THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA L.G.A. No. 1 of 2021 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T. Vinod Kumar This Land Grabbing Appeal is filed against the Judgment dated. 10.02.2021 in E.A. No.40 of 2018 in E.A No.26 of 2018 in E.P. No.361 of 2017 in L.G.O.P. No.442 of 2003 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. The Appellants herein are respondent Nos.14 and 20 in the underlying E.A. No.40 of 2018, which is filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) r/w Section 151 of CPC to reject the claim petition filed by the third parties under Section 47 r/w Order XXI Rule 97 to 101 i.e. E.A. No.26 of 2018 filed to declare the order passed in L.G.O.P No.442 of 2003 as in-executable as void ab initio.

3. The brief of the case of the appellants is that the respondent No.19 herein claims to have purchased land in Plot No.220 & 221, to an extent of 600 Sq. Yards in Sy.No.44/1 situated at Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was purchased through a registered Sale Deed dated 09.09.1996, respondent No. 19 had filed L.G.O.P. No.442 of 2003 against the respondent No.21/JDR No.1 to declare him as land grabber in respect of the Schedule Property i.e. Plot Nos.220 and 221 in Survey No.44/1 before the tribunal.

4. On the respondent No. 19 filing the petition before the special tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’). The tribunal during the pendency of the above said L.G.O.P. No.442/2003 appointed an Advocate Commissioner and also the Mandal Surveyor, who had visited the property under Rule 6 of A.P. Land Grabbing Prohibition Rules and filed his report. The said report categorically demarcated that the schedule property is situated in the Survey No.44/1. Accordingly, the said LGOP was allowed vide order dated. 14.10.2016 declaring the respondent No.21/JDR No.1 as land grabber.

5. The Tribunal while allowing the LGOP had directed the respondent No.21 herein to vacate and handover the possession within 90 days from the date of the order. Since, the respondent No.21/JDR No.1 failed to vacate and handover the possession, the respondent No. 19 herein had filed the E.P. No.361 of 2017 to direct the Respondent No.21/JDR No.1 to deliver the possession. The Executing Court had issued notice to the respondent No.21/JDR No. 1. Despite of service of notice, he failed to appear in the above said E.P, consequently executing court issued the warrant of delivery of possession.

6. In furtherance of order in execution petition, the Bailiff of the Court had visited the E.P. Schedule property on 25.11.2017 and identified the property. Since, there was an existing construction in the Schedule property, the Bailiff could not execute the warrant and the same was returned for passing necessary orders. Therefore respondent No. 19/Decree Holder had filed E.A. No.13 of 2018 and E.A. No.36 of 2018 to break open the lock and provide police protection. Upon the executing court passing orders, the court bailiff along with the Police had visited the property on 09.07.2018 for execution of the warrant, but the same was again returned unexecuted.

7. The respondent No.21/JDR No.1 failed to obey the warrant issued by the court below. However, certain persons including the appellants herein claiming through the respondent No.21 have resisted the warrant of delivery of possession. The third- party claim petitioners thereafter have filed appeal before this court against the order in L.G.O.P. No.442 of 2003 vide LGA No.5 of 2018, however the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.08.2018.

8. The respondent No. 19 herein thereafter had pressed for disposal of execution petition filed by him vide E.P. No.361 of 2017. The third-party claim petitioners thereafter by falsely claiming that schedule property is in Survey No.44/2 and not in Survey. No. 44/1 had filed E.A. No.26 of 2018 in the E.P.

No.361 of 2017.

9. By the said application, the claim petitioners had sought to de