( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions are inter-connected and so they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) SEEKING a writ of certiorari for quashing the common judgment of the special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, hyderabad (for short "the Special Court") in LG. C. Nos. 23 of 1993 and 68 of 1994, these applications were filed by Tadi Surya Rao, a resident of visakhapatnam, who was declared by the Special Court as a land grabber within the meaning of Section 2 (b) and (e) of the Andhra Pradesh Land grabbing (Prohibition) Act, (for short "the Act") and was directed to deliver vacant possession of Plot Nos. 70 and 71 covered by approved lay-out bearing no. 61/64 situate 16 at Narasimha Nagar, Viskhapatnam to Dr. Gurubhavathula ramakrishna Rao (respondent No. 1 herein) applicant in L. G. C. No. 23 of 1993 before the Special Court or his nominee.

( 3 ) IN the year 1991, Gurubhavathula Ramakrishna Rao, respondent No. 1 herein, filed L. G. C. No. 64 of 1991 before the Special Court in respect of the same property in question and a report was called for by the Special Court from the mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam, which disclosed that one Dr. B. Perraju, the vendor of the first respondent, was the original pattedar of the property in question and the same was purchased by the first respondent and so the latter s title wasalso supported by the entries in the revenue records fair adangal etc. That case was withdrawn by the first respondent as settled out of court. The order of the Special Court dated 21-2-1992 in L. G. C. No. 64/91 was in the following terms:"it is reported by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the matter is settled out of Court. Hence the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. "

( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, alleging that the petitioner herein had encroached into the land in question on 18-9-1993, the first respondent instituted L. G. C. No. 23 of 1993 for a declaration that the petitioner was a land grabber and for consequential direction to handover vacant possession.

( 5 ) THE petitioner had instituted a suit - O. S. No. 464 of 1991 - in the Court of the District Munsif, Visakhapatnam for a permanent injunction in respect of the very same property against Sri Ch. Venkateswara Rao, the power of attorney of dr. Gurubhagavathula Ramakrishna Rao, the first respondent herein, contending that the property was purchased by him under an agreement of sale on 14-4-1973 from one G. Nookaiah for a valuable consideration of Rs. 5,780/- and since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and that ch. Venkateswara Rao and his men were trying to dispossess him from the property. That suit was resisted by Ch. Venkateswara Rao contending in the written statement that the petitioner herein had no manner of right to the schedule property and that the suit was not maintainable since he venkateswara Rao- was only a Power of Attorney of Gurubhagavathula Rama krishna Rao and so no action could be brought against him in his individual capacity. That suit was transferred to the Special Court to be tried along with l. G. C. No. 23 of 1993 and consequently it was renumbered as L. G. C. No. 68 of 1994.

( 6 ) IN L. G. C. No. 23 of 1993, filed by the first respondent herein through his power of Attorney, the case set up was that the land in question was purchased for a valid consideration of Rs. 6,000/- under a registered sale deed Ex. A-2, dated 26-9-1966 from Dr. Perraju and the transaction was effected after dr. Ramakrishna Rao, the first respondent, who was in Government Service at that time, obtained permission from the Director of Medical Services on 29-9-1966 as per Ex. A-18. He had also paid the vacant land tax to the visakhapatnam Municipality as evidenced by the tax demand notice, Ex. A-19. As Dr. Ramakrishna Rao went to the United States of America for higher studies in medicine and since he accepted employment there as a medical doctor, he executed a General P