THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION NO : 639 of 2009 Between: 1. K. Srinivasa Reddy and another ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Special Court under the A.P.L.G. (P) Act, rep., by its Registrar and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION NO : 639 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) This writ petition is filed challenging the order in I.A.No.1157 of 2008 in L.G.C.No.27 of 2007 passed by the 1st respondent-Special Court, dated 9.1.2009. The petitioners are the third parties to the L.G.C.No.27 of 2007 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad. The said L.G.C. is filed by respondents 2 and 3 herein against respondents 4 to 6 herein claiming that they are exclusive owners of an extent of Ac.2.20 guntas in Survey No.338, situated within the specified boundaries of Turkayamjal village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The Special Court after obtaining the inspection report took the cognizance. The total extent of the land in survey No.338 is Ac.19.01 guntas out of which, the applicants are claiming only Rs.2.20 guntas. A sketch of map was also filed showing the boundaries of Survey No.338 and the bifurcation of various extents. The writ petitioners-third parties are said to have purchased Ac.0.20 guntas out of Ac.5.01 guntas of their vendor-2nd respondent in LGC viz., B. Pratap Reddy. The land of vendor of the petitioners i.e., Ac.5.01 guntas and the land of the applicants i.e., Ac.2.20 guntas are specifically shown and towards the northern side of the applicants’ property, the boundary is the common as per the plan. The learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submits that as there is a common boundary between the land purchased by them and the land claimed by the applicants, in the event of any order being passed by the Special Court, it may not be possible for them to question the same. Therefore, it is stated that they are just and proper parties to the L.G.C. But the said application has been dismissed on the ground that they are not necessary parties. The learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3- applicants fairly submitted that the applicants have no objection for the writ petitioners-third parties to be impleaded in the L.G.C., without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the applicants to the effect that the property of writ petitioners-third parties is entirely different and distinct from that of the applicants in the L.G.C, which was filed against respondents 4 to 6 herein. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the order impugned herein. Consequently, I.A.No.1157 of 2008 in L.G.C.No.27 of 2007 on the file of the 1st respondent-Special Court stands allowed. The 1st respondent- Special Court shall dispose of the L.G.C. as expeditiously as possible on priority basis, without any undue delay. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice V. Eswaraiah _______________________ Justice B.N. Rao Nalla Dated: 22.11.2010. Note: CC in two days B/O Nn. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION NO : 639 of 2009 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) 22.11.2010