ORDER (Per T.Ch. Surya Rao, J.)

Indeed a common order was dictated in open Court after having heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents was absent. The order proceeded only on jurisdictional issue. But it was not transcribed and signed. Some time after the order was dictated in open Court, the learned counsel on record representing the respondents appeared. At his request, the matters were directed to be called under the caption "For being mentioned" on the next date. When the matter thus appeared under that caption, both the learned counsel were heard again afresh. After having heard them at some length on the jurisdictional issue, it was felt expedient to hear the arguments on merits and we decided to recall the earlier order. The matters were accordingly adjourned. Both the learned counsel submitted written arguments. The learned counsel for the first respondent by name Sri Rakesh Sanghi, who submitted written arguments, also again submitted additional written arguments. The oral arguments addressed on either side are limited on the point of jurisdiction albeit the written arguments submitted on either side cover the merits of the case also.

2. Writ Petition Nos. 21300/1999 and 21301/1999 have been directed against that part of the common order passed by the learned Special Court in L.G.C.Nos.115/1995 and 116/1995. Writ Petition No. 26557/1999 was directed against that part of the common order in L.G.C.No.258/1995. In fact, the common order dated 12-07-1999 passed by the learned Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act covers L.G.C.Nos.114/1995 to 116/1995, 258/1995,97/1996 and 65/1997. In these batch of writ petitions, we are concerned with only L.G.C.Nos.115/1995, 116/1995 and 258/1995. Although the petitioners are different in L.G.C.Nos.115/1995 and 116/1995, the respondents therein are common. The respondents in both these L.G.Cs. are petitioners in L.G.C.No.258/1995. The petitioners in L.G.C.Nos.115/1995 and 116/ 1995 along with some others are the respondents in L.G.C.No.258/1995. L.G.C.No.258/1995 was originally a suit in O.S.No.1025 of 1995 filed on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking the relief of perpetual injunction and the same having been transferred to the Special Court was renumbered as L.G.C.No.258/1995.

3. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The land in an extent of 570 square yards, the subject matter of L.G.C.No.115/1995 and the land in an extent of 286 square yards, the subject matter of L.G.C.116/1995 along with other bits of land, total admeasuring Acs.4.30 guntas covered by old survey number 129/49 of Shaikpet village was originally belonged to Janab Syed Ali Akbar. He divided the said land into four plots as Plot Nos.1 to IV. Plot Nos. I to III measured each one acre while plot No. IV measured AC.1.30 guntas. The subject matter of the present dispute in between the parties inter se pertains to Plot No. III. According to the applicants in L.G.C.Nos.115/1995 and 116/1995 late Syed Ali Akbar sold that Plot No. III under a registered sale deed dated 10-10-1962 in favour of one Ram Bhupaul. An extent of 4840 square yards of land in Plot No.111 was sold by the purchaser Ram Bhupaul in favour of Sri G.S.Arora, Mrs. Neera Arora, Sri T.S.Arora and Sri S.K.Sen Gupta under a registered sale deed dated 24-09-1975. The said purchasers from Ram Bhupaul in turn divided the said extent amongst themselves under an oral partition which was later reduced into writing as a memorandum of partition dated 03-10-1989 (sic. 1.979). Each one of them got a site in an extent of 1210, 1133, 1184 and 1133 square yards respectively. Each of those subsequent purchasers sold the lands to different persons. Out of them, Smt. Neera Arora one of the four purchasers sold 570 square yards of land to the applicant in L.G.C.No.115/1995 and 286 square yards of land to the applicant in L.G.C.No.116 of 1995 under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document