(per the Hon’ble Mr.Justice

T.Ch. Surya Rao)

The writ petitioner seeks to assail the order, dated 05-08-2005, passed by the learned Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for brevity, ‘the Act’) in T.O.P.No.5 of 2004.

2. The writ petitioner is the first respondent in T.O.P.No.5 of 2004. The respondents 1 to 6 herein are the petitioners therein. The writ petitioner filed the suit initially in O.S.No.48 of 1990 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, East and North, Ranga Reddy, seeking the relief of perpetual injunction. That suit, for want of necessary pecuniary jurisdiction, was directed to be returned. The petitioner seems to have represented the suit in O.S.No.218 of 2000 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, where it was pending adjudication. Earlier, the fourth respondent herein filed L.G.C.No.2 of 1994 on the file of the Special Court, wherein the writ petitioner though initially was not arrayed as respondent, had subsequently been impleaded as a party thereto. It appears, some other matters are also pending before the Special Court filed either by the State or by the Osmania University. The subject matter of those proceedings seems to be the land covered by Sy.No.10/2 of Habsiguda village.

3. On the premise that comprehensive proceedings encompassing the rights of various parties concerned with the land covered by Sy.No.10/2 of Habsiguda village are pending before the Special Court, and a Commissioner was appointed so as to survey lands in dispute, who submitted his report and to avoid conflicting findings by various fora, where the matters pending for adjudication, the respondents 1 to 6 herein filed T.O.P.No.5 of 2004 before the Special Court under Section 8 (8) of the Act seeking transfer of the suit, O.S.No.218 of 2000, from the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, to the file of the Special Court. Under the impugned order, the learned Special Court allowed that application directing the transfer of the suit. As aforesaid, that is now being assailed before us in the writ petition.

4. Sri Venkata Raghuramulu, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, raises a twofold contention before this Court, namely, (1) that the Special Court is not competent to direct the transfer of the suit pending on the file of the civil Court and (2) the suit, having been filed seeking the relief of perpetual injunction, is not within the competence of the Special Court to try.

5. Sri K.Mahipathi Rao, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6, sought to sustain the impugned order.

6. Insofar as the first contention raised by the writ petitioner the provision germane in the context is Section 8 (8) of the Act, which reads as under:

“Section 8 (8).- Any case, pending before any Court or other authority immediately before the constitution of a Special Court, as would have been within the jurisdiction of such Special Court, shall stand transferred to the Special Court as if the cause of action on which such suit or proceeding is based had arisen after the constitution of the Special

Court.”

7. A perusal of the above excerpted provision shows that all matters which are pending before various Civil Courts having been instituted earlier to the advent of the Act and which would have been within the jurisdiction of the Special Court shall stand automatically transferred to the Special Court. Such a transfer is by means of operation of law in view of the provisions of sub-section (8) of Section 8 of the Act. What is sine qua non from a perusal of the above provision obviously is that a case that has been pending before a Civil Court or other authority must be one that it would come within the jurisdiction of the Special Court. From the scheme of the Act, it is obvious that only those matters where there has been a specific averment inter alia in the application that an act of land grabbing has been committed as envisaged under clauses (d) and (e) of Section 2 of the Act