JUDGMENT : ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J. All these writ petitions are being disposed of by way of this common order since the issue raised in these writ petitions is one and the same. 2. All these writ petitions are filed against the order, dated 05.07.2011 passed in LGC No.131 of 1997 by the Andhra Pradesh Lard Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad (for short, 'Special Court'). 3. Heard Sri Keshav Hulsurkar, learned Counsel; Sri Surya Prakash Rao, learned Counsel; Sri Ch. Venkat Raman, learned Counsel; Sri P. Phalguna Rao, learned Counsel; Ch. Venkateshwara Reddy, learned Counsel; Sri V. Hanumantha Rao, learned Counsel; Sri Bharath Reddy Bommineni, learned Counsel; Sri M.R. Harsha, learned Counsel and E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri T. Subhash Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 5. 4. For the sake of convenience, the facts in WP No.22443 of 2011 are hereunder discussed. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had contended that respondent Nos.2 to 5 have filed LGC No.131 of 1997 against the petitioner and several other individuals to declare the petitioner and others as land grabbers. In the said L.G.C., the petitioner was arrayed as respondent No.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had further contended that respondent Nos.2 to 5 were claimed to be the share-holders under preliminary decree in CS No.14 of 1958, dated 28.06.1963. During the final decree proceedings, one Sri Fazal Yousuffuddin was appointed as Receiver-cum-Commissioner vide order, dated 31.12.1993 to take possession of their land and safeguard the same from encroachers. Pursuant to the ordcrs, the Receiver inspected the scheduled land and submitted an interim report on 21.01.1994 to the effect that he requires assistance of revenue authorities for localizing the application scheduled property. Based on the directions of the High Court, the Deputy Inspector, Land Records Office, Ranga Reddy District was deputed to demarcate the land. On 10.03.1994, the Receiver alongwith the Deputy Inspector inspected the lands and fixed the boundary stones of the application land by localizing the said land under the cover of panchanama. The Receiver has submitted a report to the High Court on 10.03.1994 alongwith the panchanama stating that there were encroachments over the application lands. 6. On 10.03.1994, the Receiver alongwith the Deputy Inspector inspected the lands and fixed the boundary stones of the application land by localizing the said land under the cover of panchanama. The Receiver has submitted a report to the High Court on 10.03.1994 alongwith the panchanama stating that there were encroachments over the application lands. 6. On the strength of the preliminary decree, dated 28.06.1963 in CS No.14 of 1958 only, respondent Nos.2 to 5 have filed the Land Grabbing case before the Special Court against the petitioners and the Special Court has appointed the Commissioner/Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records to cause the survey and submit a report. The Commissioner has submitted a report to the Special Court by conducting an electronic survey and superimposed his workings on the village map, holding that the petitioner and others have grabbed the land. On the strength of the said report, the Special Court has declared the petitioner as land grabber. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had further contended that no physical survey was conducted, except electronic survey and the same was imposed on the village map and no physical inspection was conducted by the Surveyor. Based upon the said report only, the petitioner was declared as land grabber. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had further contended that respondent Nos.2 to 5 have failed to establish the title of the said property and based upon the preliminary decree in the suit only, LGC No.131 of 1997 was filed. The preliminary decree in the suit will not confer title on respondent Nos.2 to 5 and this fact was not properly appreciated by the Special Court and has mechanically declared the petitioner as land grabber. 8. Learned Counsel had further contended that respondent Nos.2 to 5 were claiming an extent of Acs.3.30 gts., in Sy.Nos.254 and 259 of Nacharam Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. However, the petitioner's land is situated in Sy.No.249 and other survey numbers, but not in Sy.Nos.254 and 259 as claimed by respondent Nos.2 to 5. Learned Counsel had further contended that respondent Nos.2 to 5 have failed to establish a prima facie title before the Special Court. But the Special Court has erroneously held that respondent Nos.2 to 5 had title pursuant to preliminary decree in the suit, which is not permissible. Learned Counsel had further contended that respondent Nos.2 to 5 have failed to establish a prima facie title before the Special Court. But the Special Court has erroneously held that respondent Nos.2 to 5 had title pursuant to preliminary decree in the suit, which is not permissible. Admittedly, there is no final decree passed in CS No.14 of 1958 in respect of subject property. 9. Learned Counsel had further contended that the petitioner has traced the title through a protected tenant i.e., one Sri Jog Ramaiah S/o. Jog Sailu. After negotiation with the protected tenant, Kakatiya Enterprise had entered into an agreement of sale and converted the land into plots. The petitioner has purchased one such Plot Bearing Nos.126 and 127 in Sy.No.249. The Karthikeya Nagar Welfare Association enterprise has obtained a tentative layout on 03.03.1981. Thereafter, the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) sanctioned a final layout on 03.01.1990. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had further contended that one of the parties in CS No.14 of 1958 i.e., Sri Ahmed Yar Jung and two others filed WP No.858 of 1990 against HUDA, Kapra Municipality and Kartikeya Nagar Welfare Association and the said writ petition was dismissed on 20.08.1990, which would mean that the parties in CS No.14 of 1958 were aware that Kartikeya Nagar Welfare Association has purchased the land, converted them into plots and sold these plots to various individuals, including the petitioner. After several years of construction, respondent Nos.2 to 5 have approached the Special Court by filing the said L.G.C., against the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had further contended that one Sri Iqbal Singh, representrng as GPA holder of Kazim Nawab Jung has filed a suit against the purchasers of Kartikeya Nagar Colony vide OS No.284 of 1982 and the same was dismissed on 29.08.1989. Subsequently, Ahmed Yar Jung has filed OS No.167 of 1990 against the Kartikeya Nagar Welfare Association, claiming that the entire extent of Acs.30.30 gts., as its property and the said suit was dismissed on 27.03.2001 and another suit was filed by him vide OS No.129 of 1991 against one Sri M. Narsimha, the protected tenant and the same was also dismissed. When the parties in CS No.14 of 1958 were also aware about the fact that the Kartikeya Nagar Welfare Association have obtained a tentative and final layout from HUDA, the respondents have filed the case against the petitioner and the Special Court has mechanically allowed the L.G.C., and declared the petitioner as a land grabber. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petitions by setting aside the order, dated 05.07.2011 passed in L.G.C. No.131 of 1997 by the Special Court and allow the writ petitions. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP No.25297 of 2011 had contended that respondent Nos.2 to 5 have not even impleaded the writ petitioners before the Special Court and the Special Court has declared the writ petitioners as land grabbers without hearing them. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in these writ petitions. 11. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 had contended that preliminary decree was passed in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 5. The Commissioner was appointed by the High Court to demarcate the land and the Commissioner had inspected the land and submitted a report that the land belongs to respondent Nos.2 to 5. Though the writ petitioners claimed that their land was located in different survey numbers, they were physically occupying the land in Sy.Nos.254 and 259. The Special Court has held that respondent Nos.2 to 5 are having valid title based on the preliminary decree and the identification of the land is falling within their share. Only after being satisfied, the Special Court has held that respondent Nos.2 to 5 are having title over the subject property, whereas, the writ petitioners failed to establish their claim over the land. Therefore, the Special Court has rightly allowed the said L.G.C., case in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 5 and declared the petitioners as land grabbers. The Commissioner's Report also confirmed that the writ petitioners are in occupation of land in Sy.Nos.254 and 259. 12. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 had further contended that the Special Court has categorically found that the writ petitioners have failed to establish the title respectively, claimed by them, whereas, respondent Nos.2 to 5 have established their title over the subject property. Hence, the Special Court has rightly allowed the L.G.C., preferred by respondent Nos.2 to 5 and declared the writ petitioners as land grabbers. Hence, the Special Court has rightly allowed the L.G.C., preferred by respondent Nos.2 to 5 and declared the writ petitioners as land grabbers. Therefore, there are no merits in these writ petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. 13. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the view that the Special Court was not justified in declaring respondent Nos.2 to 5 as owners based upon the preliminary decree, which is not permissible. A preliminary decree cannot confer title on respondent Nos.2 to 5. Until a final decree is passed, respondent Nos.2 to 5 cannot claim the subject property. Thereafter, they may claim the title over the subject property. A persual of the Commissioner's report discloses that an Electronic survey was conducted and the same was superimposed on the village map and the report has stated that the lands of the writ petitioners are situated in Sy.Nos.254 and 259. The Commissioner ought to have conducted a detailed survey that too in the presence of writ petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 5, but no such survey was conducted. Based upon such survey only, the Special Court has come to a conclusion that the writ petitioners have grabbed the land, which is not appropriate. It is evident that one of the parties in CS No.14 of 1958 was aware of the fact that the Kakatiya Nagar Welfare Association's was taking steps to have the layout approved by HUDA. Moreover, one of the parties in CS No.14 of 1958 has unsuccessfully filed a writ petition before this Court vide WP No.858 of 1990 and the said writ petition was dismissed on 20.08.1990. Additionally, the parties in CS No.14 of 1958 have unsuccessfully filed several suits against the Kakatiya Nagar Welfare Association, which would mean that the parties in CS No.14 of 1958 were aware that the Kakatiya Nagar Welfare Association had converted the land into plots. After obtaining approval for layout from HUDA only, they sold the plots to several other individuals, including writ petitioners. Therefore, the Special Court was not justified in allowing the said L.G.C., preferred by the respondent Nos.2 to 5. Prima facie, respondent Nos.2 to 5 do not have title and no title can be conferred on the basis of prelimianry decree. Admittedly, as on today, no final decree is passed in respect of the subject property. Therefore, the Special Court was not justified in allowing the said L.G.C., preferred by the respondent Nos.2 to 5. Prima facie, respondent Nos.2 to 5 do not have title and no title can be conferred on the basis of prelimianry decree. Admittedly, as on today, no final decree is passed in respect of the subject property. Therefore, order, dated 05.07.2011 passed in LGC No.131 of 1997 by the Special Court is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. 14. A perusal of the record discloses that respondent Nos.2 to 5 have filed IA No.212 of 2008 in LGC No.131 of 1997, seeking for appointment of new Commissioner on the ground that the earlier Commissioner's Report was not appropriate and the said I.A., was dismissed by the Special Court vide order, dated 02.05.2008, which would mean that respondent Nos.2 to 5 were aware that the Commissioner's Report, dated 15.11.2006 was defective and the Special Court has strangely relied upon the defective Commissioner's Report and came to a conclusion that the writ petitioners are the land grabbers. 15. Accordingly, the order, dated 05.07.2011 passed in LGC No 131 of 1997 by the Special Court is set aside and all these writ petitions are allowed. No costs. 16. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.