The High Court · 2025

Petition urdr:r Section 7 A (3) of The Land Grabbing (p) AC:T, 1982, R/w Rule 16 of A.P. Land ()rahb ,g (prohibition) Rures 'r99g against the orrer rrated 0g.10.2012 in L G.O p. No.tilr:3 :f 2001 0n the fire of the court of the Speciirr rrrbunar_cum_l Additional District ,jL dge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Between: Smt . G Prabhalathi W/o.Srinivas, Hindu. aoed -Ffot-ii,l R/o H No.t0-l gr]/-ii LlngoJlguda. Sar(,cr \ragar lVIandal, Ranga Reddy D 55 ye rrs, Household. Bhagl,anagar Colony, ^(Ord tto t_SSlStAi. 28 part, ct. AND .,, APF'ELI.,ANT/3'd PARTY

1. Smt Bovinr Saroiini Dasaradha Ram, Since died per l-Rs. Sn_rt B.Uma Bala Krishna !\'/o.'|laia xiiir'na. nfetlil;i'6?v".;;., occ Horse ,ord, R/o.prot No 88(8ll_r),r\, [/LAs cotonylRoiJ r.r" iz'arl;"r, riiir.. it"v:a,.#;ii " ' ," 2 Syed An e,>r1ar S/o Gho^use saheb R/o.H N".iF5:r?7#8.ll]:?..1'il?$_: ^ ligh Scl-orrl liridabad. CotoruL HvO"rJri '" 3 smt.V Rrt.arr ara wo. V.Uri'rraJi,r".ilzi"" Rao, R/o 17-2..381it2, Lenin . Nagar,.Nearr Saidabad Colonv. Hvterat';: ''"' 4 smt J Santosi am Wo.AppiR;6: tii6)_6-42. outside Atiat ad Hvderabad 5 venkat Rectdr S,o StaniJr EeI;i, iidroliriara/3e Lirsojirruda, - ^ Saroornagar v,andat, nansi ReJJi'D[iii"i " o. umr.K.Ut- st)e,1 .{. W/o. K.Satyanaraiana, aged about 56 years. Occ House ,.i" ig* 'r/iii',r 7. Smt S.Kantharrma Wo yogi Reddy R/o H.No.10.i_9ti/2 rold No 1_98/2), plot . .. A?l;5'&,liJ'' i/t,, Bhasvin'as;; c;i'";i L:;;o]ig,d, Elrr;syanagar boronrLing;;isri i"roor.rrsa,r rr.4i ndai-.-, -sli HhrB Sf,l:i ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner : SRI p.SATyA RAJA BABU Counsel for the ResSrondent No.1 : SMT A.ANASUyA Counsel for the ResF,ondent No.7 : SRI V.HARI HARAN The Court made flre tollowing: COMMON JUDGMENT ,] 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 2Ol7 COMM ON JUDGMENT (Per tlon'ble Sri..Iushce '|'.Vlnod KunLal Since, both these Appeals arise out of the very same order, they are being disposc'l ' ri b5' this common judgment'

2. Roth thesc appeals are dircctcd against thc order' .lt.OB.1O.20l2 ir-r l-GOP.No.623 of 2OO I on thc lilr: ol the Spccial Tribunal-cum-I Aclditional I)istrict'Juclge' Ranga Rccldy District at L B.Nagar (for short'thc Tribunal') 3. Thc appellai-rt in LGA'No 2'i of 2Ol7 is the 6th rcspondent in LGOP.No 27 12017, and the appellant in LGA.No.33 of 2077 is third party to Ltte aforesaid LGOP' rrho after obtaining lcavc from this oourL uide orcler dl 24 I \ '2016 in WI).No.251'1'/ of )OL6, hacl tilt:i1 tl.rt: said appcal' Brief facts of ttE: *c1se:

4. The 1't respondent in both rhc appeals is thc pctitionur before the Tribunal, rvho hzrcl filcd thc above LG()P claiming thatsheistheabsoluteownerandpossessoroflarrdbearing Plot No.28 adm'easuring 502 sq yar<ls in survey No 69 & 70 2 sltuat:. :rr Llngojiguda Village, Saroornagar Mrni:r , llanga Redd-r Lrt:,r ricL. 1'raving purchased the same uncler :r r(.Eaistered Sale l--r'r'rl (1.11.O7.1967 from one Svcr.l Abdul l?rrl_.rii n.

5. It r:; :_l-c lurther case of the 1sr respondcn:7,pr Liticner that rnLendir:g t: construct a house on the subje,-t p ot shc had applierl lt r permission, and it was app .or c:1 uide endorserr,:.rr, dt. 1O.06.1gg5; that on thc brsis ol thc aloreszLirl irr: -mission, rvhen she had commence d c on s _ruction rtork. one <rrt V.Ral:namala, who is 3.d responrlen he.ein/2.d respotrrlr lL r-r LGOp, along u,ilh some antiso(.ilri er emcnts entercrI iitl ) r_hc subject plot claiming to bc ri c :. bso]urt: owner or 1t rr-t of land in plot No.2g admeasr.lri.lq llo2 sq. vards: iltat rD Lhe cntry of the 3.d respondent/21, rf:jl ondent being tl-,j '.t-rd to by the lst respondent Lrcrc.lr, hs a,d respon(lc t.l r,,i i',r,1 respondent had filed O.S.No.2,r: 985 against the 1"r rcsponiler.tI./ l_c ltroner scekinq 1t, r'tetr-ral injunctron; and that the sarc st_ it u.as dismiss:r L,r iiri: Cir.il Court on 16.O2.1gg1 . I slirt

6. I1 rs lr., irrther case of the 1sr respondenr/pcririon:r that during I h : I : r'rriency of the aforesaid suit fiiecl agiLin st her by the 3.d L-,rs l- o:tdent/2nd respondent, the 2, ,r res ltondent herein/ sr respondent in LGOp had executed L\\,o res stered 3 sale deecls in respect of plot No'28 i.e.,2OO sq yards in favour ol 3'd respond eotf2"d respondent and 3oo sq' yards in favour of 4ft respondent/ 3rd resPondent.

7. It is the further case of the 1't respondent/ petitioner that the 3'd respondent/2'd respondent on the suit filed by her dismissed, hacl sold thc lar-rd admcasuring 2OO sq gettrng 1n plot No.28 in favour of the 4'r' re spondcnt/ 3"I respondent, who in turn sold the said land to 6th respondent in LGA.No.33 of 2Ol7 l5b respondent in LGOP and appellanl in LGA.No.27 of 2Ol7 166 responde rlL in LGOP'

8. Thus, the 1"t respondent/ petitioner contended that all the other respondents and appellants herein have acted malafidety without any legal entitlement by executing sale deeds in respect of land belonging to her, and lhus, have grabbed her land, anct are therefore liable to be declared as land grabbers under thc provisions of the Andhra Pradesh i,and Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short 'thc Act')' g. On the 1"t respondent/ petitioner filing the aforesaid OP before the Tribunal, notices were issued to the respondents t.hercin i.c., rcspondenl. Nos.2 to 5 hcrein / respondent Nos l to 4 in LGOP and aiso to Sttr respondent in LGOP and appellant 4 hererrr,/r.sp,onclent No.6 in LGOp. However, t csponrknt Nos,2 to 5 hctct I -emtrined ex_parte. 10. 'th| rr )l)cllant in LGA.No.27 of 20t7, ,r,i: o is 6rh rcsporrr.l::.:L ir: thc LGOp, hacl contested thc saicl [))) bv liling count(,r'. 1:inring that the Ol, filed by thc I, rc:s t.ndent herein : : ,,: mainlainahle ancl that the provisiol s of ti,re Act are noi ;1,1t i:::rblc.

11. Rr. I r.)unter affidavit, the appellant in L(;A No.27 of 2017 lt,t' .r, ; tondent in LGOp contended that thc lar_r,{ lsl11g claimec ). [..]c l sr rcsponden t/ pc titioner is siLua ecr in plot No.28, :r r.: rs per the approved layout. ttrc l,lo ol a)th respollc('n"' i r'respondent is bearing No_25 adrncarjur-r rg 100 Sq yard s. l,rt .,ine purchascd the same under a regis;ter:t d sale deed, d1.2. tr: ..t 9.(34, frorn onc K.Su,arajam ancl is :ir1.L. red in S\. Nos.(,(t : lt I 7O u,ith a house cxisting therein 1rr:arLngl Jotrse No 1-68, r :r l-;ngojiguda V lage, saroornagar M:r rrr;r,, ancl thus, tl're r:1,1,,,. f)p filerJ by the 1sr respondent/ pctitic nr. r lacks merits arul :.o rsltt for ciismissal of the said Op. 12. Bascrl ,,,: rhc above said pleadings, the follou,ilg ir,sncs rt'cre lrarrrr', I b., rrrc Tribur.ral in the above LGOp: i. Ni.l 6tl,at. lhe petitiorrcr is the oruner and po.\.se.s s( )r ,'/, 1,. .. r-tition .scherlrtte propeng? l ! i t 5

11. Whether the respondents ore the land grabbers of the petition schedule ProPeftY? To what reliel?

13. Before the Tribunal, 1'1 respondenL/ petitioner got examined herself as PWI and got marked Exs A- I to A-5 On behalf of the responclents, no one was examined nor any documenls marked before the Tribunat'

14. Based on the evidence adduced by both the parties' the TribunalallowedtheunderlyingLGoPpartlydeclaringthe rcspondcnt Nos.2 to 5 hcrcilr/rcspundcnt Nos l to 4 in LGOP as land grabbers and dismissed thc OP against Sth and 6th respondents in the OP'

15. Aggricved by thc aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal' the6ftrespondentintheoPhadfiledappea|uideLGA.No.27 ol 2Ol7 and a third party to the said OP filed appeal uide i.GA.No.33 of 2017.

16. The appeal uide LGA No 33/20l7 is filcd by a third party' alrcr obtaining l-'ave to file lhe prcsent appcal uide order dt.24.11.2o16 in WP No 25147 of 20\6' claiming to have purchascd part of the land along with house constructed tl'rerein, being claimed by the 1"1 respondent herein / petitioner in LGOP, under a registered sale deed' dt 29 10 1998' from 6 :,,.1 5th rcspol:lc nt hcrein/4rh responclent in I_GOIr, aI d n)t being macle a,, ): rl\.. though a necessary party tt tl t, alorcsaid procecC i I I : . ztnd an order in respect of the sutt-]Cr:t l rropert5r purchirsr:r1 lr,. hcr having been obtainecl bchincl het ltrrr k.

17. H,. r: l Srr V.Hari llaran. learncd Sonr, r ( io_nscl appeari, s i,,' r_he appellants, Smt A.Anasuya, lea,rccl :ounscl appear n1 o I bchalf of the 1"r respondent tn both tl.re appeals, and pc 'u s :c I he record. Case _qf - tls responde nt j n ellant in LGA.No.27 ot 2917llsh a LGOP: 18 Or I e ir,rlf of rhe appellant/6tt, respondent it is con tended that ns t I r: Crturt below had declared the zF.ir r esp ltdent hcrein,/ 3, I r:spondent as land grabber, the sanic crircctly aflbcts thr. r'jphrs ol the appellant/6rh respondent I I ().). u.].ro hacl pu ',r- t , s r rrl t he land ad measuring 1 5O rcgiste|c11 s rl,' decd, cll. 13.Og.lgqo sq. r ard ; utle frorn trt r 4rl, responcl --r t ' respondcnt i9- It i; l' ir': tcr contendccl that the Court br:lou. o_,rrlhr to have sct:rr rl iLL Lhe lst responden t/ petitioner was ne..er in t}'re subject property being much lr-:;s r lt : l;.rncl to an extent of 15O sq claimcc lrr her, poSSeSSli)L- yar(ls F uIC tascd 7 by the appcll ant f 6th rcspondcnt from the 4 Lh responclen t/ 3'd respondent under a registered sale deed in the year l99O'

20. lt is further contendcd by the appe11antl66 respondent that though she has engaged a counsel, she did not contest the matter, clue to the compromise entered lnto with lhe 1't and having Paid an amount of the 1"t Rs.27,000i towards responclent/ pe litioner failed to withdraw the case in respcct of consideration, but respondent/ Petitioner the land in possession of the appcllant/ 6th respondent' 21-Itisfurthercontendedonbehalfoftheappellant/6t}' respondent that since, the l"t re spondent/ petitioner having reccivcd an amount of Rs.27,O0O/- towards consideration for the land in her possession, she cannot be declared as land grzrbber.

22. On behalf of the appellant/ 6th respondent it is further contended that the lst respondent / pctrtioner though agrecd to st:ll the land in possession of thc appcllanL/6|h respondcnt having purchasecl the same from thc 4th rcspondcnt/ 3'd rcspondent pursuant to the compromise entered' failed to abide by the said compromise and is seeking to dispossess the appellant/6*' respondent from the subject land on the ground that, respondent Nos'2 to 5 herein/ respondent Nos'1 I to 4 ir.r I.()CP arc declared as land grabbers ol uhich is in possession of tltc 1ancl. l. o; t1rr subjcct rIPl)c llart/6th respo 1( ( rl

23. C)n ,,r lt:rll ol the appellant/6fr responcl,:ltl i1 is furthcr con(errilc. hat the '['ribuna] Lhough has not rlcclz red the appellat I 1{) ', respondent asa Iand grabbcr., lt,r,.r.,:r cr, had held thirt :;;ncc, the appellant/6rh respondent h:rd I aile<1 to produr:e ,lrv rcgistered document executed in hr r ..avour b-y Lhe 4rlr -,'s loDClcint/al,.d respondent to an cxlenL ot l5O sq. 1,ards ir lrl.rt No.28 in survey Nos.69 & 70 sr1 u rted at Lingo.liSL.ir \/il1agc, Saroor,agar Mandal, Ra rg.L Rr:cldv Distrir: -. : rr nc,t rnake anv claim to the subject 1.111( . Case of th LGOP: '-5 ellant in LGA.No.33 of 2O17 thind p4llylq

24. It s ( , ,r r cnded by the appellant/third par-\ tl at s he has purch:r;i:l _ rc hoLrse_, be:rrirrg municipal No.I( t ( g/3lA standir.rs ,r tir,, land :rdmc:rsuring 22O sq. yar<ls btar_i_rg plot No 28 rrrr:r' r a rcgisterecJ sale dced, dt.29.1o. r99ii 1rr m trrc lirt, re sltot- rl, t1 ,/.1 ,rr respolrdenr: that on ptrr_clrasr: tI Lhc aforesai i l,r.{ ) )( rt!, the samr: has been mutai_ccl tr.t o her narre irr rrr liorpal records on 09.11.199g, eind she is in possessiot L i r r,l cnjoymcnt of the same since then . .ta. 9

25. On behalf ol the appellant/third party it is further contendecl lhat the 1st respondent/ petitioner without making hcr as party to the underlying OP filed by her had obtained an orcler in respect of her property, behind her back' and is seeking to dispossess her from the subject property' which has been mutated on to her name on 09 11 1998'

26. lt is furthcr contended on behalf of the appellant/ third party that thc rcport, d'127 06 2OO9 filed by the Mandal Rcvenue Ofticer, in terms ol Rulc 6(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rule s, 1988 (for short 'the RulesJ would go to show that the land being claimed by the 1't respondent/ petitioner cannot be identihed unless and until Lhe layouts are furnished, and thus, contended that the sulrjccL plot bcaring No.28 bcing claimcd by the ['t respondc nt/ pc litioner is not identifiable and is no1 locahzed 27. Ort bchalf of the appellant/third party it is also contended lhat since, the appellant/third party has purchased the house property, the same would be outside the scope of the application of provisions of the Act' as the same dcals with on1l, lands that are grabbed and noL in respect of houses cxistrng tln such lanr'ls, anci thus' thc order of the 10 Tribunal L., t h(- cxte nl of the land, on which her hourse bearing No.1O-1 9tt 3/'A stands, cannot bc sustained Consideration by the Court:

28. Tf o ltl- it is rhe casc of the appellant irr L(r;\ Nc.27 of '2417 /6tt. . r',; iondent in LGOp that she having pur cha ;ed the subject l)l',1),rrt\ from the 4rr, rcspo nde n1/ i3,,1 rcsrto.trlcnt in LGOP ul,l., rr:grstcred sale clecd, dt. l3.OB.1990, sr,-r,:e, thc appellaets irndor having been declared as a lirnd gr:r1,ber by lhe Tribuni r,, tl'rc appcllant/6rh respondent caltnot cJa m sn1. better t-tl r .r t.hc subject propcrty

29. Irlr -tit,, ' lito t.rgl-r thc appellant/6th re sponde nt cl:rr necl ol. having : tr:rccl into a compromisc rr",ith thr respondc,r r , I) tilioncr ir.r LGOI), cluring lhc pcncle tt:., ol thc sard OP, :r:r,; nuch as the saicl aspcct was not c\,(n p.eaclecl belore 1hc " 'tlrlLnal, the said plca n or,r, urged belore Ljtrs Court cannot lrc I,:.r cp ted. 1sr I I

30. It is r lsr u'orthwhile to note that thc r enclor of thc appellant/a r' r'cspondent i.e., 4tr, responder-r t / 3 r.t r(.sponclent having rc.. r i'r.cl ex-pctrte bcforc the Tribur-r.rr ,rrc thc appellan ,,/ respondcnL having failed to adduc:e anJ, :r idence in order to justify her. tit o trr the - \' r.alidly, it is rrot opcn for the app, rllrr ,t / gtrr subject J)1'olrr.r documcr 1i r ,. -r r 71 respondent to claim lo be in legal possession of the subject property or that the Tribunal not considering the relevant documents ancl considering irrelevant documents to hold the be a land grabber, appellanl/ 6Lr' rcspondcnl 's vcndor to consequently affecting the right of respondent to the subject property' the aPPellant/ 6th the dicta laid down by the Apex Court' 3 1 . l{aving regard to the appellant in LGA'No'27 of 2Ol7 l6h respondent in LGOP is to be considercd as successor in intcrest under the Act and lort}resaidreason,thcclaimoftheappellant/6threspondent thaL the Tribunal havtng noL dcclarcd hcr as Ianrl grabber she cannot be dispossessed from the subject land to an extent' of t50 sq. yarcls, cannot be accepted as a valid and sustainable clait'r-r

32. Sincc, the appellant/6t' respondent is only a successor inintereslclaimingSubjectplopertyhavingpurchasedfrom t,hc 5th respondent/4tt' respondcnL' who is being declared as land grabbcr, she rl'ould have to bc considered as successor in interest and would be liable for all the actions of her vcndor 72

33. 'l'h : !i rirrcme Court in Mahalaxmi Motc,rs Ltd, vs. Mand.aL l?,zr1s^r. Officer and Orsrwhile rcireralinr{ the view Kondct Lakshmana. Bapujius.Goaerntnent of And.hra Pradesh und Orsz has held that "2.i... ,,\ combined rearjinq o.f Clauses (cl) ar..cl k) 1,)( uld su!7ge.t 'hat to bring a person uithin the, merlttt,tLt of fhe r,-,J),r:sslon ',land grabber,, it must be s:1161,;1t 7,1611; (i)ftt) l,e ttas |ctken unatfihorisedlg, unfairl q, !lt.et,.,ilA, sntlJr'l ed JorcibLy, uiolentlg or unscntpuLousiu a.,t!t k,nd belcr t;iuc' to lhe Gouem.ment or a local ot.ttlt,tiry a rehqitts or charitable institution or r.rrcltt t rtu nt, inr'.tutl,t!l c.t. tuakf, or an.A other piunte ,cers or.i; (b) tuit.\c.r't tng tatuful entitlement., and (c) u,itlt_ rL ,it t,t to illellathl t:tlcinq possession ctf suclt Lands, or ent.rt ()r cre(tt(. i legal. tenancies or lease at.LeL ltc,:t ce reettl e 1ts or ang other illegal ag4reemenf.s ln ; es p.(:t tLnds or to coltsttuct unauthoised. stn ,t_.t S ll r'/ I i l.l es .1>r sale or hire, or giue such lan:js thereor, ,o o.La person_ tt,t rental or lease and licence lt 'or a-< t-s con:;tt t.t c1 ;.(>t't , or use and occttpation of ut Ltl.tttl,oris ?d (ii) h.e has gtuen JinanctctL cti.cl L:t .t t u persatt, cotT (i4 L] .A oa lt ':r al, e,t i.it g or 11 ) th.ttt taldry illegal po.ssessron of lctr,.cls er str L.t,otl of unauthorised. stntctures l.here,ett, or - OCClLDL'] cltarqt s I the r.to, r rt t h.e is tltt, .! ltccessor- tn-tnterest o t.e, tit,r1 or afiempttng t() collcct ltotl t such lan.ds ren.t, compensatton .tnd t t t'.imital intlmjclattorr. (iu) le t:; f cnry of the aboue-mentionecl ctcls: :l.i L.c.; or ft t, OT fan U SUChp e/ sor?..i

34. Insoli r the claim o[ the appellant in l_GA No.33 of 2OI7 /th:rc ):irt], to LGOP u,ith regard [o rhc. non- mair-rtainairil l) of pctition filed br- th(. i,1 'l,,eNt/sc,tor i ., o, 'M,\Nulsc r or,6 :r_,tl 13 responden t/ petitioner before the Tribunal in respect of house existing on the land being claimed as grabbed ' it is to be notedthattheissueisnolongerresintegrainviewofthe decision of the Apex Court in the case of Safiga Bee u' Mohd' Vajahath Hussains wherein it was held as u4der: 1 . The basic question to be considered is uhetler the .1 High Court LUas cortect in hotding thot the Appellant's application under Section 7A of the Act was not rnaintainable before the Special Tibunal "as the propefiA in d'ispute rrlas a buildingl uith its oppuftencttTt larul". The Anclhra Prad'esh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, l9B2 tuas enocted to prohibit the- actiuitu of tond grobbing in the State of Andhra Pradesh anil to prouide for matters connected thereuith...-- Section 2(c) deftnes 'land' cts hereunder: 'land' includes nghts in or ot)er land'' benefits to aise out of larul and buildings, structures and other thinqs atlachecl to ]he earlh or permanentl\ fastened to anything attached to the eanlt 'l'he aboue definitio n of 'land ' makes it clear thal the S sttuc res and expresslon 'land' i other lhi s att^che a nclusiue de attochecl to the earth amoun tS to land rabbi pu rDoses of this Act Hence dtot he earth" 'land' Hiah Cou rt erred in nchtdes' itlon o rabbin . the 'buildi buildi ULCLU O In '1zort1 z scc sa 1,4 'i,ii a t (t1 lication is hoidino lhat the Act applies to the land bul ncl. I ) the build '' I s-,WEtSh_epu{r!2ctsJkcryU_t!19lll in hob Utg SSe.<:Sta/ ef builcli ,, t- tLorw utith its ctPDuftenant land. L,eca t s,: tl te bljll!;,t tl ,n c11t qslLo11 yp llt g!:istence on the lan.cl crrr, IS surrout, (1, LT cannol be sojrl tit r tit ts .j ( a r! -alglqbblng_ef_lSlld- In our uie,ut, t1.lL lltlt4 lS olotyg ,l.,.;th the land on rlhich it stancls is t.he _stti4.zct matter )r the application under Section 7A.olt-rrc lg! lication ts maint.ainabl.e such.912 -!p,r<{ !!@ttn_rrl. The distinction dranun by the lligh (.o.tr1 betue e rt. build.ing uith appurtenant lctrtd. anc, ta.t.l alor 11 t,tttt building" is artiJicial and_ hype r tecl,..t tL.al and il (i'. tea.ts th.e uery purpose of th.e legislcr,irln. )r I \,e liqltr c | 1,,, cje.finition of ,lantl, tLnder Sectr.on. 2(c.) ctl t,Le Acl. ltcrit ahe ctbr:ue descriptions practicaLLr.l n1e\ut t -Le satne t.tuLJ uis t1%-uis 'laru). grabbin.g, anttl thert i: to logic cr .ir t.;tification for clranuing a d.isttnctiorr battt,e,:n. thetrt. fle tc<:, the High Coufl erred in hol.din q thctt ttrc appli.ciL, iot Jiled bg the Appellant Luas not mr:tittta,nr.,L.le befo:e tite Special TribunaL. before the the Ac( tr. 2() 17 / tllirtl

35. 'l'hc u I I . thc claim of rhe appellant in L(il.N r 33 of r r r1_! to LGOP $,iLh regard to the a pplir:it tr li6r of 1r' standing builcling on the land :rllc:qe,l ro be grabbecl )t,rs to fail, it is pertincnL Lo n()[o lia. Lhe appcllan,/.lrrrrl party has purchased the subjecL under a regi;rered sale deed, dt.29.10.199g fronr rl: c .5th respondenl / <iL! ,rcspondent and the saicl propertl, sto rct n [rtecl Dr( perty 15 on to the name of thc appe llant/ thircl party in the municipal records by following the due process of law'

36.Thel"trespondent/petitionerhavingfiledtheunderlying OP to declare thc 4th respondcnt also as land grabber in respe ct of the subjcct property in the ycar 2OO I claiming it to be open land, horvever did lrut chous( to verify as to the exrsting position of the property' which if only was done would have shown the existence of a building in the subject property and further verification woulcl have shown that the said building is slanding in the name of the appellant in LGA.No.33 ot 2Ol7 lthird' party to LGOP'

37. The 1"t respondent/ appellant having filed the oP before theTribunalr.r'ithouteirrayingtheappcllant/thirdpartyas party respondent, however, even afler Lhe Manrlal Revenue Ofhccr submitting his rcport, clt 27 O6'2OO9' noting as to the exisLenceofabuildirrgin|hcsubjcclpropcrty,clidnottake steps to verify as to u'ho is in possession of the subject land and the building thereon and makc them as party respondents to thc said proceedings' r'l'hich u'as pending as on the date ol the saicl re Port

38. Admittedly, the appellan{./ third party having purchased thc subject property wlth the building slanding therein having i6 munlcipa I I r trnber, is in possession of the san e si nc,: ,he date of prrr,)r,?-cc in the year 19gg, and thiLt hc 1"r respond,r.tt / 1tt:trtroner proceeded against thc a:tpellant,s propert\' ,L i l:ouL making her as party responcl:nt ,lltr1 t\.ititout the nol jr: : ,l the Op being issued to hcr. r: trr l()t seek cnforcc rr r r oi' thc order of the Tribunal agrinst th ) subJect propert\ i.i t.rsscssion of thc appellant/third prtr:Ll

39. Tl:e l pr: i Court in phatnt patel os. Reoenue Diui.siona.l Offt.cer+ r. ric dcaling with a similar situation has licld as under: of abo uequoted Rul.e m.a lte s t L at. l.l1e Special Court has to qiue-, "9. l\ itrr.'e read.i eui.let ) l Fon,n llt ! rnteresla(l thctt ttt,1,, bet.u'r:: 1 ttnc.ler /.rte Coutt ) t ? this ('.tn, t Specra/ r", r. III A r.tr,,.t cons,'c|,: 't serued ts eloes nc: t the pL:r t t ocquir( a 1t bg [,'c.;1.'.t., appe-ilerLi\ othe=r r- '',,t,, tLotLci) ItL to the persons known or belte ted trt )e itt. @['l'he case of the aplt<:llcnt; A Liacl purchased the lan.rls Jiotn flultu,.tLtl 9,9O and 1987 t.e. pior Lo in.iliatutrL rti:1.,1.-p 't<,tuisions of thP 1982 Act before .,1,^ .- t,, ,tl ' ..pon,lents 3 to 5. Under lhe |ir|rr.r, .r,t,.,., _, is of the opink:n that it u,tc.s the d,iU ol- tl .e ttt to issue, notices to the appellattts it, p,, , lu:ar them. The High Court hcts failec] o ,, question uthether the appelluttts // /e required bg lau. The impuqnetl jt.tcfutnt.,:r.t rlicctte that the lligfi Cortr-t hurl ,..n,,,,, L ttised bg the appellants thctt t.ltetl I.rt I terest in the lands pnor to fiting ctf- the ct. s..- rlerts 3 to S. Except stating llt.at ih.: are/ were claiming through HukL. ttlal.. ,1. ) tlion ra.ised ln the petition Lues €,yaltu.t.tl o(lo ro) I.s sr:r . i, ,i I l 11 by the High Cour1. As tlrc record does not indicate that ang notice as contemplctted by Rule 8 of the Rules u.tas serued bA the Special Court on any of the appellants, it u,till haue to be held that the judgment passed bg the Special Court in the application filed bg Respondents 3 to 5 is itlegaL ond uoid. There.fore, the appeal tuill haue to be accepted. "

40. Thus, since, thc 1"t responde n t/ petitioner in LGOP is claiming the property in possession and enjoyment of the appellant in LGA.No.33 of 2017 lLkitd party as her property, Lhe 1't respondent/ pe litioner ought to have madc her as party to the underlying LGOP hled before the Tribunal in terms of Lhe prouiso to Section 7(A)(5) of the Act read with Rr.rles 8 and 9 of the Rules, and in the absence of the 1st re spondent/ petitioner joining the appellant/third party as party respondent to the said proceedings, the order of the Tribunal to the extent of the property in possession and enjoyment of the appellant/ third parly herein would bc illegal and a void order. 4l In the light of the aforesaid analysis and discussion, this CourL is of lhe considcred view LhaL - i) the Appeal uide LGA.No 27 of 2Ol7 filed by the appellant/6th respondent as against thc ordcr, dt.o8.10.2o11 in LGoP.No.623l2ool, is devoid of merit and 'is accordrngly, dismisscd. -"' \ ) : 18 dt.0g.1O.2(r1 I ii) the Arp,:al ujde LGA.No.33 of 2017 filecl aqairsr trc ver.v same order, LCi.C I'.\r,r.,j23 l2OO1, is allowed and the szricl o-r er dt 03 I ).2011 is set aside to the extent )f L tc subjc::t property admeasuring 22O sq. 1,arcL:; ,,r I th builrl rrrJ standing thereon bearing Housc No 1,.) 1_ 98711 1 n piot No.28 of survey No. 69 & 7l si u: r :cl at L r,1q,r rguda Village, Saroornagar Manclal, 1an 1a RcCcl. I ) strict.

42. Consc:L cntly, miscellaneous petitions pr:nc1ir-rg. I any shall st:'n:l oscrl. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K, S,RINIVASA RAO lotNr REGISTRAR i ,:/ 5ec,rroru oFFrcER l l To, m-l Additional District Judge, Ran,;a R-.ddy District at

1. The Spe,:izrl l'ribunal_cu L.B.Naoerr ? 9nu Ce o S., \, Hari Haran, Advocate (OPUC) 3 one cc .o S., r satva i;j, elb, ,"ilJ"".ri"jropucr I 9n" CC r-o S.r A Ariasuyd Ad;;;dioErj"C)", " 5. lwo CD tl6p1,.; Ks/gh U,- HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 COMMON "IL'DGMENT LGA.No.27 AND 33 of 201t --::- "' ., 1r r: , \- '-\- -: _,.-- k tg liji zffi .J ,J,, i{, L., '.t/ Dismissing the L.G.A.No. ZT of 2017 And allowing the L.G.A.No.33 of 2O1T Without costr;. t r1