The High Court · 2026

5. Divisi,rna Forest Officer, Ranga Reddy District. 6. Forest Settlement Officer, Ranga Reddy District. 7. Distrir:t Collecor, Ranga ReddyDistrict. HyderaQad. 8. Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar Mandal R.R.District 9. Smt. i{umayun Begum W/o Late Agha Syed {bbas, Age{ gbout 85 years, Occ: i:{ouseiwife Ryb. 4-11-14, Quyam Nagar, Pahadi Mir Mohmood Saheb, Ranga Reddy District.

10.Syed= Abdul Wahab, S/o. Late Syed Abdullah, Aged 71 ye.ars, Ocq Business, Rio. Flat No.1101 and 1102 Mount Naser apartments, Saifabad, Hyderabad. (R9 and 10 are impleaded as per Court Order dated O9'O7'2O14 in Wp.tvtp.ttos.19122 and 21696 of 20141 ...RESPONDENTS Petitirrn under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring- (a) that the ac::ion of the respondents in not releasing the land of the petitioners admeasuring Acres 100-00 acres in Sy.No.201, of Sahebnager Kalan College, Hayathnagar Mandal. Ranga Reddy District from the notification of constitution a reserve forerst as published in Gazefte No.142 dated 23-11-1981 Ranga Reddy District U/S.6 of the Act and in G.O.Ms.No..778 F&A (Forest-lll) dated 18-6-1971, by applying the judgment in CCCA.No.8411982 against the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal, (b) that section 3 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 (State Act.No.1/1967) is unconstitutional and void and therefore the Notifications issued U/S.4 and 6 of the said Act in Gazettee No.42, dated 23-11-1981 of Ranga Reddy District and published ir A.P Gazette are non-est in the eye of law and consequently direct the respondentr; to permit the petitioners to exercise their proprietary right over the said land arlmeasuring Acres 100-00 situated in Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar Kalam Village, Hayathnagar [vlandal, Ranga Reddy District without any hindrance of interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. l.A. NO: 1 CIF P. NO: 25343 OF 2005) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the bircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to direct the responcients to consider the prayer of the petitioners for release of the subject land adme;lsuring Acres 100-00 in Sy.No.201, of Sahebnager Kalan College, Hayathnagarr [Vlandal, Ranga Reddy District from the proposed reserve forest constitution, without reference to the judgment in CCCA.No.8411982 on the file of his Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of the writ petition. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 14356 OF 2013t Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to take up the hearing of the writ petition out of its turn by expediting the hearing of the writ petition W.P.No.19942 of 2005. counsel for the Petitioners: sRl v.vENKATARAMANA (Nor PRESENT) counsel for the Respondent Nos.i ro g: sRl MOHD. tndnnru KHAN, Counsel for the Respondent No.9: SRI D.Y.N.L.N.CHARYULU Counsel for the Respondent No.{0: SRI K.B.RAMANNA DORA ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER IN TIIE TIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT'TIYDERABAD THE ]IION'BLE THT] CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND TIIE HON'RLE SRT JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 19942 of 2005 DATED: 13.03.2026 Befween Baqtawar f]egum and I I othcrs AND Petitioners Government o{'Andhra Pradesh. rep., by its Secretary, F'orest and Environlnent [)epartmcnt, Secretariat l{ydcrabad and t) others. Respondents ORDE,R: Nore appears lirr tltc pctitioners Mr. Mohd. lrrrrurr Kharr. lclrned Additional Advocate General appears for the State

2. '['hi:; rvrit pctition is illcd seeking action of the respondents in not releasing the Iiurcl ol'the pctitioncrs itdnrcasuring Acs.100.00 in Sy.No.20l situated at Sahcbnasar lr.alrrn Villagc. Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from thc notiticatirur lirr constituting a reserve fbrest as published in Gaz.ette No.l4l datcd li.ll.lt)t{l b1 applying the.iudgment of the erstwhile t'tigh Cour. o['r\ndhra l'rudr:rlt irr CCCA.No.84 of 1982 dated 16.08.1985. {'1 2

3. The petitioners claims to be the owners and possessors of land admeasuring Acs.100.00 in Sy.No.20l of sahebnagar'Kalan Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by virtue of the decree passed in C.S.No.l3 of 1958 dated 05.03.1959. One Mir Yousuf Ali Khan, known as Nawab Salar Jung III, died intestate on 02.03.1949 at Dewan Devadi, Hyderabad, leaving moveable and immovable properties in the form of Royal Grants, Jagirs, Seriat lnam Lands, Maqtajat, Jaat Jagirs and self purchased Maqtas. Alter the demise of the said Nawab Salar Jung lll, by Regulation No.34 of 1949, a Committee by name 'Salar Jung Estate Committee' was formed, headed by Chairman and four members, to deal with all matters pertainin-c. to the Estate properties. C.S.No.l3 of 1958 was filed in the erstrvhilc iligh Court of Andhra Pradesh by one of the Heirs- Syed tlasan against Sy'ect Kazim Hussain and 115 others forpartition of all movcablc and inrrno','ablc properties of the Salar Jung Estate and a preliminary decrec rvas passed on 05.03.1959. Thereafter a Receiver-cum-Commissioner was appointed on 05.05.1959, for affecting the partition of the properties that were ar ailahlc lirr partition amongst the heirs and successors of the Estate. -l'he said [tecciver-cum-Commissioner took possession of the properties comprising ol' urovable and imrnovable with all leases, account hooks. mcmoranda and writings relating to the Estate of late Nawab Salar Jung on

20.05.19-i9 as specified in the decree and informed the same to the Hon'ble I Iigh CourL. n 3

4. It ir; further submitred that in Application No. g2 of 1962 inc.S.No.13 of 1958, the Receiver-cum-commissioner, by Report dated 15.6.1963 had allotted several lands to Defendant No.2 in the suit, and the allotted land is inclusive of dry land adrneasuring Acs.l00-00 which is the subject matter of this writ petition. It is further submitted that the Maktas were taken over by the Goventment in 1949 under the.lagir Abolition Act, 1953 and released on

24.4.1954 by letter No.808 ot'Jagir Adrninistrator. [n the said letteg the village of Sahebnagar Kalan has been specifically mentioned and in pursuance to the said release of the Maktas, the Inams Abolition Act, 1955 by Gazettee Nfotification No. 1550i I clated 1i.02.1956 concluded the enquiry in the year 19168 and the Revenue f)epartrnent. Government of Andhra pradesh released thr: Maktas declaring them as scll'-purchased landed properties of late salar Jung Bahadur, vicle lrilc No.2 lt)j6. clated 26.06.196g. It is further submitted that by virtuc ol'the said rclease of Maktas, the petitioners were in valid possession and were entitlcd to shares specified in the decree passed by this Court. It is further subrnittctl rhar Sr.No.20l of Sahebnagar Kalan Village, Hayathnagar Mandal. [tanga ltccldr t)istrict was never a Government Land. 5' [t is submitted that resporrtlcnr \o.l has issued Notification under section 4(l)orthe A.p. l;oresr Act. L9(r7. (rbr short,.,the Act,,) published in A'P' Gazetl:ee on ltt.06-1971 propsoine to constitute a reserve forest in 4 respect of the land in Sy.No.201 of Sahebnagar Kalan Village. It is further submitted that the petitioners were not having any knowledge about the said Notification since their rights were not completely crystallized due to the pending litigation inC.S.No.l3 of 1958. It is further submitted that a proclamation under Section 6 of the Act was published in the A.P. Gazettee on 23.11.1981 calling lbr ob.iections from the interested parties. 'lhe petitioners submitted objections to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and Forest Settlement Officer contending that the land covered by the proposed reserve forest notification was a private land and the same may be deleted from the Notitication issued under Section 15 of the Act.

6. The main gricvance of the petitioners is that the land in Sy.No.20l of Sahebnagar Kalan Village. is a private property and does not belong to any forest free grorvth or rr ild anirnal habitation and it is a kacha land without any cultivation r.vhatsoever and the petitioners were objecting for proposal for inclusion of the suh.icct land as a reserve forest.

7. Respondcnt No.7 t)istrict Collector has informed the petitioners vide Memo dated 04.0tt.200-i that the request for release of land of the petitioners cannot be considered since the subject land has been declared as Government land by this Court in CCCA.No.84 of 1982 vide judgment dated 16.08.1985 against the decrce in O.S.No.906 of 1977 which was filed seeking declaration decree on the lile of'the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad tbr ;=l t : :i G I 5 a total ext,3nt of Acs.2115-t7 guntas of Sahebnagar Kalan and Qutubullapur Villages and that the petitioners were not parties to the said suit. As such the memo issued by the District Collector on 04.0tt.2005 re.iecting the claim of the petitiorlers on the basis ofjudgrnent in CCCA.No.84 of 1982 is erroneous. Eventualll', it is prayed that the subject land be released from the proposal of reserve forest without reference to the judgment dated l6:08.1985 passed by this Court in CCCA.No.84 of 1982.

8. Cormter affidavit has been filed b1, thc Divisional Forest Officer, .< Ranga Re,Jdy District on behalf of respondcnt Nos.l. 3. 4 and 5 denying the allegationr; of the petitioners and would submit that Sy.No.20l admeasuring Acs.770.23 guntas was poramboke land as per tctter dated 23.07.1953 issued by the Se,3retary, Board of Revenue. Out ttl'thc said extent, Acs.435.00 of land was proposed to be constituted as reser\ c lbrest and proposals under Section 4 of the Act were submittecl to lhe [)istrict Collector vide the Divisiona]. Forest Off,rcer by lettcr dated ltt.0-i.1974. It is submitted that though in the pahanis fbr 1961 to 1986. thc lantl is said to be belonging to Salarjung, but it is different as can bc sccn tiom the revenue records submitted by the District Collector vide rclcrcncc datcd 08.0[.1971. It is further su.bmitted that the District Collector has subrnitted that Sy.No.201 admeasur:ing Acs.770.23 guntas rvas classiticd as Kancha Government land and to ar extent of Acs.200.00 is undcr encruachrnent and the District F 6 Collector agreed for reservation proposals for remaining area after excluding an extent of Acs.200.00 and there is no mention of pd,ssession by the petitioners and their.claim is not substantiated and in the pahani for the year 1996-97 an extent of Acs.570.27 guntas is shown as Sarkari Kancha and the balance land is shown to be in the possession of different land owners and the names of the petitioners are not figuring in the said pahani. It is further submitted that the reservation process and notification under Section 4 of the Act were not completed as the (iovernment decided to allocate part of the land to the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) vide G.O.Ms.No.557, dated 08.06.1976 and in the said land housing complexes now called Vanasthalipurarn has corne up and that the forest depagtment was not a party to C.S.No. l3 of l9-58. [t is further submitted that the subject land was said to be resurned b,v Nizarn Atiyat of Revenue Department during 1956 and again released during lc)68 and as such the petitioners ought to have in possession of the land afier l9-56 and the claim of possession after a lapse of nearly 40 years is time barred. As such the petitioners cannot agitate the same before this Coua. ljurthcr. thc Sccrctarl'" Board of Revenue on23.07.1953 clearly stated that the land in S1'.No.201 admeasuring Acs.770.23 guntas is a Poramboke land.

9. It is further sut"rnritted that it was proposed to notify under Section 4 of the Act to constitute Sahebnagar l:orest Block by taking lands to an extent of $ x It ? 7 Acs.435.0r) in Sy.No.2Ol of sahebnagar village, Acs.53.00 from Sy.No.l40ll of Gurranrguda Majra of Nadargul village and Acs.21g.2b guntas from sy.No.93 rlf Turkayamjal village. The proposals were under scrutiny stage by the Goventment and the Government decided to allocate about Acs.400.00 in Sy.No.20l to HUDA. lt is further submitted thar when there is no notification under Secl.ion 4 of the Act as alleged by the petitioners. the proclamation under Seclion 6 does not arise. As such, the petitioners vvere put to strict proof. Evt:ntually, it is submitted that the petiticlners are trr ins to unsettle the judgment c'f this Court in the maters connected with the suit in O.S.No.906 of 1977 onthe file of the II Additional Judge, City Cir,'il Courr. Fl.v'clerabad and lnoreover, r:he claims are barred by limitation and the Govcrrunent has -qained absolute tille to the suit properties by adverse possessiun. It is t1rther subrnitted that if the contention of the petitioners has to bc considered that the declaration of title was not judgrnent in rem. the petitioncrs har e to establish the satne in civil Court on the possession of title. uhich cannor be decided by invoking the writ jurisdiction.

10. Resp'6ndsnt No.7, District Collector. Ranqa tlcddr. has lilcd counter allidavit and would submit that as seen from thc llevcnuc antl Survey Settlernent records land in Sy.No.20l adnreasurinq Acs.770-23 gts, is classified as Kancha Sarkari (Governrnent lancl) ils rn,osr ot- thc revenue rccords reflect the Kancha Sarkari over thc saicl lantl ancl that thc Salar.lung B Estate Committee and the Jagir Adrninistrator, Government of Hyderabad, were not parties to the compromise recorded on 29.09.1956-in C.S.No.l3 of 1958 and the compromise decree is between the private parties and the Government is not a signatory and therefore, the terms of the compromise is not binding on the Government and that the petitioners cannot be concerned with the Government land. It is further subrnitted that the Jagirs of late Nawab Salarjung Bahadur were abolished under the Hyderabad Jagirs (Commutation) Regulation I359 Fasli and rvere altematively provided commutation amount to the then Jagirdars and their legal heirs as per the revenue on the Jagir lands held by the then .lagirdars under the provisions of Hyderabad Jagirs (Commutation) Rcgulation. 1359 Fasli and thecivil Court has also passed orders for pavrncnt ot' conrmutation amount to the legal representatives of Jagirdars where the prcscnt petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.l56 of 1980, dated 12.10.2000.

11. It is subrnitted that the land in S1.No.20l adrneasuring Acs.770-27 guntas was recorded as Kancha Sarkari ((iovernment Land) and the land claimed by the petitioners arc fulling in the reserve forest block of Gurramguda and Sahebnagar l(alan. Ir is lurthcr submitted that the old Survey and Settlement record and re\enue records exhibit the land in Sy.No.20l admeasuring Acs.770-27 guntas as Kancha Sarkari and the Board of Revenue, Hyderabad b,v order datecl 23.07.1953 in their File No.l08l5 to 9 10819/A ]ras allotted an extent of Acs.570-00 out of the total extent of Acs.770-27 guntas to the forest department for taking up soil conservation research programme. In turn, the forest department has proposed an extent of Acs.105-00 in Sy.No.20lll of Sahebnagar Kalan Village to be included in reserve forest of Gurramguda Block out of total extent which is under the possession of the forest department vide G.O.Ms.No.778, dated 18.06.1971. I-urther, ttre Forest Settlement Officer published a proclamation notification under Sect.ion 6 of the Act in respect of the proposed reserve forest block of Gurramgu,Ca Village inviting claims and objections from the ryots and owners ol'the lancl included in the forest block under the provisions of the Act. It is lurther subrnitted that the Government had proposed rcservc tirrest in (iurramgu,Ja Forest Block under Section 4 of the Act vide (i.O.Ms.N<t.778. dated 11.06.1971 and the same has been published in Gazette No.42. dated l3.ll.l98 l. Declaration of lands comprising the rescr\e tirrcst ot- (iurramgu,la Block is as under: t. ) J. -l-urkayamjal Village Sahebnagar Kalan Village Natlergul Village Sy.No.93 Sy.No.20lll Sy.No.l40/l I;xtcnt Acs.l79-01 Iixtcnt Acs. 102-00 I:rtcrtt Acs. -l()-00

12. [t is, further submitted that consequent to the notification issucd under Secticrn 6 of the Act on 12.07.L982, neither the petitioncrs lrt)r- thcir predecessc'rs have filed any objections as called lbr by the lrorest Scttlentent otlicer artd tinally draft notification under Section 15 ol' the Act u,as 10 submitted to the higher authorities for necessary approval. Further, an extent of Acs.580 -27 gwftasof larid was proposed for reservation of forest reserved block and the sanre was processed and submitted in respect of Sabhebnagar block under the provisions of the Act. It is further submitted that as regards the claim of Arazi Maqtas over the schedule land, it is evident that as per the inam enquiry Salar Jung estate discussed in File No.42156 of 1956 held in the Court of Nizam Atiyat, A.P., Hyderabad, the village Sahebnagar which was declared as Arazi Maqtas was released in the year 1954 at Sl.No.25 of List 'D' as it did not come under the purview of Jagir Abolition regulation and the Atiyat Court has ceased to have jurisdiction over inam land and Arazi Maqta and no order was passed about these Maqtas and lnarn lands and the claimants are free to seek relief under the Abolition of Inams Act. 1967. By making the above submissions, eventually respondent No.7 I)istrict Collector prayed this Court that the suit is totally barred bl liruitation.

13. Learned Additional Advocate Gencral uoulcl sr"rbrnit that the State of Telangana, represent€d by its Forest Divisional O{'liccr has preflerred an appeal in Civil Appeal No.9996 of 2025 (State of Telangana' represented by Forest Divisional Officer vs. Mir Jaffar Ali Khan (dead), through Lrs and others)r against the order dated 20.01.201i irr ('.lt.t'.No.417 of 2016, which was dismissed confirming the judgrnent and clccree dated 23.09.2016 passed in C.M.A.No.S of 2015 on the file ol'the l)rincipal District Judge, ' zozs SCC onLine sc 2859 \*a I I I 1 i 'i ! : 11 Ranga Redriy District at L.B. Nagar, which is the subject matter of this writ petition and the Hon'ble Supreme court by order dated lg.l2.2l2s allowed of the said civil Appeal No.9996 of 2025. paras 26.1 and 30 to 34 reads as under: "lui.antr." *26.1 A perusal of the judgment, between the afleged successors of Salar Jung-[[[, discloses that Sy.No.20r/r, admeasuiing 102 Acres at Sahetr Nagar Kalan, is not mentioned in the schedul" oi do.r not fall within item 18 to the schedule appended to the plaint. The said findirrg goes to the very root of the claim of the alliged successors- in-int,:rest of Salar Jung-IlI, including the claimants herein. we take note of the array of parties in the oSA and the present claim; and the finding in oSA is nor put against the claimant io disallow the claim, but the reported judgments are looked at to bring home the luker,rarm approach of the Forest Department in presenting proper and a'railable obiections on the alleged right of the 30. '[ne claim for title is firmed up through the order of Nizamat Atiyat dated 26.06. 1968, the orders impugned as already noted in the parag'aphs above, accepted (a) alleged release oi land from integrrrtion and (b) in an enquiry by Nizamat Atiyat, a few villages are helcl as Arazi-Makta. Therefore, the subject matter is liable to be exclucled tiom a final notification under Section l5 of the Telangana I"orest Acr. As discussed above, this court has authoritativell, declarld rhc outer limit of the jurisdiction of the Atiyat court, and held that Nazirn Atiyar's jurisdiction is confined to tire distribution of cornmuration (A.P. wakf Board (supra)). By applying the said ratio, rve nore that the order of Nazim etiyat court is not dctcrnrinati'e of the subject matter's status; and consequently, the tindings in thc' irnpugned order are contrary to the findings by this cloLrrt. More.r'er. independent of the view taken by the I.5o on the detern'inati'u'c character of the Nazim Atiyat court's orders. rhc impug,red orders tailed to appreciate the inconclusiveness in the order o[ thc r\tiyat court, when it redirected the matter to be settled as per .he Inams,\ct. -ll. the i*pug*ed judgments/orders crearly lay down conclusions which arc crplicitly' contrary to the view taken by the High ciourt and this Courr in previous decisions. The foundation of thJclaim is based .n thc sale dced dated 05.03.124gH, release orders, and orders of Nazim Atiyat. foundation does not make out a case, and thc judg,rt:nr and decree of the civil court relied on by the FSo and the alleged enrrv i^ revenue records pale into insiinifican... If ,n. .l'lris i t2 argument of the Claimants is accepted, the same can be utilised for a vast extent of property, for which all the rights have been settled under one enactment or another.

32. The intrinsic examination of the documents relied on by the Claimants does not establish that the Subject Matter is a self- acquired property of Salar Jung-lll. lt is admitted that with the abolition of Jagirs, the land stood vested in the Government. Having admitted that at the first instance, the estate of Salar -Iung-lll was divested of its entitlement and possession through a valid regulation, accepting such scanty records/copies of letters for retransfer in favour of the estate of Salar Jung-lII is highly improbable. and acceptance of such a claim is nothing short of a perverse recording of a finding. The decree and judgment in O.S. No. 156 of 1980, by any measure of interpretation, cannot be extended to affcct the process initiated in 1949, continued till 12.10.2004. The claim of an alleged assignee of Salar Jung-III was found to be untenable on the ground that the Jagirdar, except for having a lit'e interest, does not have the right of alienation or assignment. The revenue records have been found to be tampered with and fudged with incorrect entries. The possession of the Government was held adverse to the assignee claimant, and the acquisition of title by adverse possession b,v' the Government was upheld. The commonality in both cases is that the plaintiff in O.S. No. 906 of 1977 claims as assignee. and thc present claimants claim as successors to the estate of Salar Jung-lll. A regularly instituted suit in 1977 was found to be beyoncl thc pcriod of limitation, and curiously, in a summary enquiry under Scction l0 of the Telangana Forest Act, it is held that the clainr is not harred b1' limitation. The orders impugned fell into a serious crxrr (rl'lan' in appreciating the difference between a claim barrecl hl lirtritation artcl consideration of condonation of delay under Section 16 ot' the Telangana Forest Act. Even if the Tribunal has the porver to condone the delay in filing a claim. the same does not have thc cfibct of upsetting the title acquired through prescription. 'l'he inrpugncd orders, either as ancillary or incidental to accepting thc clainr. holcl title in favour of the Claimants. The fundamental crror ol'lau is that the Forest Department is a transferee of the then (iovenrnrent ol' Andhra Pradesh. A claim on title is always betneen the (iovcrnrnent and the rival claimant. The proceedings under the liorest Act cannot go thus far to unsettle the proceedings initiatecl uncler Jagir Abolition Regulation, Jagir Abolition Cornmutation. and thc Abolition of [nams Act. -l'clangana

33. tn fine, we hold that the claim of right through the sale decd dated 05.03.1248H, release order from Jagir Aclrninistratiort. adjudication by Nizam Atiyat Court of the Clairnants has been accepted either through non-consideration of the docuttrents tiled by .r' 13 the Claimants, its legal effect vis-i-vis the government, and/or by exr:eeding the jurisdiction of inquiry under Section l0 of the Te)angana Forest Act. The limitation for filing objections isliberally applied by holding that there is power to condone the delay. The Di:;trict Court and the High Court fell into error of law in affirming the view taken by the FSO through the order dated 15.10.2014. The claim for the Subject Matter of the Claimants in Claim Petition No. I of 2005 for the appreciation and examination of the very case of the ClrLimants fails, and the claim is thus rejected. It is held that the Sulrject Matter has been Government land and the proposals for final nolification under Section l5 of the Telangana Forest Act have been validly institr.rted. I'he impugned judgments, for the above reasons, are unsustainable, warrant interference, and accordingly, the order of FSC dated 15.10.2014, as confirmed by the Principal District Judge anrl the High Court, is set aside. -t'he Appellant has kept the proposal for final declaration under 34. Ser:tion 15 of theI'elangana Forest Act pending from l97l till 20.12.2004. It is a matter of common knowledge that lung spaces are slrrinking in all cities, and the twin cities of Hyderabad and Ser;underabad are no exceptions. Hence, the Chief Secretary, State of '['erangana, is directed to ensure completion of pending proposals untler Section 15 of the Telangana Forest Act for including the Sulrject Matter as a reserved forest within 8 weeks, and file the cornpliance status report before the Registry of this Court. \ \

14. A perusal of the above said decision clearly shows that the Hon'ble Suprernc Court has conclusively decided the issue with respect to Sy'.No.20li I ol' (iurrarnguda Forest Block, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddl District. n'hich is the subject matter of the present writ petition, and conlintterl thc ordcrs dated 15.10.2014 of the Forest Settlement Of,ficer made undcr Sct:tions -l and 6 of the Act by setting aside the order dated 20.01.2023 passccl b1 this Court in C.R.P.No.4ll of 2017 and allowed the Civil Appeal.

15. [n vierv of the authoritative pronouncement by the Hon'ble Suprerne (.ourt in Clivil Appeal No.9996 of 2025. which squarely covers the prcrsenr t4 writ petition, the relief sought in this writ petition is devoid of merits and

16. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/. M.NAGAMANI ISTANT REGIS SECTION OFFICER for the State of ,ffRUE COPY/ To

1. 2.

3. 4. 5. PSK. TKS One CC tO SRI V.VENKATARAMANA, Two CCs to ADDL ADVOCATE GENE RAL, Hig Hvderabad. IOUTI Telangana, at I kB.RAMANUn Donn, Advocate One CC to SR Y. N.L. N.CHARYULU, Advocate One CC to SRI D. Two CD CoPies w I ; t. t t: :, I :i :i i t: .i ! a HIGH COURT DATED:13/03/2026 ORDER WP.No .'19942 of 2005 I , i : I I I , I I I ' i {t 'rtE Su n 'to o(J 1 5 APH 2026 :t 'I ,1 -,:.:> ,ir:,1'ir:,i{ * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,ts'L' B Yt'-. -;$tas