THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA Writ Petition No.2570 of 2006 ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)

This Writ Petition is filed assailing the order dt.27.12.2005 passed in L.G.C.No.61 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’) at Hyderabad, as being contrary to the evidence on record and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, with a consequently direction to quash the said judgment.

2. Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mrs.D.Madhavi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, and perused the record.

3. The 1^st petitioner herein is the respondent before the Special Court in L.G.C.No.61 of 2022, filed by the respondent herein as applicant. Petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are the legal heirs of the 1^st petitioner, who died pending writ petition, on 08.09.2015.

4. On behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the order of the Special Court is contrary to weight of evidence inasmuch as the Special Court did not consider that the land being claimed by the 1^st petitioner herein to an extent of 660 square yards in Sy.No.269 of Shapurnagar, Qutbullapur, Ranga Reddy District, has been wrongly held as part of Hindustan Machine Tools Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited (HMTECHS) bearing Plot No.18 admeasuring 300 square yards allotted in favour of the 2^nd respondent herein and the same having been grabbed by the 1^st petitioner and thus, declaring the 1^st petitioner as a ‘land grabber’.

5. The case of the petitioners in brief is that the 1^st petitioner has purchased land admeasuring 660 square yards from one K.Satyanarayana initially under oral agreement of sale dt.15.10.1975. followed by written agreement of sale dt.12.10.1976 in respect of land in Sy.No.269, Shapurnagar, Qutbullapur, Ranga Reddy District; that the aforesaid extent of land purchased by him forms part of a large extent of land of Acs.39.35 guntas belonging to Mrs.Khurshid Shapur Shenoy and others who in turn had entered into an agreement to sell the same to K.Satyanarayana, vide agreement of sale dt.22.06.1974; and that the said Satyanarayana had entered into an agreement of sale with HMTECHS to an extent of Acs.37.14 guntas, thereby retaining land to an extent of Acs.2.20 guntas for himself.

6. It is the further case of the petitioners that K.Satyanarayana from out of the land retained by him which has been agreed to be sold to him by Mrs.Shenoy and others, had sold part of the subject land claimed by the 2^nd respondent herein as forming part of layout of HMTECHS and the said part of land to an extent of 300 yards having been sold in his favour under a registered sale deed by HMTECHS.

7. It is further contended by the petitioners that on K.Satyanarayana entered into an agreement with the 1^st petitioner to sell the land to an extent of 660 square yards from and out of the total extent of land belonging to Mrs.Shenoy and others in Sy.Nos.269, 270 and 271 to an extent of Acs.39.35 guntas; that the said K.Satyanarayana thereafter entered into an agreement with HMTECHS agreeing to sell the land to an extent of Acs.37.14 guntas; that however, a sale deed was executed on 20.09.1975 in favour of HMTECHS only to an extent of Acs.20.00 guntas after ULC authorities granted permission only to the said extent; that no sale deed was executed for the remaining extent of Acs.17.14 guntas agreed to be sold to HMTECHS as neither sale deed was executed nor possession was delivered to the said society.

8. It is the further case of the petitioners that though the sale deed is executed in favour of HMTECHS is only to an extent of Acs.20.00 guntas, the said society had obtained layout for the entire extent of land admeasuring Acs.37.41 guntas which was agreed to be sold to them by K.Satyanarayana under an agreement of sale dt.21.11.1974 and out of the said