THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA W.P.No.24783 OF 2009 O R D E R:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)

This Writ Petition is filed being aggrieved by the order, dt.18.08.2009, in IA.No.694 of 2009 in IA.No.48 of 2008 in LGC.No.2 of 1995 passed by the Special Court under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (foe short ‘the Act’) at Hyderabad.

2. The petitioners herein are the respondents in the underlying interlocutory application and petitioners in IA.No.48 of 2008 and applicants in LGC.No.2 of 1995.

3. The 1^st respondent herein is the petitioner in the underlying interlocutory application.

4. Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt K.Udayasri, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondent/1^st petitioner, Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.8 &9, Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for 7^th respondent, and the standing counsel for GHMC for

10th respondent.

5. The case of the writ petitioners, in brief, is that they have filed LGC.No.2 of 1995 as applicants against the acts of respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein in grabbing the plot of land of the petitioners bearing plot No.4 in survey No.52/14 of Miyakunta Village, Namalagundu, Secunderabad, during January, 1985, and thus are required to be declared as land grabbers and the application schedule property before the Special Court to be delivered back to them.

6. It is the further case of the petitioners before the Special Court that respondent Nos.8 & 9 herein were aiding the grabbers of the aforesaid plot/property by sanctioning them with the dealership of supplying and storing domestic LPG Gas, in spite of being issued with a legal notice, dt.29.10.1994, not to grant license or dealership to the respondents, as the petitioners are the owners and possessors of the subject property, and the 2^nd respondent herein by creating false documents has grabbed the plot of the petitioners along with adjacent plot.

7. It is also the further case of the petitioners that the 10^th respondent herein was impleaded as formal party, who had rejected the application to the respondents 2 to 7 herein for granting trade license for distribution of gas cylinders in the domestic area and in spite of the 10^th respondent rejecting the application made by respondents No.2 to 7 herein, the said respondents are unauthorizedly and unlawfully carrying on the LPG gas supply and storage business from the grabbed premises till date, without any trade license.

8. Petitioners further contend that the Special Court by taking cognizance of the application filed by them, had got published a notification as required under sub-section(6) of Section 8 of the Act in the AP Gazette Part-II Extraordinary No.67, dt.20.02.1995 including an Errata to the said Notification in AP Gazette Part-II Extraordinary No.70,dt.15.03.1997, inviting objections, if any, for the Special Court to take cognizance of the aforesaid case.

9. Petitioners further contend that pursuant to the aforesaid notification issued by the Special Court no objections have been received from any corner and the Special Court proceeded with the aforesaid application filed by the petitioners herein along with another application filed by the neibouring plot Owners vide LGC.No.146 of 1994.

10. It is contended by the petitioners that on the Special Court taking cognizance of both the applications filed vide LGC.No.146 of 1994 and LGC.No.2 of 1995, the same were referred to Mandal Revenue Officer(MRO) for verification under Rule 6 of the Rules framed under the Act; and that the MRO had submitted his report, which was marked through MRO, Musheerabad, as Ex.C1.

11. Petitioners further contend that the Special Court proceeded with both the applications taken on record, vide LGC.No.146 of 1994 and LGC.No.2 of 1995, together, wherein except the 2nd respondent herein, who was arrayed as 1^st respondent therein, other responde