Writ Petition No. 22448 of 2014 · The High Court · 2025

4. The Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5. The Mandal Surveyor, Sframihabad [Vlandal, Ranga Reddy District 6. The Station House Officer, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District 7. Sri V.Vivekanand Desai, s/o.Late V.H.Desai, Aged about 50 years, occ Pvt' ' !ij*i"i,,'- r?o.'soz, Ni;#i ;;.;v. -c'pia "Gardens Mddhura Nasar' 8. Sri V.Subash Chander Desai, S/o,Late V-H.Desai Aged about 41 years,. occ: " F"t." d;il;;, nn.soz,-iri*ar Ai6iav, Gupta GSrdens Madhura Nagar' RamanthaPur, HYderabad RamanthaPur HYderabad. 9'SriDamodarChincholikar,s/olateMrRaghavenderChincholikar,.agedabr}lt " eo r#i.,-occ: netireo'EmiiovJ", nto rt"at tto sot, sai Maruthi Nilayam. G- 22t23, Madhura Nagar, HYderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 o1 the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleasedtoissueappropriateWrit,OrderorDirection'particularly'oneinthe nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Government Memo bearing No.17550iAssn.Y(1)t2014-ldated'lg0520l4issuedbytheGovernmentof Andhra Pradesh, predecessor of the first respondent herein and all further and consequentialproceedings,includingletterbearingLr.No'E1/5710l20o7dated 28.05.2014 of the second respondent, proceedings bearing Proc No B/1063/2013 daled 16.O7.2014 of the fourth respondent and the alleged Panchanama bearing File No.G4l'1 3 1gt2o14 dated 05.08.2014 of the fifth respondent, as being illegal, ) contrary to law, without jurisdiction and violative of the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles '14 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia. l.A. NO: 1OF 2014{WPMP. NO :40429 OF 20141 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 suspend the Government Memo bearing No.17550/Ass n.Y(1)12014-1 daled 19.05.2014 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, predecessor of the first respondent herein and all further and consequential proceedings, including letter bearing Lr.No.E1l57101 2oo7 dated 28.05.2014 of the second respondent, proceedings bearing Proc.No.B/1d63/2013 dated 16.07 .2014 of the fourth respondent and the alleged Panchanama bearing File.No.G4l131912014 dated 05.08.2014 of the fifth respondent, as being illegal, contrary to law' without jurisdiction and violative of the principles of natural iust and also violative of Articles 14 and 300-A. of the constitution of lndia, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVAS VELAGAPUDI Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 to 9: SRI M. SRINIVAS WRIT P ETITION NO: 18250 OF 2016 Between: Ramanthapur, HYderabad

1. V.Vivekanand Desai, Sio. Late V.H. Desai' Aged about 50 Yrs, Occ Pvt' ' S;il;" R/" ?tat No 502, Nirmal Ashray, Gupla Gardens, lVladhura Nagar' 2. Mr.V.Subhash Chander Desai, S/o. Late Mr' V-H Desai, Aged about 41..Yrs' Occ Pvt Service, R/o. Flat No- 502, Nirmal Ashray, Gupta Gardens' Maonura Nagar, RamanthaPur, HYderabad. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 2 The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District , 4 i t 4 ! 4 + * * ' t i I I ? I I t I 6

3. Joint Collector-ll, Ranga Reddy. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division' Ranga Reddy District' 5. The Tahsildar. Shamshabad Mandal Ranga Reddy District' 6. M/s. S.R.B. Housing Developers Pvt Ltd Reo bv its Manaqing Director s.Ramesh Babu s/ol L:;d;;;f,, Ag;d"aoout az vrs. bcc: Business. R/o Flat ilo so i, Lr.uiri nocroaiE Compo-und, Somajiguda' Hyderabad'

7. K.Bheem Ariun Reddy S/o late Mr' K Yadav Recldv Aoed about 53 Yrs' Occ: ' ;is;fiit,;;; 'd" rht";1,;;iii""rri;d'' sr'imsnauSo Mandar' Ransa Reddv . District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstancesStatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders made by the 3rd RespondentincaseNo.D1t2105l2014,dated07,o4-2016asillegal,arbitrary, malafide and unconstitutional and set aside the same' l.A. NO: 2 OF 2016(WPMP . NO:22418 OF 2016) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighcourtmaybepleased suspend the orders made by the 3rd Respondent in case No D11210512014' dated 07.04.2016, pending disposal of the Writ petition' l.A. NO:1 oF 2016 ruWMP. NO: 3935 OF 2016) Between: SRBHousingDevelopersPrivateLimited,Acomoanvincorporatedunderthe Comoanies Act, 1956. naring'iis-iJgisi"i"Jbni". at O-C-520, Flat No.50l , Diamond ;i#'[' ffi;ili'R;;k;;""tffiiil4, -B+ide Buirdings. somajisuda' Hvderabad. Represented ov ii. [a*'Sii"g Director. Sri S Ramesh Babu S/o late Lil;irn, n'g.J5nortaa V"i,t, occ: Buisiness R/o Hvderabad' .Eenadu ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No'6 AND 1 V.Vivekanand Desai S/o. Late V H Desai, Aged about 50 Years' Occ: Pvt' -rr.i-rlo.soz,Iiirri Atniav'Gu"pta Gardens' Madhura Nagar' i"^rlJ" nrc RamanthaPur, HYderabad 1 4 a , t 4 4 i 3 a 7

2. Mr.V.Subhash Chander Desai, S/o. Late [/tr- V H Desai, Aged about { ! Vears' Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o. Flat No. 502, Nirmal Ashray, Gupta Gardens, Madnura Nagar, Ramanthapur, HYderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/wRIT PETITIONERS

3. The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

4. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 5. Joint Collector-ll, Ranga Reddy. 6. The Revenue Divisional officer, chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. 7. The Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal Ranga Reddy District' B. K.Bheem Arjun Reddy S/o. late Mr' KYadav Reddy,, Aged ?P"-'1-?3J=l:' Occ: Agricuiture, R/ci. Thondupally Village' Shamshabad Mandal' Kanga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the interim order dated 10.06.2016 in w P.lvl,P. No. 22418 of 20 16 in W.P.No.18250 2016. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5: AGP FOR REVENUE Gounsel forthe Respondent No.6: SRI M.V. DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI B. SHASHIDHAR WRIT PETITION NO :'18251 OF 2016 Between: Mr. Damodar Chincholikar, S/o. Late Raghavender Rao, Aged about 80 Yrs'' Occ: iilio. Erirrov"", R7o. Flat r.r-oioZ'-eariliDayamma Apartrients 3-6-504/4' Street No.7, Hiniay5thnagar. HYderabad ...PETITIONER AND l.TheStateofTelanganaRepbyitsPrincipalsecretary,RevenueDepartment Secretariat, HYderabad.

2. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. + ',} " ,i * * .f t 8

3. Joint Collector-ll, Ranga Reddy' 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division' Ranga Reddy District' 5. The Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal' Ranga Reddy District' 6. M/s. S.R B. Housing Developers Pvt Ltd ' RqP Oy its Managing -Director S Ramesh Babu, S/o [ililii,in' Ag"o'luoutaz Yrs' occ: Business R/o Flat il;.50i;I;;b;i'noJr.oiiico*poind, Somaiisuda' Hvderabad 7. Mahender Reddy. S/o Ramakrishna Reddy'..Aoed about 48 Yrs' Occ: ' lri/it",iiurL di-f6i,." rlo o:o'el'si:;;inioio Vittag"e' R R District 8. D Muralidhar Reddy, S/o Late D Narsimha Rg.pay nge! 9po.y! jO Yrs' Occ: " Xrii;;|ilru Rrb.irtGe tto.t-23' shamshabad Villase' R R District 9. Choudary Reddy, S/o V.Lakshmi Narasimha Reddy Aged about 74 Yrs' Occ' - AgriJuttuie R/o.[il-ehdipatnam, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriatd writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the orders made by the 3rd RespondentincaseNo.Dlt2lo3l20l4,datedoT.o4.2016asillegal,arbitrary, malafide and unconstitutional and set aside the same' LA. NO: 2 OF 2016(WPMP. NO:,22419 O F 2016) 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 suspend the orders made by the 3rd Respondent in case No D1l2O13l2014' dt' 07.04.2016, pending disposal of the writ petition' l.A. NO: 't OF 2016(WVMP. NO: 3947 OF 2016) Between: SRB Housing Developers Private Limited, A company incorporated . under the comoanies Act, 1956, nauing'ii. i"Eitered office at 6-s-5zo' Flat No 501 Diamond ;i#iii" ffi;ili'R;;i;;;"'c"*p"t"o, Beside Eenadu Buildinss' somajiguda' Director Sri S Ramesh Babu S/o late ilu-ao"UrO, n"presented UV it. Lli,i"rir[, ib;JSoout +8 Yedrs, occ: Busin-ess, R/o Hvderabad -nl*iging ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No'6 4 AND I + 1 ,! i r i 1 9 1 Jr/lr. Damodar chincholikar s/o. Late Raghavender Rao, Aged about 80 Years, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/o. Flat No 20.2' Balaji Dayamma Apartments' J-b- 504/4, Street Nb.7; Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

2. The state of Telangana Rep. by its Principal secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District 4. Joint Collector-ll, Ranga Reddy. 5. The Revenue Divisional officer, chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. 6. The Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' T.MahenderReddvS/o.RamakrishnaReddy,Agedabout4SYears'Occ: ' Agiitritrr" nil Hbuie rlo.6-69, Shamshabad Village, Ranga Reddy District' g. D.Muralidhar Reddy S/o. Late D. Narsimha Reddy...Agedtbout 46 Years, Occ:Agriculture,R/-o.HouseNo.1-T3,ShamshabadVillage'RRLlrstrrct L Choudarv Reddv, S/o V.Lakshmi Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 74 years, Occ: Agriculture'R/o.Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the interim order dated 10.06.2016 in w.P.M.P.No.22419 0f 2016 in W.P No.18251 ol 2016 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No-6: SRI M. V. DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.7 to 9: SRI B. SHASHIDHAR WRIT PETITIO N NO: 18279 OF 2016 Between:

1. V.Vivekanand Desai S/o. Late V.H. Desai, Aged about 50 Yrs, Occ: Pvt a;;;;, R7;. rtat tto. 502, Nirmal Ashray, Gupla Gardens, Madhura Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad

2.Mr.V.SubhashChanderDesaiS/o.LateMr.VH.Desai,Agedabout4'1..Yrs, Occ: Pvt Service, R/o. Flat No. 502, Nirmal Ashray, Gupta Gardens, Madnura Nagar, RamanthaPur, HYderabad t i I + + t t + t + t a ? .t 1 t0 J lvlr. Damodar chincholikar, s/o. Late Raghavender Rao Aoed about B0 Yrs' -o"vamma"Apartments' 3-6- occ: Retd. Emplovee, nlo "rLtTL" io"z' dur'ii ;d;/A,'si;""t N5 7l uimavat'nasar' Hvderabad ...PETITIONERS AND '1 The State of Telangana, Rep' by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat HYderabad'

2. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District 3. Joint Collector-ll, Ranga Reddy' 4. The Revenue Divisional officer, Chevella Division' Ranga Reddy District' 5. The Tahsildar' Shamshabad Mandal Ranga Reddy District' 6. D.Muralidhar Reddy, Sio Late D Narsimha. Reddv Aqed about 46 Yrs Occ Agriculture R/o nouseft"o i-?'i' Shfithibad Villag'e' R R District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 bf the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropri'te writ, order or direction more particularly one in thenatureofWritofMandamusdeclaringtheordersmadebythe3.d RespondentincaseNo.Dlt2lOlt20l4'datedOT04'2016asillegal'arbitrary' malafide and u ncon stitution a I and set aside the same' l.A. NO:1 oF 2016(WPMP .NO:224 540 F 2016) 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 suspend the orders made by the 3'd Respondent in case No D11210112014' daled 07.04.2016, pending disposal of the Writ petition' IANO: 1 OF 2019 Between: D.Muralidhar Reddy S/o. Late D Narsimha. F.eddy'-4ge! abo.ut 46 Years' Occ: Xsjli"rliiriij nr". n"r'." ruo r -7i, srramsnaoad Village' R. R District ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No'6 AND

1. Mr. VVivekanand De

2. Mr.V.Subhash Chander " .!,irr$ffiinh *#,Xx{."#aofi;*,?oi!t,i,: [",T,", BiiJslltff ##81ft:,.,"h:#f lk[x[]f:t",,.,,f ,fl ."?x,,Hi:[",T,: 'H:flqis+3f,xfi |Hrral":"6,,a;p[1Hrz,$1:4%:if""",Itf x ... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

4. The Government nu,"n*6"il j",i,i:""J,I"FT,??s.*?8ffi :lb"$,rrxrl:"rr::i""f,x_r..ffi z

5. The District Collecl 6 The Joint corectorl'ff X# ' Jl3,#b',lli?"",'fl:;;:i"3T,b",!i?i# .peciar Grade Deputy corector, B. The Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal Ranga Reddy District. District' at Lakdi-ka-pool, Hvderabad. ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate the interim orders of status-quo dated 10.06.2016 in w.p.M .p.No.22454 of 2016 in W.p.No.18279 of 2016. IA NO: 't oF 2024 Between: iiljl.nt-'rliroS;f{l ?*t1lP:rys Rao, Aged about 3l years o Nagar' Near Rnorrra'-da"nt] Liolconda, Hyderabad uoo foJH"' cc: Business R/o Langar House, ...PETITIONER/PROPOSED RESpONDENT No.7 AND 1 2 ffi i#_.,mfu .tiit#y',y#,?$?:f ffii.:,s,,i js,f ?J:bpf:; H::idlniti!ilH,ilftiii,1;}!;K,H??.rt,.f,,;.;g ,:,r1"r.Ht; I t. I * t ! * t n :'* , I }.-t?:' J 4 t2 : H,h'f t.i?:flt[i:;},ft$h.";ft }ilt'#i,q:Bff :#5i'*'i'Hlr'1v-"3r3: ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS its PrinciPal Secretary' Revenue derabad Hy ;[?,::,'""ii $:i: 3: ;l5l3l]313i,' ol"&

5. The District Collector' Ranga Reddy District' at Lakdi-ka-Pool, HYderabad 6. The Joint Collector-ll' Ranga Reddy' 7. The Revenue Divisional Officer ^- ' cr.r!r"ri, bi'ision Ranga Reddy Distrtct' B. The Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal Ranga Reddy District' Telangana' 'R#:;ft 1?:fl ;"-'ss1,"""-y.?,il31:1il:3#"$ff c-um - Special Grade Deputy Collector' x,#ax;ff tl"x%v"6'1";'e'""' ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 15i CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to implead the petitioner as the respondent No'7 in the main writ petition in W P No' 18279 of 20'16 in the interest of justice' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M' SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents No'1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No'6: SRI B' SHASHIDHAR Counsel for the Proposed Respondent: SRI SVS CHOWDARY The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER , * I * t * + ? E I I I i SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 20 14 and batch THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH 1VRIT PETITION Nos.22448 of 2OL4 32345 of 2OL4 18250 of2016 18251 of2016 and La279 of 2016 COMMON ORDE R: As all these writ petitions arise out of'the same schcdule property and interl ked with each other, they are being disposed ofby this com n order

2. W.P.Nos.22448 ana 3234 f 2Ol4 are hled seeking to declare the Government Memo bearing No.l7SSO/Assn.V(1)/2014-1 dated tg.OS.2Ot4 issued by the respondent No.1 and the conscquential mutation proceedings issued by the respondcnt No.4 vide Proc.No.B/ 1603/2013 dated 16.07 .2014 in pursuance of the directions issued by the respondent No.2_District Collector vide Lr.No.Et /ST 10 /2OO7 dated 28.OS.2Ot4 pursuant to the instructions of the respondent No. i and consequential panchanama frile bearing 2 SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch No.G4l131912014 dated O5'08'2014 are illegal and arbitrary.

3. W.P.Nos.1825O, 18251 arld 18279 of 2076 are filed seeking to declare the common order passed by the Joint Collector-ll, Ranga Reddy District dated 07.O4.2016 in ROR revision in different case numbers as illegal and arbitrary'

4. The writ petitioner in W.P'No'32345 of 2O14 is the respondent No.10 in W.P'No'22448 of 2014 and respondent No.6 in W.P.Nos.18250 and 18251 of 2016' Thc respondent Nos.7 to 9 in W'P'Nos'22448 and 32445 of 2Ol4 are petitioners in W'P'Nos'18250, 18251 aod 18279 of 2016.

5. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader lor Revenue and learned counsel lor the unolficial respondents a J SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and bafch

6. The W.P'No '22448 of 2Ol4 Dollar County Plot Owners Welfare Association formed by the purchasers of the petitioner-Company hled bY M/s.SRB 1S 1n W.P.No.32345of2ol4challengingthesameimpugned proceedings. For the Purpose of narrating the facts' W.P.No.323 45 of 2Ol4 is taken as a lead case in {irst batch of cases' Contentio ns of the petitioner In W.P. No.3 2345 of 20L4. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a company i'ncorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and it acquired different extents ollandsfromdifferentpersons,whohadpurchased those lands lrom the freedom fighters namely Sri V.H.Desai, Sri Raghavendra Rao ald Ba'lakistaiah' who granted the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 1O.OO each in Sy.No.1O8 of TonduPallY Village' Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy by the then Tahsildar:, Shamshabad vide separate proceedings' The we re .F='--.?n !1-- I .t SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 20 14 and batch petitioner-Company has developed the entire extent of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.25.00 gts after obtaining mutation order lrom the respondent No.4- Tahsildar and permission from the Grampanchayat, Tondupally and after development, sold the same to third party purchasers under registered sale deeds. While it being so, the respondent No.4, without conducting any enquiry, has passed resumption order under Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (For short 'the POT Act, 1977') vide proceedings No.B/651 /2OO5 dated 15.O4.2006 stating that the lands are assigned lands and the sa,le deeds in favour of the petitioner are not valid, but he did not take any steps in the entire extent of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.30.OO in Sy.Nos. 108/AA, 1OB/tr and 108/Etr , but resumed only the Iand admeasuring to an extent of Ac.25.00 gts, which was developed as plots by the petitioner- Company. 5 SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch B. Learned Counsei for the petitioner-Company further submits that cha,llenging the said resumption orders, the petitioner-Company filed appeal before the respondent No.3-Revenue Divisiona,l Officer and the same was dismissed by order dated 20.06.2002 in Appeal No.D/ lI79 l2006, against which, the petitioner_ Company hied appeal qnder Section 4-A(21 of the pOT Act, 1977 before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District as Case No.E1/571O l2OO7" In the mearrtime, the unofhcial respondent Nos.7 to 9 a-lso hled appeal before the said Joint Collector in Case No.E1/6809 l2OO8 and also filed impiead petition in the appeal filed by the petitioner arrd the said implead petition was dismissed by the Joint Collector by order dated 02.12.2OO8, against which the unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 9 hled W.p.No.30O2 of 2OO9 and the sairre was allowed by this Court vide order 6 SK,J W.P. No.22448 ol 20 14 and batch dated 18.02.2OO9. Thereafter, the unofhcial respondent Nos.7 to 9 were impleaded as respondents in the appeal hled by the petitioner g. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Company further submits that the Joint Collector has allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner under POT Act and set aside the resumption orders and at the same time dismissed the appeal filed by thc unol{rcial respondent Nos.7 to 9 as not maintainable in common order in Case Nos.Ell571O12OO7 and Dll6809|2OOB dated

23.lO.2OOg. Questioning the said order, the unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 9 hled W.P'Nos'27424 ard 28634 ol 2OO9 and the sarne were disposed of by common order dated 3O.O7.2012 observing that the appeal in Case No.trl l6SOgl2OOB [1ed by the writ petitioners therein i.e, respondent Nos.7 to t herein, before the 1 SK,J W. P-No.22448 of2014 and batch Joint Collector-ll shall stand a-llowed as in the case of the appeal hled by the petitioner herein. iO. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-Company further submits that the unofficial respondent Nos.7 to t have hled ROR appea,ls against the mutation proceedings for the suit schedule land and obtained orders from the respondent No.3 on 17.ll.2OO8 behind the back of the petitioner and all the plot owners who are in actual possession, on the alleged ground that the sa,le deeds are not valid, while the matter is still pending before the Joint Collector in appeal under the POT Act, 1977. 1 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Company further submits that after disposal of the writ petition Nos.27424 and 28634 of 2OO9 dated 30.07.2012, tt:,e unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 9 sought impiementation the orders dated 17 .ll.2OOB seeking 8 S I(,J W.P.No.22448 o[ 20 14 and batch mutation / correction of the entries in the village records in respect of the suit sched'ule land and basing on the letter,oftheDistrictCollector,RangaReddvDistrict,the .setting Governmentissuedthei.mpugnedMemostatingthat the proceedings dated 17 'll '2OOB issued bv the respondent No.3-special Grade Deputy Collector and aside the mutation Revenue Divisional Officer order dated 01.11'2OOO.issued by the respondent No'4 have attained, finality to incorporate the names of the legal heirs of the deceased freedom fighters/poiitical sufferers in the revenue records and further requested the respondent No'2-District Collector to direct the respondent No.4-Tahsildar to take necessary further action to mutate / correction of entries in the village In pursuance to the said order, the has issued Proceedings bearing 2A.O5.2014 directing the respondent No.2 reventle records. Lr.No.E1 157lO l2OO7 dated respondent No'4 to take necessary action. The 9 SK,J W P. No.22448 of 20 14 and batch respondent No.4, by his proceedings No.B/1603l2Ol3 dated 16.07.2074 ordered to record the names of the lega1 heirs of the deceased original assignees in the revenue records and to incorporate necessary changes in the revenue records in lavour of the legal heirs of the original assignees in respect of suit schedule property and also prepared paper panchanama on 05.08.2014

12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Compary further submits that all the proceedings were issued behind the back of the petitioner-Company and its purchasers and therefore, the impugned proceedings are without any jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice

13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Company further submits that one of the respondents 1n W.P.Nos.18250, 18251 and 18279 of 2016 i.e, D Muraiidhar Reddy has filed revision in the year, 2OlO I t0 SK.J W.P.No.22448 of 20 l4 and batch Revision Petition No.tr1 l3392l2OIO dated 31.09.2010 against the orders passed in ROR Appeal dated 17.1 1.2008

14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Company further submits that the respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar and Passbooks Act, I97 I either to direct mutation or correction of entries in ROR and therefore, the impugned memo is without any jurisdiction and al1 the consequential and further proceedings of the respondent authorities are a-iso void. He lurther submits that the mutation orders in favour of the petitioner-Company are un-assailed and unaffected tiil date and they are in force till date and the respondent Nos.7 to 9 are not legal heirs of the original pattadars and they have no subsisting right or interest over the subject property SK,J !V.P.No.22448 of 20 14 and batch

15. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Company further submits that the respondent Nos.7 to 9 and others hled O.S.No.213 of 2Ol9 on the hle of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District for declaration to declare the various registered sale deeds and the rectification deeds as null and void and not binding upon them against one C.S.Rajender and others who are some of the plot owners in the layout and the same was decreed in terms of the compromise on 14.08.2019. As some of the plot owners, who derived their title from their vendors through the sa-le deeds which were sought to be declared as void, were not made as parties, they Iiled I.A.No.752 of 2Ol9 to set aside the said decree passed in O.S.No.213 of 2019 on the hle of the I Additional District Judge, Ralga Reddy District and the same was allowed by order dated

23.IO.2O24, thereby the decree passed in O.S.No.213 of t2 SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 20 14 and batch 2019 was set aside and the matter was reopened and the same is Pending

16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner lurther submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent No' 1 intreatingtheordersinRoRAppealinCase Nos.C/2733 l07 and Cl2734l2OO7 dated t7 'll'2OOa attained finality in spite of pendency of revision petition No.E1/3392 l2OlO hled by D' Mura-lidhar Reddv before theRevisionalAuthorityisarbitrary,illegaland requested to a1low the writ petitions by setting aside the impugned memo and the conseqrrential orders' Contentions oft he respondent Nos.7 to 9' 17. Learned counsei for the respondent Nos'7 to 9 basing on the counter submits that there is no dispute about assignment of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac. IO-OO each to the freedom fighters by the Government and handing over possession to them' He t3 SK,J W,P.No.22448 of 20 l4 and batch submits that the freedom hghters have not alienated the said lards to various persons. Chailenging the muta[ions vide File Nos.B/703/2OOO, B/7O4/2OOO and B /706 /2OOO dated O 1. 1 1.2OOO, the respondent Nos.7 to t have filed appeals before the respondent No.3 and the sarne were allowed vide proceedings in Case Nos.C/2733/07 and C/2734/07 dated t7.It.2OOB respectively and as the said proceedings have become linal, the revenue authorities are bound to implement the said orders. The petitioner-Compaly without proper verification has purchased the properties and the said sale transactions are not binding on the respondent Nos.7 to 9 as they are based on the forged sale deeds. In the meantime, the Government has resumed the land vide proceedings No.B/651/2005 dated

15.04.2006 and the said proceedings were challenged by the respondent Nos.7 to 9 by f,rling appeals before the revenue authorities stating that Act 9 ol l97T d.oes l4 SK,J W .P.No.2244a of 2014 and batch not apply to assignment granted to freedom fighters and the salne were dismissed by the Joint Collector-ll Ranga Reddy District. Challenging the said orders, the respondent Nos.7 to t have preferred W'P'Nos'27424 and 28634 of 2OO9 and the salne were a'llowed on 30.O7.2012 by setting aside the resumption order holding that the resumption of land allotted to the freedom hghters is illega1 under the provisions of the POT Act, 1977.

18. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos'7 to 9 further submits that based on the representations and further clarihcations, the Tahsi'1dar has issued proceedings No.B/ 1603/2013 dated 16'O7 '2014 by incorporating the names of the respondent Nos'7 to 9 in Form 1(B) of the Record of Rights Act and the necessary mutations have been carried out in the revenue records. The Government has only clarified about the l5 SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and barch implementation of orders of Revenue Divisiona_l Ofhcer in Case No.Cl2733l2OO7 and Cl2T34l2OO7 dated 17.11.2008 as they have become fina,l as per law.

19. Learned Counsei for the respondent Nos.7 to 9 lurther submits that impugned Memo dated L9.O5.2O14 is only the consequential order by way of clarificatign in implementation of the order dated L7.11.2OO8 and no fresh orders have been passed and it is oniy clarificatory proceedings. The petitioners have no right and the sale deeds have no validity in the eye of law and if the petitioners have any right, title and possession, they have to agitate the same before the appropriate civil Court, but not by way of these writ petitions. He further submits that as the names of the respondent Nos.7 to 9 have been incorporated and the impugned orders have been carried out in the revenue records, the petitioners are H l6 SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch not entitled lor any relief and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed Contentions of W.P.No.22448 of 2014. the respondent No.11 in

20. Learned Counsel lor the respondent No.l1 in W.P.No.2244B of 20 14 would submit that as per the hndings of the Joint Collector-ll in the order dated 07.04.20 16 that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella is not competent to decide the validity or otherwise of registered sa-le deeds, the order of the Revenue Divisional Ofhcer dated 17.11.2008 is void. He further submits that the Revenue Divisional Officer erred in finding that the aileged legal heirs of originai assignees have not received notices of the mutations ald the said plea is invalid and untenabie as the original assignee Sri V.H.Desai was very much alive by the time of mutations which were done in the year, 2000 in lavour of his vendees. He further submits that & l7 SK,J W.P.No.22448 oI 2014 and batch though the vendor himself has not disputed the mutations during his life time, his iegal heirs calnot question the mutations in the year, 2OOZ before the Revenue Divisional Offlcer in Case Nos.C/2733 /2OO7 and C12734/2OO7 and they also frled a suit in O.S.No.2l3 of 2Ol9 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District for cancelation of registered sale deeds and declaration of title.

21. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 11 further submits that contrary to the hndings of this Court in W.P.Nos.27424 of 2OO9 and 28634 of 2OOg dated 30.07.2072 and based on the presumption that this Court has a_llowed the writ petition hled by the legal heirs of the original assignees, the respondent No. 1- Government has issued the impugned memo and the consequential proceedings of mutation, but no right of mutation of the names of the respondent Nos.7 to 9 was t8 SK'J W-P.No.22448 of 2O 14 and batch ordered in the said writ petitions' He further submits that until their rights are decided by the Civil Court' the respondent Nos.7 to 9 cannot claim any right or title to the subject lancls including possession or mutations and requested to set aside the impugned proceedings' ntions of the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 18250, Conte 18251 and 1 8279 of 2OL6. 22. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of the alleged lorged sale deeds' one D. Muralidhar Reddy and others had obtained mutation proceed.ings frorn the Tahsildar dated O1'11'2000 and chatlenging the mutation proceeding Nos'B/703 I 2OOO' BlTO4l2OOO and B1706l2OO0, the petitioners herein have filed appeals vide No'C 12733 l2OO7 and No.C/273a12007 under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act' The said appeals were allowed vide proceedings dated l7.ll.2oo8 on the ground that Sri Raghavender Rao died on 1 1 .O 1 . I97B and, the execution itself is disputed t9 SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch and no procedure under ROR Act was followed and even no notice was issued. Challenging the said orders, one D. Muralidhar Reddy and the petitioner 1n W.P.No.32345 of 2014 have hled three revisions before the Joint Collector-ll, Ralga Reddy District and the same were disposed of by a common impugned order dated 07.04.2016 by setting aside the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Shamshabad Manda-l No.B/1603/2013 dated 16.O7.2074 with a direction to record 'disputed' in the revenue records. Challenging the said common order, the petitioners have hled W.P.Nos. i8250, 18251 and 18279 ol 2016 respectively.

23. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that as the subject land was maintained by the Municipal Authorities and taxes are collected for the existing structures in SRB Dollar County Coiony by the Corporation, the nature of current use of the subject 20 SK,J W.P-No.22448 of 20 14 and batch land is non-agriculturc and therefore' the provisions of ROR Act, lg|1 does not apply He submits that revisions hled by the petitioners and another are barred by iimitation as the impugned orders therein were passed in the year, 2OO8 and no application for condonation of delay has been filed' The 'Ioint Collector has not taken into consideration the fact that fabricated saie deeds were brought into existence in the year' 2OOO by said D' Muralidhar Reddy and others by producing a fake person in the place of the deceased Raghavender Rao' who died in the year' 1978 itself and in place of Sri V'H'Desai' who was bed ridden' and they are not binding on the petitioners' He further submits thattheJointColiectoroughttohaveSeenthe documents frled by the petitioners and failed to see that nonoticewasissuedtothembytheTahsildaratthe time of mutating the subject lands i.n lavour of the 2t SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch alleged purcha.sers and requested to allow the writ petitions by setting aside the impugned common order. Contentions of the resoondent No.6 in W.P.Nos.l825O and 18251 of2OL6.

24. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.6- Compaly submits that pending appeal under the POT Act, 1977, the petitioners and Sri Damodar Chincholkar have obtained cancellation of mutation orders in ROR Appeal from the respondent No.3 on

17.ll.2OO8 behind the back of the respondent No.6 and all the plot owners who are in actual physical possession and consequently, the Government issued impugned memo dated 19.05.2014 ar,d pursuant to the salne memo, the Collector has issued proceedings bearing Lr.No.El l57lOl2OO7, dated 28.05.2014 directing the Tahsildar to take necessary action and the respondent No.5 issued proceedings dated 16.O7.2074 _. - -' 22 SK.J W.P.No.22448 of 20 14 and batch to record the names ol the legal heirs of the deceased original assignees in the revenue records and to incorporate necessary changes in the revenue records and challenging the Government Memo dated

19.O5.2O14, the respondent No.6 filed W.P.No.32345 of

2014. Chalienging the proceedings dated 16.07.2014, one D. Muralidhar Reddy filed ROR Revision and the respondent No.6 has hled two revision petitions against the orders in ROR Appeai dated 17.11.2008 and the sanre were disposed of by the Joint Collector-ll, Ranga Reddy, in the common impugned order dated 07.04.2016

25. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 lurther submits that the respondent No.3 has rightly gave finding that the legality or otherwise of the sa-le deeds are beyond the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities in ROR proceedings, but ought not to have directed the _) SK,J W .P.No.22448 of 20 14 and batch respondent No.4 to record the lands as disputed, and requested to dismiss the writ petition Contentions of the res ondent No.6 in W.P.No.1 8279 of

26. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 submits that the impugned Memo dated 19.05.2014 was issued only to have personal gains of the principal Secretary to the then Government taking advantage of the State bifurcation as the impugned instructions were issued just about a week before formation of new States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. He submits that pursuant to the impugned Memo, the respondent No.2- District Collector has issued directions to the respondent No.5-Tahsildar to forthwith mutate the nalnes of the petitioners, but no notice was issued to either the successors in-title or the members of the Association who are factually in possession of the plots raE$r&,. 24 S I(.J W-P.No.22448 of 20 14 and batch The respondent No'5 has issued mutation orders vide proceedings No.B/ t6O3l2013 dated 16'O7 '2014 1n lavotlr of the petitioners without any notice to the lactual possessors having known that the land in Sy.No.1OB of Thondupally was already developed into plots under SRB Dollars County and is physical possession of the members of the Association and requested to dismiss the writ petitions' Consideration and findin 27 After hearing both sides and perusal of the record' this Court ts of the considered view that there are parailel proceedings under POT Act and ROR Act w'ith rega-rd to the suit schedule property between the contesting Parties There is no disPute with regard to assignment of Government land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1O.OO gts each to the freedom hghters namely Sri V.H.Desai, Sri Raghavendra Rao and Sri Baiakistaiah in the year, 1980' Thereafter, the third 25 SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and barch parties have purchased the land through some registered documents and the revenue authorities have mutated the records in favour of purchasers in File Nos.B/70312000, BlTO4l2ooo and B/706/2OOO dated 01. 1 1.2OOO. Subsequently, the petitioner- Company has purchased the property. Whiie it being so, the respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal, has passed the resumption order under Section 4 of the A.P.Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 7977 in Proceedings No.B/651 /2005 dated L5.O4.2OOO for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.25.OO gts, which is in possession of the petitioner-Company 1n W.P.No.32345 of 2014. Aggrieved by the said resumption orders, the petitoner company has hled appeal before the Revenue Divisional Oflicer, Chevella Division in Appeal No.D/1179 106 and the sarne was dismissed on20.06.2007. Against the said orders, the petitioner-Company has flled appeal under 26 SK'J W.P.No.22448 of 20 14 and batch Section 4-A(2) ol the POT Act, 1977 before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District Case No.E1/57tol2oo7

28. At that point of time, the respondent Nos.7 to 9 in W.P.No.32345 of 2Ol4 stated to be the legal heirs of freedom hghters have filed appeals against the resumption orders dated 15.O4.2006 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella and the salne was dismissed in File No.Dl27a3l2OO7 dated 17.ll.2OO7. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent Nos.7 to t have irled appeal before the Joint Collector-ll, Ranga Reddy District in Case No'E1/6809 I2OOB and also filed implead petition in the appea-l hled by the petitioner compaly in Case No.tr1/5710 l2OO7 and the said implead petition was dismissed on O2.12'2OOB and against the said order, they have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.3OO2 of 2OO9 and the sarne was 21 SK,J W.P.No.224.+a of 20 l4 and batch allowed on 18.02.2009. In view of the saine, the respondent Nos.7 to 9 were impleaded as the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in the appeal filed by the petitoner company- Thereafter, the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District has clubbed the two appeals filed by the petitioner-Company as well as the respondent Nos.7 to 9 and passed a common order by allowing the appeal hled by the petitioner-Company and dismissing the appeal filed by the respondent Nos.7 to 9. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the respondent Nos.7 to t have hled W.p.Nos.2T424 and, 28634 of 2OO9 and the same were disposecl by common order dated 30.O7.2012 and the operative portion of the said order is as follows; " i 0. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of with the observation that the appeal Iiled by the writ petitioners before the Joint Collector_ll, Ranga Recldy District-2nd respondent shall stand allowed as in 28 SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch the case of the appeal ltled by M/s. S.R.B.Housing Developers Private Limited-Sth respondent. No costs".

29. While pendency of appeals against the resumption proceedings under the POT Act, the respondent Nos.7 to t have Iiled ROR appeal against the vendors of the petitioner company and others before the Revenue Divisional Oflicer, Chevella against the mutation proceedings granted in favour of vendors of the petitioner-company and others Case No.Cl2733l2OO7 and C12734 l2OO7. Thereafter, the said appeals were allowed on 17.11.2008.

30. After disposal of W.P.Nos'27424 and 28634 of 2009, dated 3O.O7.2O|2, basing on the ietter of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy, the respondent No.1- Government in W.P.No.32345 of 2Ol4 has issued the impugned Memo No.17550/Assn.V(1)/2014-1 dated 19.05.2OI4, stating that the appeal hled by the 29 SK,J W.P.No.22+48 of 20t4 and batch unofficial respondents in File No.E1/6809/2O0g was allowed and the orders dated 15.04.2006 in File No.B/ 651 l2006 for resumption of the iand in question is not in existence and it was declared that the land is not covered under the provisions of Act 9 of L977. The proceedings dated 17.i1.2009 passed by the Special Grade Deput5r coliector and Revenue Divisionar officer, Chevella setting aside the mutation orders dated Ol.1l.2O0O issued'by the Mandai Revenue Officer, Shamshabad have attained hnaiity to incorporate the names of legal representatives of the deceased freedom fighters /poiitical sufferers in the revenue records and directed the District Collector to instruct the Tahsildar, Shamshabad to take necessary further action to mutate/correction of entries in village revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property in lavour of the respondent Nos.7 to 9 and the said Memo (} 30 SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 20 i4 and batch dated 19.05.2074 and consequ'ential proceedings impugned in W.P.Nos 22448 and 32345 of 2Ol4'

31. .The contesting parties are not disputing with regard to the revision petition hled one D' Muralidhar Reddy, who is the respondent No'8 in W'P'No'18251 ol 2016 and the respondent No'6 in W'P'No'18279 of 2016, against the orders passed in ROR appeal in Case No.Cl2733 l2OO7 d.ated' lT ll'2OOB before the Joint Collector, Ralga Reddy District' At the time of arguments, this Court asked the learned counsei for both sides about what is the stage of the revision petition filed by said' D' Muraiidhar Reddy in File No.E1 13392 12010. They have stated that said revision petition is pending and the counsel for the petitioner- Company has produced the entire hle of the Revisional Authority obtained through Right to Information Act' 2005, before this Court' The note fi1e of the said J SK,J W.P.No.2244a of 20 l4 and barch Revision Petition shows the endorsement of the then District Collector to issue notice under pOT Act for enquiry and disposal and call for the records of the lower Court on 28.06.2010 in spite of the revision hled under Section 9 of Andhra pradesh Rights in land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 197 I and thereafter, the case was not taken up for hearing arrd the same is pending. Rut, [he Government has issued the impugned Memo basing on the letter addressed by the District Collector stating that the order dated 17.ll.2}Og in ROR appeal has attained hnality. At the time of passing of impugned Mcmo or as on this rlate, the orders are not yet attained linalily as the revision petition filed by D. Muralidhar Reddy is still pending in File No.E1l3392 /2OlO. In vieu, of the same, the disposal of W.p. Nos.27424 and, 28634 of 2OO9 on 3O.O7.2O12 is not the basis .for mutating the records in favour of the legal heirs of the freedom hghters as there is no finality of orders in ROR SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch Appeal dated 17.11.2008 as on the date of passing of the impugned lvlemo dated 19.05.2014

32. The impugned Memo issued by the respondent No.1 is without verifying the records and without issuing notice to the elfected parties' In view of the same, the impugned memo dated 19'05'2014 issued by the respondent No.1 and the consequential proceedings issued by the District Collector in Letter No'E/57 10/ 20O7 dated 28.05-2014 and the proceedings bearing No.B/ 1603/20l3 dated 16.O7 .2014 issued by the Tahsildar, Shamshabad and No'G4/ l3l9 /2014 pancharrama in dated 05.08.2014 arc liabie to be set aside' consequential Fiie

33. The other writ petitioners in W'P'Nos' 18250, 18251 and 18279 ol 2016 have chailenged the common orders passed by the Joint Collector-ll, Ranga Reddy District in ROR revision in Case No'D1/2lol/2074, JJ SK.J W .P.No.2244a of 20 14 and batch D\ 1210312014 and Dt /2105 12014 dated 07.O4.2016. One D. Muralidhar Reddy has llled a revision against the orders passed in File No.B/ 1603/20 13 dated 16.O7.2014 and the petitioner-company in W.P.No.32345 of 2014 has filed revision petitions challenging the orders in ROR appeal in Case N o.C / 27 33 / 2OO7 and C / 27 34 / 2OO7 dated tZ . I L.2OOa "

34. In view of the checkered history of the case, the Joint Collector II, Ralga Reddy District has set aside the orders of the Tahsildar in proceedings No.B/ l603/2013 dated 16.0T .2Ot4, but directed to record 'disputed' in revenue records and further directed the Tahsildar, Shamshabad'Manda_l shall await the orders of this Court in W.p.No.2244B of 2Ol4 and. pass suitable order only after the title of any one party is established beyond doubt as per law. The Joint Collector in the revision petition has rightly held that l4 SK,J W.P.No.22418 of 2014 and batch the Revenue Divisional Ollicer has no power to decide the validity of the registered salc deeds in ROR appeal.

35. Now this Court is disposing of W.p.Nos.2244g and 32345 of 2Ol4 by setting aside the Government Memo dated i9.05.2014 aod the consequential proceedings. In view of the same, the contention of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that after implementation of the ROR proceedings, the respondent No.6 in W.p.No. l\27g of 2Ol4 i.e, D. Muralidhar Reddy and the petitoner company in W.P.No.32345 of 2014 have llled revisions before the Joint Collector is not acceptable as the said D. Muralidhar Reddy has hled revision petition against the order in ROR appea.l dated l7.l1.2oog in Case No.E113392 l2O1O. The writ peritioners in W.p. Nos.18250, 18251 and 18279 ot 2016 are not denying the revision hled by D. Muralidhar Reddy in Case No.E 1/3392 /2O7O and the same is pending. 35 SK,J W-P.No.22448 of 2O 14 and batch

36. At the time of disposal of the subject ROR revision petitions, the Joint Collector has not clubbed the rev1sl0n petition filed by D.Muralidhar Reddy in the year, 2O1O lor the same schedule properties and the same is stiil pending before the Revisional Authority.

37. The writ petitioners in W.P.No.18250 of 2016 and batch have contcnded that the respondents without iiling any delay petition hled revision petition after lapse of more than 6 years, after implementation of the orders tn appeal and the order passed by the revisional authority on 07.O4.2O 16 are not maintainable. In fact, as per Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 197 l, there is no limitation to hle revision petition. Moreover, questioning the orders in ROR appeal dated 17.11.2008, D. Muralidhar Reddy has filed appeal in the year, 2010, but the same is not taken up by the revisional authority and the same is 36 SK,J rV.P.No.22448 of 201,+ and batch pending till date. In view of the same, the contention of delay cannot be taken into account as there is no time limit for hling the revision under Section 9 of the ROR Act and within a reasonable periocl, the revision was filed against the order dated 17 .1l.2OOa. The Gov*nment basing on the letter of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District dated Og.05.2014 issued impugned Memo bearing No. 1755o/Assn.V(l)/ 2014-1 dated 19.05.2014 declaring that the orders passed by the Revenue Divisiona.l Ofhcer in ROR Appeal dated 17.11.2008 has attained finality and the said hnding is contrary to the record as there is a revision pending before the competent authority against the order dated 17 .7 7.2OO8.

38. After filing of the writ petitions, the writ petitioners in W.P.No.1B25O, 18251 and 18279 of 2Ot6 have hled O.S.No.213 of 2Ol9 on the file ol the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District lor declaration to SK,J W.P.No.22448 of 2014 and batch declare the various registered sale deeds pertaining to the suit schedule property and the rectihcation deeds as null and void. Once the petitioners have filed the suit for declaration of title and cancellation of registered documents and not binding on them. the competent Civil Court has to decide the rights of the parties and till disposal of the said civil suit by deciding the rights of the parties, the Revenue Authorities cannot set aside the earlier mutatiorl proceedings issued in the year,

2000. In view of the same, the contesting parties in all these writ petitions have to agitate their rights before the Civil Court in pending civil suits. After adjudicating their rights by the Civil Court, they have to approach the revenue authorities for mutation of revenue records if their grievance is still subsists 38 S K,J W.P.No.22.148 ot 20 1.1 ancl batclr

39. Learned Counsel for the both sides have relied on numbers of Judgments. However, those Judgments are not apply to the facts of the instant cases.

40. In view of the above hndings, W.p.Nos.22448 and 32345 of 2Ol4 are allowed, by setting aside the Government Memo bearing No.l755O/Assn.V( 1)/ 2Ol4-1 dated 19.05.2014 issued by the respondent No.1-Government and consequential proceedings including letter bearing Lr.No.E1 /57 10/2OO7 dated 2A.O5.2074 of the respondent No.2 and proceedings No.B/ 1063/20 t3 dated 16.07.2014 of the respondent No.4 and the panchanama bearing File No. G4 / L3lg / 20 L4 dated O5.08.2014 conducted by the Mandal Surveyor, bearing Shamshabad J\4andal.

47. W.P.Nos.l8250, 18251 and. t8279 of 2Ot6 are dismissed by granting liberty to both the parties to / 39 !V.t,.No.22448 .f 20l4 ""d b?[i approach the revenue authorities after disposal of the suit in O.S.No.213 of 2OI9 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District filed by the writ petitioners for mutation of revenue records, if cause survtves. No order as to costs.

42. I\4iscellaneous appiications, if any pending these writ petitions, shali stand closed. 1n SD/-P. CH. NAGABH DEPU USHAMBA EGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI FFICER n' nt or re I a n s a n a' " Si:lE, BX",t"?:81,y,,,5ilS : HirS:jr1tT "dIo 3tJ"' 1 r he 2. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District' at Lakdi-ka-pool' Hyderabad' 3. The Revenue Divisional Off!ce1. 9y1 Special Grade Deputy Collector' " Cn6ueff, Oivision, Ranga Reddy District' 4. The Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal' Shamshabad' Ranga Reddy District' 5. The Mandal Surveyor, Office ,of . - Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy Lttstrtct 6. The lnspector of Police, Shamshabad' Ranga Reddy District 7. rhe Speciat Grade Deputy colec,o.r. rnors?li:H:"9'At:3li'r3{1ff' ' chEueffl oivision, at Attafur'-Ra.iendra Nagar I B. The Mandal Surveyor, Shamshabad Mandal' Ranga Reddy District' 9. The Station House Officer, Shamshabad' Ranga Reddy District' 10.One CC to SRI B VIJAY SIMHA REDDY' Advocate IOPUCI 1 1. One CC to SRI SRINIVAS VELAGAPUDI' Advocate IOPUCI the Tahsildar of Shamshabad Mandal' To, 2 ,t 12 Iwo CCs to GP for Revenue' High Hyderabad [OUT]

13.Two CCs to GP for Home' High Hyderabad [OUT] Court for the State of Telangana at Court for the State of Telangana at 14 One CC to SRI M SRINIVAS' Advocate IOPUC] 15 One CC to SRI SVS CHOWDARY' Advocate [OPUC] 16.One CC to SRI M.V DURGA PRASAD' Advocate IOPUCI 17 One CC to SRI B SHASHIDHAR' Advocate IOPUC] '1B.Two CD CoPies MP BS (k I .F \ I i t i t \ i ) ,l 14 HIGH COURT DATED:1 310612025 os lHE sIAr€ ) o r-) 05 AIJEM tP 2 COMMON ORDER \' W.P. Nos.22448 of 2014,32345 of 2014, 18250 of 2016,18251 of 2016 and 18279 ot 2016 ALLOWING THE W.P. Nos.22448 of 2014,32345 of 2014 & DISMISSING THE W.P. Nos. 18250,18251and 18279 of 2016 WITHOUT COSTS t I \u 1 B D