THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION Nos.17480 and 18069 of 2009 Dated:25.11.2009 Between: Ameen Shah Fakira Mosque. ….Petitioner And The Special Court under A.P.L.G(P) Act, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION Nos.17480 and 18069 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner herein filed O.S.No.114 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Kadapa, for declaration of title and recovery of possession. There was yet another suit, being O.S.No.177 of 1987, in respect of the same property. L.G.O.P.Nos.5 to 10 of 1990 were also filed before the District Judge by Ameen Shah Fakira Mosque. The suits and L.G.O.Ps were tried together by the learned District Judge and were rejected. The appeals, being A.S.Nos.1717 and 1765 of 1999 came to be filed before this Court. These matters were then transferred to the Special Court constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, to be tried along with L.G.A.Nos.10 to 13 of 2000. When the matters were pending, it appears, respondent No.19 died. It appears, this came to the notice of the petitioner a bit late. Therefore, it filed I.A.No.474 of 2009 to set aside abatement and I.A.No.475 of 2009 to bring Smt.Shaik Khairunnissa, respondent No.21 herein, as legal representative of the deceased respondent No.19 in the L.G.A. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.102 of 2009 to condone the delay in filing the application seeking to set aside abatement. Special Court ordered notice by substituted service in the said Interlocutory Application. The same was taken out by the petitioner by publishing the same in Saakshi Telugu Newspaper. Thereafter, I.A.Nos.474 and 475 of 2009 were listed before the Special Court which were dismissed only on the ground that the process is not deposited till 3.00 pm on 23.06.2009. Assailing the two orders, the two writ petitions are filed. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Land Grabbing). We are convinced that when once the notice was taken out to the necessary parties by substituted service by publishing the same in Saakshi Newspaper, the same is sufficient compliance with the requirement contemplated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as well as Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On this limited ground we set aside the orders of the learned Special Court and remit the matters with a request to deal with the two interlocutory applications, being I.A.Nos.474 and 475 of 2009, on their own merits. The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 25.11.2009 vs