THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA L.G.A. Nos.27 and 33 of 2017 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar Since, both these Appeals arise out of the very same order, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Both these appeals are directed against the order, dt.08.10.2012 in LGOP.No.623 of 2001 on the file of the Special Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

3. The appellant in LGA.No.27 of 2017 is the 6^th respondent in LGOP.No.27/2017, and the appellant in LGA.No.33 of 2017 is third party to the aforesaid LGOP, who after obtaining leave from this Court vide order dt.24.11.2016 in WP.No.25147 of 2016, had filed the said appeal.

Brief facts of the case:

4. The 1^st respondent in both the appeals is the petitioner before the Tribunal, who had filed the above LGOP claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of land bearing Plot No.28 admeasuring 502 sq. yards in survey No.69 & 70 situated at Lingojiguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed, dt.11.07.1967 from one Syed Abdul Rahman.

5. It is the further case of the 1^st respondent/petitioner that intending to construct a house on the subject plot, she had applied for permission, and it was approved vide endorsement, dt.10.06.1985; that on the basis of the aforesaid permission, when she had commenced construction work, one Smt V.Ratnamala, who is 3^rd respondent herein/2^nd respondent in LGOP, along with some antisocial elements entered into the subject plot claiming to be the absolute owner of part of land in plot No.28 admeasuring 202 sq. yards; that on the entry of the 3rd respondent/2nd respondent being objected to by the 1^st respondent herein, the 3^rd respondent/2^nd respondent had filed a suit vide O.S.No.254/1985 against the 1^st respondent/petitioner seeking perpetual injunction; and that the said suit was dismissed by the Civil Court on 16.07.1991.

6. It is the further case of the 1st respondent/petitioner that during the pendency of the aforesaid suit filed against her by the 3^rd respondent/2^nd respondent, the 2^nd respondent herein/1^st respondent in LGOP had executed two registered sale deeds in respect of plot No.28 i.e., 200 sq. yards in favour of 3^rd respondent/2^nd respondent and 300 sq. yards in favour of 4^th respondent/3^rd respondent.

7. It is the further case of the 1^st respondent/petitioner that the 3^rd respondent/2^nd respondent on the suit filed by her getting dismissed, had sold the land admeasuring 200 sq. yards in plot No.28 in favour of the 4th respondent/3rd respondent, who in turn sold the said land to 6th respondent in LGA.No.33 of 2017/5^th respondent in LGOP and appellant in LGA.No.27 of 2017/6^th respondent in LGOP.

8. Thus, the 1^st respondent/petitioner contended that all the other respondents and appellants herein have acted malafidely without any legal entitlement by executing sale deeds in respect of land belonging to her, and thus, have grabbed her land, and are therefore liable to be declared as land grabbers under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’).

9. On the 1st respondent/petitioner filing the aforesaid OP before the Tribunal, notices were issued to the respondents therein i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein/respondent Nos.1 to 4 in LGOP and also to 5^th respondent in LGOP and appellant herein/respondent No.6 in LGOP. However, respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein remained ex-parte.

10. The appellant in LGA.No.27 of 2017, who is 6^th respondent in the LGOP, had contested the said OP by filing counter, claiming that the OP filed by the 1^st respondent herein is not maintainable and that the provisions of the Act are not applicable.

11. By the counter affidavit, the appellant in LGA.No.27 of 2017/6^th respondent in LGOP contended that the land being claimed by the 1^st respondent/petitioner is situated