JUDGMENT : (T. Vinod Kumar, J.) Since, both these Appeals arise out of the very same order, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both these appeals are directed against the order, dt.08.10.2012 in LGOP.No.623 of 2001 on the file of the Special Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 3. The appellant in LGA.No.27 of 2017 is the 6 th respondent in LGOP.No.27/2017, and the appellant in LGA.No.33 of 2017 is third party to the aforesaid LGOP, who after obtaining leave from this Court vide order dt.24.11.2016 in WP.No.25147 of 2016, had filed the said appeal. Brief facts of the case: 4. The 1 st respondent in both the appeals is the petitioner before the Tribunal, who had filed the above LGOP claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of land bearing Plot No.28 admeasuring 502 sq. yards in survey No.69 & 70 situated at Lingojiguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed, dt.11.07.1967 from one Syed Abdul Rahman. 5. It is the further case of the 1 st respondent/petitioner that intending to construct a house on the subject plot, she had applied for permission, and it was approved vide endorsement, dt.10.06.1985; that on the basis of the aforesaid permission, when she had commenced construction work, one Smt V.Ratnamala, who is 3 rd respondent herein/2 nd respondent in LGOP, along with some antisocial elements entered into the subject plot claiming to be the absolute owner of part of land in plot No.28 admeasuring 202 sq. yards; that on the entry of the 3rd respondent/2nd respondent being objected to by the 1 st respondent herein, the 3 rd respondent/2 nd respondent had filed a suit vide O.S.No.254/1985 against the 1 st respondent/petitioner seeking perpetual injunction; and that the said suit was dismissed by the Civil Court on 16.07.1991. 6. It is the further case of the 1st respondent/petitioner that during the pendency of the aforesaid suit filed against her by the 3 rd respondent/2 nd respondent, the 2 nd respondent herein/1 st respondent in LGOP had executed two registered sale deeds in respect of plot No.28 i.e., 200 sq. yards in favour of 3 rd respondent/2 nd respondent and 300 sq. yards in favour of 4 th respondent/3 rd respondent. 7. yards in favour of 3 rd respondent/2 nd respondent and 300 sq. yards in favour of 4 th respondent/3 rd respondent. 7. It is the further case of the 1 st respondent/petitioner that the 3 rd respondent/2 nd respondent on the suit filed by her getting dismissed, had sold the land admeasuring 200 sq. yards in plot No.28 in favour of the 4th respondent/3rd respondent, who in turn sold the said land to 6th respondent in LGA.No.33 of 2017/5 th respondent in LGOP and appellant in LGA.No.27 of 2017/6 th respondent in LGOP. 8. Thus, the 1 st respondent/petitioner contended that all the other respondents and appellants herein have acted malafidely without any legal entitlement by executing sale deeds in respect of land belonging to her, and thus, have grabbed her land, and are therefore liable to be declared as land grabbers under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’). 9. On the 1st respondent/petitioner filing the aforesaid OP before the Tribunal, notices were issued to the respondents therein i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein/respondent Nos.1 to 4 in LGOP and also to 5 th respondent in LGOP and appellant herein/respondent No.6 in LGOP. However, respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein remained ex-parte. 10. The appellant in LGA.No.27 of 2017, who is 6 th respondent in the LGOP, had contested the said OP by filing counter, claiming that the OP filed by the 1 st respondent herein is not maintainable and that the provisions of the Act are not applicable. 11. By the counter affidavit, the appellant in LGA.No.27 of 2017/6 th respondent in LGOP contended that the land being claimed by the 1 st respondent/petitioner is situated in plot No.28, and as per the approved layout, the plot of 6 th respondent/5 th respondent is bearing No.25 admeasuring 100 Sq yards, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dt.26.03.1984, from one K.Swarajam and is situated in Sy Nos.69 and 70 with a house existing therein bearing House No.1-68/1 of Lingojiguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, and thus, the above OP filed by the 1 st respondent/petitioner lacks merits and sought for dismissal of the said OP. 12. Based on the above said pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal in the above LGOP: i. Whether the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the petition schedule property? ii. 12. Based on the above said pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal in the above LGOP: i. Whether the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the petition schedule property? ii. Whether the respondents are the land grabbers of the petition schedule property? iii. To what relief? 13. Before the Tribunal, 1st respondent/petitioner got examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the respondents, no one was examined nor any documents marked before the Tribunal. 14. Based on the evidence adduced by both the parties, the Tribunal allowed the underlying LGOP partly declaring the respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein/respondent Nos.1 to 4 in LGOP as land grabbers and dismissed the OP against 5th and 6th respondents in the OP. 15. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal, the 6 th respondent in the OP had filed appeal vide LGA.No.27 of 2017 and a third party to the said OP filed appeal vide LGA.No.33 of 2017. 16. The appeal vide LGA.No.33/2017 is filed by a third party, after obtaining leave to file the present appeal vide order dt.24.11.2016 in WP.No.25147 of 2016, claiming to have purchased part of the land along with house constructed therein, being claimed by the 1st respondent herein/petitioner in LGOP, under a registered sale deed, dt.29.10.1998, from 5th respondent herein/4th respondent in LGOP, and not being made as party, though a necessary party to the aforesaid proceedings, and an order in respect of the subject property purchased by her having been obtained behind her back. 17. Heard Sri V.Hari Haran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, Smt A.Anasuya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent in both the appeals, and perused the record. Case of the appellant in LGA.No.27 of 2017//6 th respondent in LGOP 18. On behalf of the appellant/6 th respondent it is contended that as the Court below had declared the 4 th respondent herein/3 rd respondent as land grabber, the same directly affects the rights of the appellant/6th respondent in OP, who had purchased the land admeasuring 150 sq. yards vide registered sale deed, dt.13.08.1990 from the 4 th respondent/3 rd respondent. 19. yards vide registered sale deed, dt.13.08.1990 from the 4 th respondent/3 rd respondent. 19. It is further contended that the Court below ought to have seen that the 1 st respondent/petitioner was never in possession of the subject property being claimed by her, much less the land to an extent of 150 sq. yards purchased by the appellant/6th respondent from the 4th respondent/3rd respondent under a registered sale deed in the year 1990. 20. It is further contended by the appellant/6 th respondent that though she has engaged a counsel, she did not contest the matter, due to the compromise entered into with the 1 st respondent/petitioner and having paid an amount of Rs.27,000/- towards consideration, but the 1st respondent/petitioner failed to withdraw the case in respect of the land in possession of the appellant/6 th respondent. 21. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant/6 th respondent that since, the 1 st respondent/petitioner having received an amount of Rs.27,000/- towards consideration for the land in her possession, she cannot be declared as land grabber. 22. On behalf of the appellant/6 th respondent it is further contended that the 1 st respondent/petitioner though agreed to sell the land in possession of the appellant/6 th respondent having purchased the same from the 4th respondent/3rd respondent pursuant to the compromise entered, failed to abide by the said compromise and is seeking to dispossess the appellant/6 th respondent from the subject land on the ground that respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein/respondent Nos.1 to 4 in LGOP are declared as land grabbers of the subject land, part of which is in possession of the appellant/6 th respondent. 23. On behalf of the appellant/6 th respondent it is further contended that the Tribunal though has not declared the appellant/6 th respondent as a land grabber, however, had held that since, the appellant/6th respondent had failed to produce any registered document executed in her favour by the 4 th respondent/3 rd respondent to an extent of 150 sq. yards in plot No.28 in survey Nos.69 & 70 situated at Lingojiguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, cannot make any claim to the subject land. Case of the appellant in LGA.No.33 of 2017/third party to LGOP 24. It is contended by the appellant/third party that she has purchased the house bearing municipal No.10-1-98/3/A standing on the land admeasuring 220 sq. Case of the appellant in LGA.No.33 of 2017/third party to LGOP 24. It is contended by the appellant/third party that she has purchased the house bearing municipal No.10-1-98/3/A standing on the land admeasuring 220 sq. yards bearing plot No.28 under a registered sale deed, dt.29.10.1998 from the 5 th respondent/4 th respondent; that on purchase of the aforesaid property, the same has been mutated on to her name in municipal records on 09.11.1998, and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same since then. 25. On behalf of the appellant/third party it is further contended that the 1 st respondent/petitioner without making her as party to the underlying OP filed by her had obtained an order in respect of her property, behind her back, and is seeking to dispossess her from the subject property, which has been mutated on to her name on 09.11.1998. 26. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant/third party that the report, dt.27.06.2009 filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, in terms of Rule 6(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 (for short ‘the Rules’) would go to show that the land being claimed by the 1 st respondent/petitioner cannot be identified unless and until the layouts are furnished, and thus, contended that the subject plot bearing No.28 being claimed by the 1 st respondent/petitioner is not identifiable and is not localized. 27. On behalf of the appellant/third party it is also contended that since, the appellant/third party has purchased the house property, the same would be outside the scope of the application of provisions of the Act, as the same deals with only lands that are grabbed and not in respect of houses existing on such lands, and thus, the order of the Tribunal to the extent of the land, on which her house bearing No.10-1-98/3/A stands, cannot be sustained. Consideration by the Court: 28. Though it is the case of the appellant in LGA.No.27 of 2017/6 th respondent in LGOP that she having purchased the subject property from the 4 th respondent/3 rd respondent in LGOP vide registered sale deed, dt.13.08.1990, since, the appellant’s vendor having been declared as a land grabber by the Tribunal, the appellant/6 th respondent cannot claim any better title to the subject property. 29. 29. Further, though the appellant/6 th respondent claimed of having entered into a compromise with the 1 st respondent/petitioner in LGOP, during the pendency of the said OP, inasmuch as the said aspect was not even pleaded before the Tribunal, the said plea now urged before this Court cannot be accepted. 30. It is also worthwhile to note that the vendor of the appellant/6th respondent i.e., 4th respondent/3rd respondent having remained ex-parte before the Tribunal and the appellant/6 th respondent having failed to adduce any documentary evidence in order to justify her title to the subject property validly, it is not open for the appellant/6 th respondent to claim to be in legal possession of the subject property or that the Tribunal not considering the relevant documents and considering irrelevant documents to hold the appellant/6 th respondent’s vendor to be a land grabber, consequently affecting the right of the appellant/6 th respondent to the subject property. 31. Having regard to the dicta laid down by the Apex Court, the appellant in LGA.No.27 of 2017/6th respondent in LGOP is to be considered as successor in interest under the Act and for the said reason, the claim of the appellant/6 th respondent that the Tribunal having not declared her as land grabber she cannot be dispossessed from the subject land to an extent of 150 sq. yards, cannot be accepted as a valid and sustainable claim. 32. Since, the appellant/6 th respondent is only a successor in interest claiming subject property having purchased from the 5 th respondent/4 th respondent, who is being declared as land grabber, she would have to be considered as successor in interest and would be liable for all the actions of her vendor. 33. The Supreme Court in Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd. vs. Mandal Revenue Officer and Ors. 33. The Supreme Court in Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd. vs. Mandal Revenue Officer and Ors. , MANU/SC/8007/2007 while reiterating the view in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors , [MANU/SC/0066/2002] has held that: “25.…A combined reading of Clauses (d) and (e) would suggest that to bring a person within the meaning of the expression "land grabber" it must be shown that: (i)(a) he has taken unauthorisedly, unfairly, greedily, snatched forcibly, violently or unscrupulously any land belonging to the Government or a local authority, a religious or charitable institution or endowment, including a wakf, or any other private person; (b) without any lawful entitlement; and (c) with a view to illegally taking possession of such lands, or enter or create illegal tenancies or lease and licence agreements or any other illegal agreements in respect of such lands or to construct unauthorised structures thereon for sale or hire, or give such lands to any person on rental or lease and licence basis for construction, or use and occupation of unauthorised structures; or (ii) he has given financial aid to any person for taking illegal possession of lands or for construction of unauthorised structures thereon; or (iii) he is collecting or attempting to collect from any occupiers of such lands rent, compensation and other charges by criminal intimidation; or (iv) he is abetting the doing of any of the abovementioned acts; or (v) that he is the successor-in-interest of any such persons.” 34. Insofar as the claim of the appellant in LGA No.33 of 2017/third party to LGOP with regard to the non- maintainability of petition filed by the 1st respondent/petitioner before the Tribunal in respect of house existing on the land being claimed as grabbed, it is to be noted that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Safiya Bee v. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain , [ (2011) 2 SCC 94 ] wherein it was held as under: “11. The basic question to be considered is whether the High Court was correct in holding that the Appellant's application under Section 7A of the Act was not maintainable before the Special Tribunal "as the property in dispute was a building with its appurtenant land". Vajahath Hussain , [ (2011) 2 SCC 94 ] wherein it was held as under: “11. The basic question to be considered is whether the High Court was correct in holding that the Appellant's application under Section 7A of the Act was not maintainable before the Special Tribunal "as the property in dispute was a building with its appurtenant land". The Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 was enacted to prohibit the activity of land grabbing in the State of Andhra Pradesh and to provide for matters connected therewith….. Section 2(c) defines 'land' as hereunder: 'land' includes rights in or over land, benefits to arise out of land and buildings, structures and other things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. The above definition of 'land' makes it clear that the expression 'land' includes "buildings, structures and other things attached to the earth". In view of such inclusive definition of 'land', grabbing a building attached to the earth amounts to land grabbing for the purposes of this Act. Hence, the High Court erred in holding that the Act applies to the land but not to the buildings. The High Court was clearly wrong in holding that "if an application is filed seeking possession of building along with its appurtenant land, because the building in question is in existence on the land and is surrounded by the vacant land, it cannot be said that it is a case of grabbing of land". In our view, if a building along with the land on which it stands is the subject matter of the application under Section 7A of the Act, such application is maintainable before the Special Tribunal. The distinction drawn by the High Court between "building with appurtenant land" and "land along with building" is artificial and hyper-technical and it defeats the very purpose of the legislation. In the light of the definition of 'land' under Section 2(c) of the Act, both the above descriptions practically mean the same thing vis-�-vis 'land grabbing' and there is no logic or justification for drawing a distinction between them. Hence, the High Court erred in holding that the application filed by the Appellant was not maintainable before the Special Tribunal. 35. Hence, the High Court erred in holding that the application filed by the Appellant was not maintainable before the Special Tribunal. 35. Though, the claim of the appellant in LGA.No.33 of 2017/third party to LGOP with regard to the applicability of the Act to the standing building on the land alleged to be grabbed has to fail, it is pertinent to note that the appellant/third party has purchased the subject property under a registered sale deed, dt.29.10.1998 from the 5 th respondent/4 th respondent and the said property stood muted on to the name of the appellant/third party in the municipal records by following the due process of law. 36. The 1 st respondent/petitioner having filed the underlying OP to declare the 4 th respondent also as land grabber in respect of the subject property in the year 2001 claiming it to be open land, however did not choose to verify as to the existing position of the property, which if only was done would have shown the existence of a building in the subject property and further verification would have shown that the said building is standing in the name of the appellant in LGA.No.33 of 2017/third party to LGOP. 37. The 1 st respondent/appellant having filed the OP before the Tribunal without arraying the appellant/third party as party respondent, however, even after the Mandal Revenue Officer submitting his report, dt.27.06.2009, noting as to the existence of a building in the subject property, did not take steps to verify as to who is in possession of the subject land and the building thereon and make them as party respondents to the said proceedings, which was pending as on the date of the said report. 38. Admittedly, the appellant/third party having purchased the subject property with the building standing therein having municipal number, is in possession of the same since the date of purchase in the year 1998, and that the 1 st respondent/petitioner proceeded against the appellant’s property without making her as party respondent and without the notice of the OP being issued to her, cannot seek enforcement of the order of the Tribunal against the subject property in possession of the appellant/third party. 39. The Apex Court in Phatru Patel vs. Revenue Divisional Officer , [ (2010) 15 SCC 77 ] while dealing with a similar situation has held as under: “9. 39. The Apex Court in Phatru Patel vs. Revenue Divisional Officer , [ (2010) 15 SCC 77 ] while dealing with a similar situation has held as under: “9. A bare reading of abovequoted Rule makes it evident that the Special Court has to give notice in Form III-A to the persons known or believed to be interested in the land. The case of the appellants is that they had purchased the lands from Hukumlal between 1980 and 1987 i.e. prior to initiation of case under the provisions of the 1982 Act before the Special Court by Respondents 3 to 5. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that it was the duty of the Special Court to issue notices to the appellants in Form III-A and hear them. The High Court has failed to consider the question whether the appellants were served as required by law. The impugned judgment does not indicate that the High Court had examined the plea raised by the appellants that they had acquired interest in the lands prior to filing of the case by Respondents 3 to 5. Except stating that the appellants are/were claiming through Hukumlal, no other contention raised in the petition was examined by the High Court. As the record does not indicate that any notice as contemplated by Rule 8 of the Rules was served by the Special Court on any of the appellants, it will have to be held that the judgment passed by the Special Court in the application filed by Respondents 3 to 5 is illegal and void. Therefore, the appeal will have to be accepted.” 40. Thus, since, the 1 st respondent/petitioner in LGOP is claiming the property in possession and enjoyment of the appellant in LGA.No.33 of 2017/third party as her property, the 1 st respondent/petitioner ought to have made her as party to the underlying LGOP filed before the Tribunal in terms of the proviso to Section 7(A)(5) of the Act read with Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules, and in the absence of the 1 st respondent/petitioner joining the appellant/third party as party respondent to the said proceedings, the order of the Tribunal to the extent of the property in possession and enjoyment of the appellant/third party herein would be illegal and a void order. 41. 41. In the light of the aforesaid analysis and discussion, this Court is of the considered view that – i) the Appeal vide LGA. No.27 of 2017 filed by the appellant/6th respondent as against the order, dt. 08.10.2011 in LGOP. No.623/2001 does not suffer from any infirmity or error for being interfered by this Court in the appeal, and thus, LGA.No.27 of 2017 is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed. ii) the Appeal vide LGA.No.33 of 2017 filed against the very same order, dt.08.10.2011 in LGOP. No.623/2001, is allowed and the said order dt.08.10.2011 is set aside to the extent of the subject property admeasuring 220 sq. yards with building standing thereon bearing House No.10-1- 98/3/A in plot No.28 of survey No. 69 & 70 situated at Lingojiguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 42. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs.