IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 4487 of 2008 Between: 1 Syed Nazeeruddin, s/o. Late Syed Bhikan, R/o. H.No. 20-9-471, Shakar Gunj, Hyderabad. Abdul Muktadar, S/o. Mohd. Abdul Hai aged 55 years, Occ : Business Jankinagar Colony Toli Chowki, Hyderabad. 2 Mahmoodnagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (TAB No. 74/75) Rep by its Secretary, Syed Yaseen S/o. Syed Sultan, aged 66 years, Occ : Business, R/o. H.No. 20-7-419/A, Fathe Darwaza, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. 2 Mandal Reveneu Officer, Revenue Mandal Shaikpet, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 3 Smt. Nandamuri Basava Tarakam Trust, rep by its managing Trustee Road No. 14, 4 Special Court Under APLG (Prohibition) Act Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the order dt. 21-8-07 in IA No. 177/2007 in LGC No.1 of 2007 passed by the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1982 in respect of petitioner's land bearing Sy.No. 129/93 corresponding to Plot No. 16 in Sy.NO.403 admeasuring Ac. 3-30 guntas (18,150 sq.yards) situated at Road No. 10 Banjara Hills Hyderabad A.P. illegal null and void and the same may be set aside in the interest of justice and pass order or orders fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.MOHD. GHULAM HUSSAIN Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.4487 OF 2008 ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the order dated 21-8-2007 passed in IA No.177 of 2007 in LGC No.1 of 2007 by the Special Court under AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 as being illegal, null and void and consequently to set aside the same in the interest of justice. 2. Facts stated are that originally the father of petitioner no.1 late Syed Bhikan was absolute owner and possessor of the land bearing Sy. No.129/93 corresponding to Plot No.16 in Sy. No.403 admeasuring Ac.3-30 guntas (18,150 sq. yards) situated at Road No.10 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, for short, ‘the land’ and it is stated that when the respondents without lawful entitlement forcibly encroached and grabbed the land on 26-9-2005, the petitioners filed the above LGC No.1 of 2007 on the file of 4th respondent. Pending the LGC No.1 of 2007, the petitioners have also filed IA No.177 of 2007 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC to grant injunction restraining the respondents from making constructions/changing the nature of the land pending disposal of the LGC. However, by the impugned order dated 21-8-2007, the Special Court-4th respondent dismissed the IA on the ground that the possession of the land was with the 3rd respondent having taken the same from the State Government represented by respondents 1 and 2 and respondent no.3 has been making constructions after obtaining necessary permission from the Municipal authorities. 3. Mr.Mohd. Ghulam Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that inasmuch as the civil Court in a suit filed by the petitioners in OS No.2185 of 1995 held that the possession of the land is with the petitioners and accordingly granted injunction against the respondents herein, in the light of that finding the Special Court ought to have granted injunction restraining the 3rd respondent from making constructions/changing the nature of the land pending disposal of the LGC. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in GANGUBAI v. SITARAM1. 4. Mr.BV Subbaiah, learned counsel for the respondent no.3, on the other hand, submitted that inasmuch as balance of convenience was found to be in favour of respondent no.3 and the possession of the land was delivered by the official respondents 1 and 2 and the constructions are being made after obtaining permission from the Municipal Corporation, the Special Court rightly dismissed the application. 5. Admittedly, against the judgment and decree passed in OS No.2185 of 1995, two appeals being AS Nos.286 and 398 of 2005 are stated to have been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 and the 3rd respondent and the said appeals are pending and stay of the decree in OS No.2185 of 1995 granted. Prima facie, the Special Court found that Smt.Nandamuri Basava Tarakam Trust-3rd respondent has been in possession of the land from the date of allotment till date and under those circumstances declined to grant injunction. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in GANGUBAI’s case (1 supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case as it relates to a case where both the plaintiff and the defendant found to be in possession of about half portion of disputed land and an injunction against the defendant who sought to make construction on the entire land held justified as the situation might become irreversible by the time the dispute is decided if injunction is not granted. 6. In the instant case, the Special Court, prima facie, found that the 3rd respondent is in possession of the land having taken delivery of the land from official respondents 1 and 2 and the construction is being under taken by taking permission from the municipal authorities. It is not the case of the petitioners and that they are now dispossessed from the said land or any part thereof for the purpose of making construction by the 3rd respondent. 7. In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, in view of the nature of controversy involved, the Special Court –4th respondent is directed to dispose of the LGC No.1 of 2007 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order or in this order. No order as to costs. ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ______________________ C.V. Ramulu, J Dated:24th June, 2008 Note: cc in 3 days. (b/o) Nrg. .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} 1 AIR 1983 SC 742