THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA WP. No. 15931 of 2004 O R D E R:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)

This Writ Petition is filed feeling aggrieved by the order, dt.11.08.2004, in LGC.No.124 of 1996 passed by the Special Court under AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’) at Hyderabad.

2. The petitioners herein are the respondents in the LGC before the Special Court.

3. The respondent Nos.2 & 3 herein have filed the underlying LGC before the Special Court claiming that the petitioners herein have grabbed land to an extent of 4160 sq. mtrs in TS.No.5/P of Khairatabad Villlage, Golkonda Mandal, Hyderabad District.

Brief facts of the case as stated in LGC :

4. The 2^nd respondent herein had filed application under Section 8(1) of the Act, claiming that the application schedule property viz., 4160 sq. mtrs., of land in TS.No.5/P of Khairatabad Village forms part of Revenue Survey No.9 of Hussainsagar and is a government land.

5. It is the case of the 2^nd respondent/applicant before the Special Court that Kharatabad Village was a Sarfekhas Village i.e., Private Estate of Nizam, but the entire property vested with the Diwani by virtue of Sarfekhas Merger Regulation 1358 Fasli in the year 1949, free from all encumbrances.

6. It is also the further case of the 2^nd respondent/applicant that the schedule property was handed over to the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) by the State Government vide GO.Ms.No.1047, M.A. Housing, Municipal Administration & Urban Development, dt.08.09.1991 for the purpose of management and development of the same as an agent to Government

7. The 2^nd respondent/applicant further claimed that the entire village was surveyed during the Nizam regime in accordance with the provisions of Hyderabad Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and the same became final and the entries made in the revenue records were also corrected on the orders of the Collector, Hyderabad, dt.05.10.1959.

8. The 2nd respondent/applicant further claimed that one N.B.Satyanarayana, the father of the 1^st petitioner herein/1^st respondent before the Special Court, who died on 01.01.1996 claimed the application schedule property as part of Naimatullah Shah Makta and to be a lessee of one of Makta viz., Mohd.Osman, who claimed the subject land as having been given in Inam.

9. The 2^nd respondent/applicant further claimed that neither Mohd.Osman nor his predecessors in interest have any legal right or title or interest in the property as there was no re-grant by Nizam and the application schedule property is a tank bed.

10. The 2^nd respondent/applicant further pleaded that the N.B.Sayanarayana, claiming to be a leaseholder for 75 years, filed a Civil Suit for Perpetual Injunction on the basis of his unauthorized an illegal possession vide OS.No.3766 of 1990 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and obtained an ex-parte decree on 09.08.1991 and the same is pending on the date of presentation of the present application, which was set aside subsequently.

11. The 2nd respondent/applicant further claimed that neither N.B.Satyanaraya or his legal heirs are in authorized possession of the subject land and they are continuing to be in illegal occupation of the application schedule property without vacating it and also trying to change the nature and character of the property, and thus, are to be declared as land grabbers and are liable to be evicted from the application schedule property.

12. On the Special Court taking cognizance of the aforesaid application filed by the 2nd respondent/applicant and issuing notice, the 1st petitioner herein/1^st respondent in the application filed counter resisting the said application.

13. The 1^st petitioner/1^st respondent while denying the application averments, claimed that the application schedule property forms part of Sy.No.9/2 of Khairatabad Village, and was registered a Dastgardha Inam held by Mohd.Osman and 8 others in the