HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.22188 OF 2010 Dt.21.9.2010 Between: Chalasani Sandeepa and another ..Petitioners And Ch.Padma and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.22188 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The 1st respondent herein filed L.G.C.No.27 of 2008 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, against the petitioners herein (respondents 1 and 2 in the said L.G.C) and respondents 2 and 3 herein (respondents 3 and 4 in the L.G.C.) to declare the respondents as land grabbers in respect of 799 Sq.yards in Sy.No.403/1 of Shaikpet village (old), Sy.No.120 (new) and Sy.No.1092/1 of Hakimpet Village, T.S.No.3, Ward No.9 Block A, and to deliver vacant possession of the said land. It is the case of the 1st respondent – applicant before the Special Court that the said land belongs to Jubilee Hills Co- operative House Building Society and the applicant was allotted Plot No.265-S to an extent of 2551 sq.yards as per the sanctioned lay out. Consequent to the said allotment the Society had registered an extent of 1191 sq.yards through the registered sale deed bearing document No.1572/82, dated 6.3.1982. Subsequently, another extent of 429 sq. yards was registered in favour of the applicant by the said society on 5.8.1983 vide registered sale deed bearing document No.4093/83. Another extent of 404 Sq.yards was registered in the name of the applicant vide document bearing No.P1427/91 dated 10.9.1991 and the total extent of land registered in favour of the applicant is 2024 sq.yards as against the existence of 2551 sq.yards. The petitioners herein are owning the plot bearing No.395 on the Southern side of the house situated in the plot bearing No.265/S and the petitioners have grabbed the property admeasuring 799 sq.yards on the Southern side. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the 1st petitioner purchased the property said to be in possession vide Exs.B-1 to B-3 admeasuring 3063 sq.yards equivalent to 2563 sq.meters along with the unfinished residential house under the said three sale deeds and the property is surrounded by a compound wall and the 1st petitioner never encroached the land of the schedule property. Even according to the writ petitioners, the plot belonging to the applicant as per claim is plot No.265-S, which would be towards the Western side of the petitioners’ property. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the whole controversy is with regard to the boundary disputes and the localization of the land with reference to the measurements shown in the plan annexed to Ex.B-5 registered sale deed executed by the Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building Society in favour of D.Sridevi would clarify the true and correct position. Accordingly, the petitioners filed applications on 25.8.2010 under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C., for appointment of advocate-commissioner to localize the property with reference to the sketch plan annexed to Exs.B-1 to B-3 and B-5 in the said L.G.C.No.27 of 2008, take physical measurements, draw a plan with the assistance of the surveyor from the office of the Tahsildar concerned, draw a sketch plan and file the same before the Special Court. On the said application, the Special Court passed docket order on 27.8.2010 that if the evidence adduced by both sides is not sufficient to fix boundaries of the application schedule land and since the main L.G.C. is reserved for judgment, the said I.A is directed to be posted for orders along with L.G.C. The Special Court further held that if the evidence adduced by both sides is not sufficient, the I.As would be considered. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that considering the I.As., after the judgment is delivered will not serve any purpose. We are unable to accept the said contention. The order of the Special Court is clear without any ambiguity that if the evidence adduced is not sufficient to fix boundaries of the application schedule property, the said I.As., would be considered. It is stated that the I.As., would be considered if the evidence adduced by both parties is insufficient. To resolve the controversy of the boundaries of the application schedule property, the applications are liable to be disposed of along with the main L.G.C. Therefore, we do not see any ground to interfere with the said docket order. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is dismissed. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 21.9.2010 Note: Issue copy by tomorrow B.O. kpr