THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.12116 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V.Afzulpurkar) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for short “the Special Court”), dismissing I.A.No.1236 of 2008 in L.G.C.No.28 of 2005, dated 27-02-2009. The said L.G.C. was filed by the 2nd respondent herein and it is pending before the Special Court. Petitioners 1 to 3 herein had filed I.A.No.1236 of 2008 seeking their impleadment in the said L.G.C. on the ground that they are subsequent purchasers of the part of the land, which is a subject matter of L.G.C. and as such, they are proper and necessary parties for adjudication of the dispute inasmuch as they will be deprived of their chances to defend the property purchased by them and as such sought impleadment. The said application was opposed by the 2nd respondent (applicant in the L.G.C.) by filing a counter. The said counter affidavit states that the vendor of petitioners 1 and 2 herein does not have any title to plot No.39 to alienate the same to petitioners 1 and 2 and the vendor of the 3rd petitioner is a party respondent No.166 in the L.G.C. and she also does not have any title to alienate plot No.141 to the 3rd petitioner. The application for impleading was opposed on the ground that it is filed to delay the disposal of the L.G.C. The Special Court under the impugned order was of the opinion that since the vendor of the 3rd petitioner herein is already made party as respondent No.166 and petitioners 1 and 2 having purchased the property only recently in the year 2008, during pendency of the L.G.C., it is not necessary to implead the petitioners and particularly as the L.G.C. is already four years old. Questioning the aforesaid order, the present writ petition is filed. The 2nd respondent though served none appeared. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is evident that petitioners 1 and 2 have purchased part of L.G.C. schedule property under a registered sale deed, dated 25- 02-2008, from one Chendika Sambasiva Raju. The said vendor of petitioners 1 and 2 is not a party to the said L.G.C. Sofaras the 3rd petitioner is concerned, he has purchased the property from respondent No.166 in the L.G.C., who inturn purchased the property under a registered Sale Deed, dated 15-11-1968 from the grand father of the 2nd respondent. It is also stated that the said respondent No.166 is not contesting the L.G.C. and therefore, the right, title and interest of the 3rd petitioner is likely to be affected. As stated above, the vendor of petitioners 1 and 2 are not parties to the L.G.C. and as such impleadment of petitioners 1 and 2 appears to be just and necessary as they are necessary and proper parties. Similarly, 3rd petitioner’s vendor though impleaded as respondent No.166, he is obviously not contesting the L.G.C. having sold the property to the 3rd petitioner in the year 1992. In that view of the matter, the presence of the 3rd petitioner is also necessary and proper to prove his right, title and interest. Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioners’ application for impleadment deserves to be allowed, as they are necessary and proper parties. The writ petition is accordingly allowed by setting aside the impugned order. The petitioners, however, shall co-operate with the Special Court and file their pleadings within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the L.G.C. shall be taken up in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dated: 06-08-2009 Prv