HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.Nos.14424 AND 14449 OF 2010 Dt.23.6.2010 W.P.NO.14424 of 2010 Between: Anshu Constructions Company (India) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director and another ..Petitioners and K.Malathi Singh and others ..Respondents W.P.NO.14449 OF 2010 Between: Anshu Constructions Company (India) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director and another ..Petitioners and Mir Hamed Ali Khan and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.Nos.14424 AND 14449 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Both the writ petitions are filed by the same parties. Petitioners herein are respondents 8 and 9 in L.G.C.No.9 of 2009 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad. The said L.G.C. was filed by respondents 4 to 11 herein to declare that the respondents therein have grabbed the land without any lawful entitlement. The petitioners in the said L.G.C filed I.A.No.251 of 2009 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents therein from raising any sort of structures or constructions in the schedule property pending disposal of the L.G.C. The said I.A.No.251 of 2009 was dismissed by the Special Court by order dated 28.8.2009 holding that respondents 1 to 4 therein have prima facie title and the balance of convenience is not in favour of the applicants for grant of injunction and irreparable loss also cannot be presumed in favour of the applicants. However, it was made clear that constructions raised, if any, pending disposal of the L.G.C. by respondents 1 to 4 or respondents 8 and 9 would be subject to the result of the L.G.C. Thereafter, the applicants filed I.A.No.198 of 2009 for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from creating any third party interest or alienating the application schedule property. The Special Court by order, dated 3.2.2010, granted interim injunction in the aforesaid I.A. To vacate the interim injunction granted in I.A.No.198 of 2009, dated 3.2.2010, respondents 1 to 3 filed I.A.No.322 of 2010 seeking to vacate the interim injunction dated 3.2.2010 in I.A.No.198 of 2009. The Special Court by order dated 4.5.2010 directed the petitioners therein (respondents 2 to 4 in the L.G.C.) to continue the display of the board at the site as already ordered on 3.2.2010 and to include a clause in the sale deed in bold letters indicating that the property is in dispute and is pending for decision before the Special Court in L.G.C.No.9 of 2009 and further made it clear that any sales / alienations, if any, made by respondents 2 to 4 in the L.G.C. are subject to the result of the L.G.C., and accordingly dismissed I.A.No.198 of 2009. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, these two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who are respondents 8 and 9 in the L.G.C. as well as in I.A.No.198 of 2009. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners herein are only developers in respect of the land alleged to be owned by respondents 2 to 4 therein. The Special Court while allowing I.A.No.322 of 2010 only directed respondents 2 to 4 in the L.G.C to continue the display of the board at the site as ordered on 3.2.2010 in I.A.No.198 of 2009 and also directed to include a clause in the sale deed in bold letters indicating that the property is in dispute and is pending for decision before the Special Court. However, it is also made clear that sales / alienations, if any, made by the petitioners/respondents 2 to 4 pending disposal of the L.G.C. will be subject to the result of the L.G.C, and accordingly dismissed I.A.No.198 of 2009. Any transfer of property pending adjudication of the dispute in a civil suit is always subject to the rights that will be determined in the suit only. Under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short, the Act) if any proceedings are pending in respect of any dispute with regard to the right and title, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the court and on such terms as it may impose. Therefore, we are of the opinion that imposing such condition is in accordance with Section 52 of the Act. The Special Court has given reasons that the display of the notice board or imposition of such a clause in the sale deed in bold letters indicating that the property is in dispute and is pending adjudication before the Special Court would be a sufficient notice to the prospective buyers. The petitioners are only developers and in fact the said orders were passed at the instance of the owners of the said property on their application. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any illegality in imposing such condition as no prejudice is caused to the petitioners. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 23.6.2010 kpr