961 who in turn sold an extent of 8,866 Sq. yards from out of the total extent of 20,086 Sq. yards to Smt. P. Neelakanteswaramma, the 1st applicant, and to one Chandra Ramalingaiah under a registered sale deed dated 21-11-1961. Smt. Muthamma, the wife of uppari Ramaiah, 1st respondent, is the witness to the said sale deeds. Subsequently, the said Chandra Ramalingaiah died and his share in the disputed land devolved on his legal heirs who are applicants 2 to 5. It is the further case of the applicants that mutation was also made in the revenue records in the name of Chandra Ramalingaiah and Neelakanteswaramma. Ever since, they were in possession and enjoyment of the disputed land. On 22-7-1975, the respondents 2 and 3 namely Neelakanteswaramma and chandra Suryamba, wife of Chandra Ramalingaiah, entered into an agreement of sale with Bhagyalakshmi Co-operative Housing Society. Though exemption was granted to them for alienating the land under Section 7 (2) of the A. P. Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1972 under g. O. Rt. No. 3591, dated 1-12-1975 and G. O. Ms. No. 189, Dt. 17-1-1976, they could not execute the sale deed i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document