THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5693 of 2007 ORDER: Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed L.G.O.P.No.1163 of 2007 in the Court of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar under Section 8 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 against respondent Nos. 3 to 12 in respect of about Acs.16.00 of land in Survey No.44 of Maktha Mahaboobpet Village of Serilingampally Mandal. The petitioner filed I.A.No.3329 of 2007 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. with a prayer to implead her as a party to the L.G.O.P. She pleaded that she purchased an extent of about Acs.62.00 of land under a sale deed, dated 12.05.1969, and that the suit schedule property is part of that land. She referred to various proceedings and ultimately, pleaded that she is a proper and necessary party to the proceedings. The application was opposed by the respondents herein. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 15.12.2007. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri Mahmood Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Venu Gopal, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri G.Shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 5, Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 11 and 12. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 pleaded title over the suit schedule property and prayed for restoration of possession from respondents 3 to 10. Respondents 11 and 12 are said to be the holders of an agreement of sale. The petitioner pleaded that she purchased a vast extent of land way back in the year 1960 and the suit schedule property is part of the same. Had the petitioner been a total stranger to the property or that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 never pleaded anything vis-à-vis the petitioner, totally different things would have ensued. A perusal of the petition in the L.G.O.P. discloses that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have recognized the title of the petitioner over the land. However, they pleaded that in a compromise recorded in O.S.No.46 of 1973 by the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Hyderabad West on 26.12.1977, the petitioner parted with the property. That very recital is sufficient to confer right upon the petitioner to get herself impleaded. The plea as to truth or otherwise of the manner in which the title is said to have passed on from the petitioner would certainly arise for consideration. This Court is of the view that the petitioner is not only proper, but also necessary party to the L.G.O.P. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.3329 of 2007 shall stand allowed. The L.G.O.P. is said to be at an advanced stage of disposal. It is directed that the petitioner shall complete her evidence within two weeks from the date of recommencement of the proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:18.09.2009 kdl