ORDER :

SHAMEEM AKTHER, J.

Since the subject matter of both these writ petitions is the land situated in old Survey No.129/43 (new Sy.No.313) corresponding to T.S.No.26 and T.S.No.28/1/1, situated at Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad, and since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in both these writ petitions, both these writ petitions are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.No.5948 of 2011 is filed by the petitioner-Mohd.Amerullah Khan, challenging the judgment, dated 25.10.2010, passed in L.G.C.No.104 of 1998, by the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for short, ‘Special Court’), whereby, the subject LGC filed by him to declare him as absolute owner of the application schedule property and to declare the respondent Nos.1 to 9 as land grabbers and evict them from the application schedule property and also direct them to pay damages to the petitioner and to punish them under the provisions of the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, was dismissed. That led to filing of this writ petition by the petitioner.

3. W.P.No.11067 of 2011 is filed by the petitioners, who are respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the subject LGC No.104 of 1998, seeking a direction to the respondents to act in accordance with law and forebear from dispossessing them from the land and structures bearing house Nos.8-2-677/A/1/1, 8-2-677/A/2 and 8-2-677/A/2/1, admeasuring 550 Sq. yards, 400 Sq. yards and 530 Sq. yards respectively, situated at Road No.12, Banjara Hills, in Old Survey No.129/43 corresponding to T.S.No.26 and 28/1/1, Block-T, Ward No.11 of Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad District, without following due procedure of law and without finalizing the regularization applications filed by them. That led to filing of this writ petition by the petitioners.

4. Heard the submissions of Sri B.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.5948 of 2011, Smt. Chintalapudi Lakshmi Kumari, learned counsel for petitioners in W.P.No.11067 of 2011, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the official respondents in both these writ petitions and perused the record.

5. For clarity, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they were arrayed in the subject L.G.C.No.104 of 1998.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.5948 of 2011 (applicant) would inter alia contend that the impugned judgment of the Special Court is contrary to law and facts. The conclusions reached by the Special Court are inconsistent with the findings recorded by it in the impugned judgment. The Special Court, while upholding the title of the applicant with regard to Survey No.129/43, erroneously dismissed the subject LGC filed by him. Further, the Special Court, arrived at a conclusion that the action of the then Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records in making amendments to the total area covered by Survey No.129/43 does not seem to be in order and are to be treated as illegal. Further, the Special Court categorically recorded a finding that the application schedule land in T.S.No.26 and T.S.No.28/1/1, belong to the applicant, was taken over by the Government under ULC Act. Having observed thus, the Special Court erroneously concluded that the applicant presently does not hold any title to the application schedule property, which is contrary to its own findings. The findings of the Special Court in the impugned judgment with regard to ULC proceedings are ex-facie illegal, unlawful, based on no evidence and against the principles of natural justice. There was no pleading by the Government (respondent No.9) in their counter and as such, no issue was framed in relation to ULC proceedings of the applicant. The ULC official, who gave evidence as R.W.7, admitted that surplus land was not demarcated specifically and no plan is filed to that effect in the Court. Though the applicant adduced plenty of cogent and convincing evidence to prove his case that he is the absolute owner of