IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20457 of 2001 Between: Pusapati Laxmi Narasimha Raju ..... PETITIONER AND The Special Court under Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, At Hyderabad and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20457 of 2001 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The petitioner had originally filed O.S.325/1985 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram for declaration of title and recovery of possession. On a memo filed by the petitioner herein, the said suit was transferred to the Special Tribunal constituted under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram and re-numbered as LGOP.260/2000, which was later dismissed by order dated 16.06.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed LGA.25/2000 on the file of the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, and the Special Court by the impugned judgment dated 11.07.2011, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. The facts of the case are that whereas the petitioner had filed the suit O.S.325/1985 for the declaration of his title over the plaint schedule property and delivery of the possession of the property to him after ejecting the defendants there from, originally, there were four defendants in the suit. During the pendency of the suit, it is stated that the Defendant No.4 died and his legal heirs were brought on record as the Defendants Nos.5 to 8 in the suit. In the plaint, it is stated that the plaint schedule property i.e. house property, admeasuring 200 sq.yards in TS Nos.430 and 431 of Kaspa West Ward, 16th Municipal Ward, bearing Door No.16- 7-24, and Assessment No.11917 (old assessment No.6461) of Tupakula street, Vizianagaram belonged to the paternal grand-father of the plaintiff and it was succeeded by the plaintiff’s father and thereafter the plaintiff had succeeded the same. It is stated that the plaintiff’s father had leased out the said property in favour of one Thotakura Venkataraju, a poor caste man, on compassionate grounds, on his executing a lease agreement dated 28.10.1933. It is stated that the said Mr.Thotakura Venkataraju, his adopted son Mr.Thotakura Viswanadharaju and his concubine, i.e., the 1st defendant and the children born to them, continued to stay in the pliant schedule property as tenants. The petitioner also executed a document of tenency dated 20.04.1964. Later on, Viswanadharaju died, and after his death, the defendants continued to stay in the said house. Thus, it is stated that the defendants Nos.1 to 4 were in permissive possession of the suit schedule property. While so, the Defendants Nos.1 to 3, with an evil intention to grab the plaint schedule property, taking advantage of the 2nd defendant’s position in the municipality, got clandestinely altered the municipal assessment register in their favour by false representation and without notice to the plaintiff, who is the true owner of the property. The said alteration came to the knowledge of the plaintiff in the year 1978, and immediately, he made a representation before the Municipal Authorities and the same was rectified on enquiry. It is stated that the defendants Nos.1 and 3 filed O.S.470/1981 on the file of the District Munisif, Vizianagaram seeking cancellation of the order of the Municipal Commissioner passed in the above said enquiry and the plaintiff was not impleaded in the said suit with an ulterior motive, and the said suit is still pending. It is stated that the defendants Nos.1 and 3 intend to set up title in themselves without any manner of right, and therefore, the suit was filed for declaration of the plaintiff’s title and for recovery of the possession of the property. As per the plaint averments, all the Defendants Nos.1 to 4 were in possession or occupation of the suit schedule property and the relief sought for was for the eviction of all the defendants there from. During the pendency of the suit, the 4th defendant died and his legal heirs were brought on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff fairly submits that at the instance of the petitioner/plaintiff only the suit was transferred to the Special Tribunal constituted under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and re-numbered as LGOP.260/2000. During the pendency of the LGOP, the 3rd defendant also died. The 2nd defendant, who was on record and being the son of the deceased 3rd defendant, was treated as the only legal heir of the deceased 3rd defendant. The Special Tribunal dismissed the LGOP.260/2000 on the ground that after the Defendants Nos.5 to 8, the legal heirs of the deceased 4th defendant were brought on record, the suit itself was dismissed for default against the Defendants Nos.5 to 8 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram on 08.09.1999, and thereafter, the plaintiff filed a memo seeking for the transfer of the suit to the Special Tribunal, and pursuant to the orders of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram dated 21.09.1999, the suit was transferred to the Special Tribunal for disposal. The Special Tribunal dismissed the LGOP by order dated 16.06.2000 on the ground that the cause of action for the suit as well as LGOP is common and joint against all the defendants, and when the suit was dismissed against the Defendants Nos.5 to 8, who are interested in the subject matter jointly along with the Defendants Nos.1 and 2, as a consequence thereof, the suit is liable to be dismissed against the Defendants Nos.1 and 2 also, as there cannot be two conflicting decisions against two sets of parties in the suit. Aggrieved by the said order dated 16.06.2000, the petitioner filed LGA.25/2000 on the file of the Special Court constituted under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, and the same was dismissed by judgment dated 11.07.2001. While noticing about the dismissal of the suit against the legal heirs of the deceased 4th defendant for default, the Special Court added another ground for the dismissal of the appeal, stating that even as per the defendants, the defendants were in permissive possession of the suit schedule property, and therefore, as per the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.1115/1993 dated 10.12.1997, the LGOP is not maintainable against the defendants who are in permissive possession. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 4th defendant in the suit was a formal party, and in fact, the written statement was filed on behalf of the 1st defendant stating that the 4th defendant got nothing to do with the property, and as he has been now and then staying with the defendants in the suit property, he happens to be a relation to the defendants, as such, the 4th defendant is not necessary party to the suit. We are of the opinion that the said written statement filed by the 1st defendant would not bind the 4th defendant. When the plaintiff himself has asserted and alleged that all the Defendants Nos.1 to 4 are in possession of the property, and that the Defendants Nos.1 and 3 attempted to set up a rival title having been in permissive possession of the property, it cannot be said that the 4th defendant was not in the possession of the property and that no relief was claimed against the 4th defendant. When the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession was filed against all the defendants, including the 4th defendant, and the suit was dismissed against the 4th defendant, we are of the opinion that the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram rightly dismissed the suit as against the Defendants Nos.1 to 3. The dismissal of the suit against 4th defendant has become final. In view of the above, we do not see any infirmity, legal or otherwise, to interfere with the impugned order. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ___________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J Dated: 08.08.2011 Dsr