High Court · 2025

zl @ Smt. P. Sabitha, Wo Late Sri. P. Sreenivasulu, Aged about 49 years, R/o. H No.20-39/A, Goutham Nagar, Malakajgiri, Hyderabad' LL @ P, Vikram Kumar' S/o. Late Sri. P. Sreenivasulu, Aged about 28 years, R/o. H.No.20-39/A, Goutham Nagar, Malakajgiri, Hyderabad' L9 (0 2-ti P- Shirisha, D/b. Late Sri. P Sreenivasulu, Aged about 26 years, R/o. H.No.20-39/A, Goutham Nagar, Matakajgiri, Hyderabad P, Prathisha, Dio. Late Sri. P Sreenivasulu, Aged about 24 years, R/o. H.No 20-39/A, Goutham Nagal Malakajgiri, Hyderabad' Lt 2q Petitioner Nos.H to :t7 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased p".i,i"n". No.2 as per C.O.dt' 13'02'2024 in IA No' 1/2013 (WP MP No' 28351 of 2013). 25 @ P. Ramu, S/o. P. I{rishna - Aged about 35 years, R/o' 3-4-5L1ll5l2, Vikram Nagar' Niravanguda, H imayathr.ragar, Hyderabad' 2t @ P. Ashok, s/o. Krishna - - Aged about,3l years, tuo 3-4'5l5ll5l2' Vlkram Nagar' Nlrayanguda, Himayathna gar, Hyderabad' >5 -Lb Petitioner Nos.B and ffi are brought on record as LRs of the decease< e",i,io.t". No.13 as per C.O'dt' 13'02'2024 in IANo' 1.l20l9' L,s\u- { R 50 a-6;F+ And 1 The State of l\rchra Pradesh ' j""" i"-,t1" sr,.-(dary , Revenue Department' , *:tir ru ; * il',':, I'f.'Ji:"'^'" ' oirltri."t rtiaE,ti.te' Hyderabad Drstrict 3.The Revenue I) ivisional Officer HYderabad Dist'ict HYderabad 4 The Mandal Revenue Otficer Asif Nagar N4ar dal GudimalkaPur, H5lderabao 6 P Venkaiah S/o Lachanna eY:','.: J i :l: I 8"nl 3,10",11,, n, 0,, HYderabad -,,,, 4 %t'*';i;1,?:l 8jJlfl Hyderabac "

7.P. Sathaiah (Died) 8.P. NagamiriW/o late P aqed 54 Y?ars, Occ: unoDr Rio H.No.1::-2-5t 3' Gudimalkapur Hyderabad 9.P. Narsin,S Rao Sio la-te Peda Kamaiah ,sathaiah ' j i 3 ; i'"J'Lloij''nu"'*"'u' un eY:"',i il'"ltri'i?,ii r- iaLtagaooa Hvderabad '1O. P. Shanl(a r S/o late Peda,Kamaiah :313-i.,?irB?oi,,,n,",*",", XYSi'.i,1 G;,1 i;j, .,Y 1a'tasaooa HYderabad "n 1 1 .P. Venl<aiah (Died) 1? P Kafita.€ mma Wo Venkalah '- aqed €6 Years, Occ: Dhobi ., ""Y'lr"N ,' iz-z-sr o, Gudimalkapur' Hvderabad 1't P Rair S/o late Venkaiah " a',*ii],,;:ffi ffi;,:li}-"l: p, 51 0 Gudiniall.aPur, HYderabad \ --.-f-

14.P. Balaiah S/o late Venkaiah aged 35 years, Occ: Dhobi R/o H.No. 1 2-2-51 0, GudimalkaPur Hyderabad

15.P. China Narsinga Rao S/o late P. Balaiah aged 42 years, Occ: Dhobt R/o H.No. 1 2-2-51 5, Gudimalkapur Hyderabad

16. P. Bhumaiah (Died)

17.P. Yashoda Wo late P Bhumaiah aged 60 years Occ: Dhobi FYo H.No. 1 2-2-51 2, Gudimalkapur Hyderabad

18.P. Suresh S/o late P. Bhumaiah aged 40 years Occl Dhobi R/o H.No.12-2-512, GudimalkaPur Hyderabad

19.P. Venkatesh S/o late P. Bhumaiah aged 32 years Occ: Dhobi R/o H No.'1 2-2-512, GudimalkaPur Hyderabad

20.P. Mallesh S/o late P Bhumaiah aged 3O-years Occ: Dhobi R/o H.No. 1 2-2-5 1 2. GudimalkaPur Hyderabad

21.P. Ravi S/o late P. Bhumaiah aged 28 Years Occ: Dhobi R/o H.No. 1 2-2-51 2, GudimalkaPur Hyderabad

22.P. Kamesh S/o late P Bhumaiah aged 26 years Occ: Dhobi Rto H No.12-2-512, GudimalkaPur Hyderabad

23.P. Ettalah S/o China Kannaiah aged 58 years, Occ: Dhobi R/o H. No.12-2-514, GudimalkaPur Hyderabad

24.P. Shankaraiah S/o Veeranna aged 70 years, Occ: Dhobi R/o H.No.12-2-522, Markandeya Nagar Tallagadda, HYderabad

25.C. Maisaiah (Died) t t $l fP,.' ,c I r i I I i I l 1 I t. a, " , 4 ,-d b'

26.C. Janglaial- St/o late Maisarah aged 53 years, Occ Dhobi and Employee R/o H. No.12-2-516 Gudimalkapur, l{yderabad

27.C. Babu S/o late Maisaiah aged 50 yea.s Occ; Dhobi Rr/o H. No.'i 2-2-{i16 Gudimalkapu. l-lyderabad

28.C. Shankar Si/o late lvlaisaiah aged 45 years 'lcc: Dhobi R/o H.No 12..2.!t16 Gudimalkapu- Fyderabad

29.C. Gopal S/o late Maisaiah aged 40 years ()cc: Dhobi RYo H. No.12-2 516 Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad

30. P. Balaiah (Died) 31 . P. Balaiah S/D ate p Balaiah aged 75 years, Occ: Dhobi Gudimalkapur l-lyderabad

32.P Kishan S/c lirle P. Balaiah aged 48 years, occ: Dhobt R/o H. No. 1 2-i2-51611 7/A Gudimalkapu', Fryderabad

33.P. Durgamma W/o late p.Gandaiah aged 75 years, Occ: Dhobi R7o H. No 1z-r!-,t15, Gudimaikapur Hyderabad

34.P. Venkatesh S/o o late p.Gandaiah aged 40 years, Ccc: Dhobi R/o H.No.12-2i-5' 5, cudimalkapur Hyderabad

35. Ellamma W/o late Janglaiah RIo 12-2-51 I, Gudimalkapur Hyderabad

36.P. Ramesh S/o Ramaiah R/o H.No 12-2-ta1t Gudrmatkapur Hyderabad

37.P. Ramesh S/o late P. Balaiah R/o H. No. '12-2-5C6l17, Asif Nagar H yderaba d l,l!-:. FiT i i

38.P. Rajaiah S/o late p. Balaiah RVo H. No. 12-Zt106tj7 , Asif Nagar Hyderabad Respondents I I Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High -court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to and connected with order in case No.8212440t2003 dated 20-04-2004 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and issue a consequential directions to the 3rd respondent to consider issuing occupancy certificate in favour of the pefitioners on the basis of the entries in the revenue records and other material and long possession .A. NO: 1 MP. NO: 11 364 0F 2004 Fetitiqn under section 151 epc praying that in the circurqstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court ma! be plgased to suspen( the order in CQge No.82t2440t2003 dated 20-04_2004 passed by the 2nd respondenf Counsel fo( the petitioner; SRt. D. V, STTARAMAMURTHY Counsql fol the Rgspondent Nos. 1to4: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respon{ents: SRI A. PULLA REDDY AND SRIC, BALAGOPAL The Coqrt Dade thg folloyuing; ORDER 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA WRIT PETITION No.8789 OF 2OO4 ORDER: Thrs \li rit Petition is filed challenging the legai; ty and validity of or,ler dated 2O.O4.2O04 passed by the resprndent No.2 .Ic,int Collector-cum-Additional District M.rg.strate, Hyderabad, setting aside the Occupancy Right Certihcate grantecl b1' respondent No.3 - Revenue Divisronal Off cer, in Case No.B,/U.19 I2OOO dated 06.O3.2OO3.

2. The lrr-ief facts of the case are that one ( )hakali Lachaiah wirs granted Inam in respect of land to an e>.tent of Ac. 1.20 gurrtas in Survey No.369 and Ac.O.22 gurtas 1n Survel. No.i)'20 of Gudimalkapur Village, Golconda I\'Iandal, Hyderabad l)istrict. It was averred that he has b,:en in cultivation rrnd enjoyment of the said lands as Inamdar and that he rvas a r,,,asherman by caste. Further, that his, name was incoroo:ated as Inamdar in all the revenu€r r ecords maintainecl by respondent No.3, even prior to the ,vear i955. 2 t:. '4,i.. :

3. That the petitioners herein are the legal heirs and successors in interest of Chakali Lachaiah, who had filed applications in Form-l under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short, 'Act 1955") for grant of Occupancy Right Certificate in respect of Inam lands to an extent of Ac.1.2O guntas in Survey No.369 and. Ac.O.22 guntas in Survey No.37O of Gudimalkapur Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad District. After enquiry, respondent No.3 uide order dated 02.05.1985 in Case No.B 160641 1983 granted Occupancy Right Certificate in favour of petitioners herein, however, objections were filed by certain persons contending that the said Inam lands were granted to the Dhobhi community by the Jagirdar. After further enquiry, uide order dated O 1 .04. 1989 in Case No.B/2138/ 1986 occupancy rights were granted in respect of Surwey No.37O and as regards Survey No.369, thc claim was negatived on the ground that the said land was rnainly r.rsed for other than agricultural purposes i.e., for washing and drying of clothes, therefore, the same would continue to vest with the Government. i i I I o 3

4. That lr,:ing so, an appeal frled by the petitioners under Section 24 tf LL1e Act, 1955, wherein, the District Coliector, Hyderabird, uide order dated 23.09.1989 in File No.B2 134i1.1189 held that every Inamdar is entitlcd to be registered a s an occupant of all Inam lands undcr thr:ir title and ou'nersl-rip on the date of vesting as per Section 112) and a(3) of thr: Act, 1955 and the issue of personal cr-rlt ivation does not figure, thereby, remanded the matter to reslllndent No.3 for ircstr adjudication.

5. As the matter stood thus, the unofficial rcspondents formed arL trssociation called as 'Andhra Pradeslr Rajaka Abhivruddhi Sangam", and Illed W.P.No.3026 of 1990 .rgainst the order ,1:rted 23.O9.1989 passed by the District Ccllector, Hyderabacl. 'lhe respondent No.3 was directed to adjr rdicate the matter afresh. After hearing both sides, order dated 1 1. 1O. 199(i was passed in Case No.B/39a8l 1995 lrolding that pe titirrn,:rs are in possession and enjoyment of . and in Survey No.li(r9 (Ac. 1.20 gts., excluding the area covered by Dhobighirt irnd houses i.e., Ac.O.2O gts) and Sun'e-r, \o.37O admeasurins Ac.O-22 gts., and issued Form-III occ tpancy rights cer lilicate in favour of petitioners by remrtti rg the 1i 1 : 4 t.- premium. The same was remitted under Challan No.25786 dated 31.10. 1996 in the State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad. An Appeal was hled before respondent No.2 by P. Venkata5,lra and other-S challenging the said order uide Case No.B2/591O/96 and uide order dated

10.07.1998 the respondent No.2 - Joint Collector-cum Additional District Magistrate, Hyderabad, remanded the case to respondent No.3 for fresh disposal, on the ground of giving specihc hndings on:- O directions giuen bg tLrc Hbh Court in W.P.No.3O26 of 199O dated 23.08.1994. (iil basic requirement for grant of ocalpancA certifi.cate as referred in the Judgment of the Diuision Bench of the High Couft of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1995(2) AL'f 172(DB). Till disposal of the cose, respondent No.2 uas directed to maintain stah;,s quo. Hence, the possession and enjogment of the land of the petitioners utere not affected in ang manner. 'a 5

6. That respondent No.3 Case No.U7 i349/2000 and after conducting a dr:tailed enquiry, it r,,,,rs declared that the petitioners are cntitled for issuance cf cccupancy rights certificate in respect trf the subject land and disallowed the contentions of the un,rfficial respondents uide order dated O6.03.2O03. Challengirrg the said order, thLe unofhcial respondents hled appeai befcrre the District Clollr:,;tor, Hyderabad in Case No.B2l2a4Ol20( 3 and uide order dtrted 2O.O4.2O04 the respondent No.2 strlngely held that respondent No.3 had no competence to decioe over the lands tl).lt are vested with State Government arrd set aside the orler of the respondent No.3 dated O6.03.2t)03 in Case No.B7 8zl9/2OOO. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is filed.

7. Hcar,l Siri D.V. Sitaramamurthy, Iearned senior c,runsel appearing for pctitioners, Sri A.Pulla Reddy, Sri C.Balago:al, learned counsel for respondents.

8. Learne cl senior counsel for petitioners submitte(1 that the orders p:rssed by 2"d respondent are erroneous, arbitrary, and based rn irrelevant considerations, ignoring mirterial ; 5 evidence and revenue records. He contended that the respondent wrongly construed the land as a Dhobighat Inam, despite records showing the petitioners, ancestor, Chakali Lachaiah, as an lnamdar and the land in quesl ion as a private Inam, and that there is a clear misinterpretation of the revenue records and disregard for the petitioners, long_ standing possession and enjoyment of the land. He lamented that the respondent failed to consider the petitioners, long possession and enjoyment of the land, as reflected rn the revenue records, and instead relied on irrelevant factors, such as, local inspection report. He emphasized that the respondent exceeded her jurisdiction by conducting local inspection and ignored legit facts and the entries in the revenue records, and that the same is a clear abuse of power and a violation of the principles of natural justice. 9 . In addition, learned senior counsel incessantlv contended that the respondent made unsubstantiated observations regarding the age of the structures on the land, and hazarded guesses instead of basing her conclusions on revenue records. He divulged that the respondent's findings on the petitioners' ancestor,s cultivation and the temporary c 7 nature of the cultivation are also without basis, and tlrat the said findirLgs are not supported by any evidence a:rd are merely spe c ulative in nature. Furthermore, lhz t respondenr, e 'rred in holding that the land was me: rnt for communal :lurpose, despite evidence showing that rnly a small extenL of the land was put to personal use ry the petitioners families, who belong to the washermen communi[,, irnd also averred that such personal use ]annot be construecl as communit5r r- se. He highlighted th,.: facts stating that the respondent Nos.S to 36 formed an asso riation only in 1!)3()s, r.e., just prior to commencement of [ti,3ation, and theretl:r'r', it cannot be allowed to contend that the land was given f,r r community use. He averred that the revenr-re records dc, rLot support the said contentions, and irrstead, they refer to the name of the petitioners' ar rcestor independentlv, showing that the Inam was given to hirn as a private InanL. He contended that respondent's findings on the land being 'Dhobighat" are erroneous, as the expressi.tn has been coined 'ry the competent authority in recent timcs, and that the reventle records do not disclose that the land was a " Dhobighal' used by the entire communifir of i)hobis. Additionally that the respondent's conclusions c,n the I 8 6; l I petitioners' ancestor's cultivation and the temporary nature of the cultivation are unsustainable under law 1O. Lastly, he asserted that the petitioners and their ancestors have been in long possession and enjoyment of the land, and have converted a part of it for non-agricultural purposes, which is neither void nor prohibited under the Act, and lhat the respondent ought to have seen that the authorities are empowered to letry charges for non agricultural use, ald the petitioners have expressed their readiness and willingness to pay such charges. Finally, he prayed this Court to quash the impugned order, ald quoted that the petitioners have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land, and that the respondent's order would result in their immediate dispossession, causing irreparable harm to the petitioners and clear violation of their rights under the Constitution. Therefore, urged this Court to allow the writ petition.

11. On the other hald, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, submitted that there is no illegality in the order of respondent No.2- Joint Collector as she has rightly 9 enquired tlxr matter physically, inspected the place an(, carne to conclusic rL that respondent No.3 without going ir to the field recorde cL the names of the petitioners and furthcr that there is a direction in the rvrit petition to vi.sit the pl operty physically, '.r hereas, respondent No.3 has not visite I that place physically and came to conclusion that th: writ petitioners rLle entitled for the Occupancy Rights Cert ilicate. He specifi<:ally contended that respondent No.2 folloued the procedure arLd rightly concluded that respondent No 3 had erroneously rlecided the occupancy rights, as such, tnere is no i11egalit1, in the impugned order and that therc ,lre no merits in tlrt: wnt petition. Therefore, prayed the Cr,urt to dismiss thr: u.rit petition.

12. Having regard to the rival submissions made, r Lnd on going thro ;g1-r the material placed on record, it is notr:d that this u,rit pcl ition is filed against the order of resplndent No.2 -.Joinl Collector, with a prayer to set aside th( order passed by tlrr: RDO stating that there is no material on record to shorv ttra t the writ petitioners were granted inarn br tl-e personal use and also observed that when she visited the place phvsicaLlly as on 07.17.1973 over the land admeasuring 10 6' Ac. 1.20 guntas in survey No'369 of Gudimalkapur Village' Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad, there were under houses and the land was non agricultural in use and that there is no mention with regard to agriculture land admeasu ring Ac'O'22 guntas and that the land used is silent in Khasara Pahani of 1954-55. However, in the year 1973-74 it was shown as paddy cultivation with seepage water and the same is beyond doubt at the preliminary stage that there was no agriculture in Survey No.369, wherein, in Survey NO'370 it is said to be agriculture and clearly not in personal cultivation of Chakali Laxmaiah. Though the name of Chakali Laxmaiah was shown in pattedar column, in the classihcation of land it is consistently shown as Dhobighat, as such' it cannot be said that it is an inam granted to Laxmaiah for personal use' as there was a Dhobighat for about forty years and it was also observedbytheAdvocateCommissionerwhowasappointed on O7.O3.1987 and. by the then Collector/Incharge Joint Collector, as well, in the year 2OO l Further' that the site inspection was also done along with M'R'O'' and Mandal Surveyor through which it was noticed that there were old weils and kanas used by the washermen and some houses and that the said structures were around 35 years old ald on _.1 11 l t enquiry it tas revealed that old dhobighat was used t( cater to the needs of hospitals, nobles and public and that e'en til1 that da] z dhobighat was in existence withou'- any development ronsequent to the stalus quo orders. The:efore, if there was ilny cultivation, it was concluded that the said land was gir r n to the community of Dhobighat and not to a person blr rLame Chakali Laxmaiah, whereas, it s the contention of the writ petitioners that the observations in the impugnecl orCer are beyond the record and that r,lcords consistently rnention their name from the year 1954-!15 and in the khas;ara pahani of 1954-55 the name of petiti,,ner is mentioned : rs pattedar and as inamdar. Further, rl ithout there being; rr:-ry record to show that it is given for comr:runit5r purpose, the Joint Collector erred in recording that it i: given for commlrrLity purpose and also the subsequent pahani patrikas u'ou1d show the name of Lachaial-r in pt..ttedar column and the nature as inamdar. The nature of land is also mentioned as fari and cultivable land, as such, the impugnsd order is liable to be set aside.

13. At this juncture, it is to be noted that there is no dispute th:rt the land in dispute was inam land, the l:rnd in I 1, l l i I L2 6, survey No.369 is admeasuring Ac. 1.20 guntas and in Survey NO.37O, Ac.O.22 guntas, situated in Gudimalkapur Village of Asifnagar Mandal , and that they are Mofi Inam lands as per Sethwar and shows the name of one Chakali Lachaiah, S/o.Danaiah. Further, in Khasara Pahani for the year 1954- 55 also the said lands are recorded as Mafi Inam lands standing in the name of Chakali Lachaiah and in column No.5 of the field records, shown as 'Dhobighat'. The writ petitioner relied on the land revenue receipt of the year 1971- 72, 1972-73, 7973-74, 1975-76, 1976-77 and also CC of the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, pattedar passbook showing entries of the year 1964-65 and 1969, CC of pahani for the year 1974-75, memo issued by the MRO., Golconda, Hyderabad clated 06.02.1987 and 25.10.'1986, pahani for the years 1965 66, Sethwar for the year 1353 fasli. A11 these documents would show that Laxmaiah was the pattedar of the above said lands. The basic requirement for grant of occupancy right certihcate as per the judgment of the Division Bench in the judgment reported in 1995 (2) ALT (DB). The date of testing is on 01. 1 1. 1973 and the pahani for the year 1973-74 pertaining to survey Nos.369 and 370 are chouta inam lands stands in the name of Chakali Lachaiah as 13 inamdar mi3tlr,ioned in column No. 11 and 60, the rrctual possession r1 one Nagaiah, and houses have been rec'lrded in respect ol survey No.369. The identi{rcation of the na me of lreld is as dhobighat and inamdar is recorded.in lhe name of Chakali Lachtiah, the nature of occupation rccordcd as inamdar and rn pahani for the year 1974-75 against thr: land in survey Nc.369 an extent of 15 guntas is covered b1' houses of one Aaga.nrrriah, S/o. Ellaiah, and has been recorcle< , and the remain:ng area shown vacant and 20 guntas in Survey No.37O is r:lassihed as tai land in the possessi')n of Aagamaiah i:; recorcled arld in 1974-75 the land is shoivn as occupation and cultivation of Gandaiah/ petitioner No l

14. The respondent herein contends that the said lan:ls are given for cornmunity purpose and Lachaiah u'as castt elder but no recorcl was fi1ed by respondent in this regard, either before the RDO., or before the Joint Collector, to sho'r' that Lachaiah r,r'as the community elder during that period of time' In all the records, the Lachaiah name is shou'n as ptrttedar and also enjcyer. In the impugned order, the Joir-rt (lollector relied on thc report of the Advocate Commissioner ar d also her physiczrl verihcation, whereas, while deciding the rir;hts of l : I 74 h) the parties, the Court cannot travel beyond the record fi1ed by the parties, and the record hled by the writ petitioner would show that he was granted inam in the year 1954-55 the ancestors of the petitioner are shown as pattedar and rest of the land as tai. Only the classihcation of land is shown as dhobighat. Merely basing on the mentioning of classification of land as dhobighat, we cannot presume that it is given for communit5r purpose, without there being any evidence for the said purpose, and though Lachaiah belongs to dhobi communit5r, there is no material on record to show that he was the communitlr elder, as such, the land is in favour of Lachaiah. Consistently, the record shows that Lachaiah was the pattedar in ail these documents since,the year 1954-55. Further, in the pahani for the year l9T4-75 in sahara column, for the land to an cxlent of 15 guntas in Survey No.369 it is recorded as covercd by houses of Agamaiah and Gangaiah, and remaining area fallen vacant. Furthermore, in survey No.370 the land to an extent of 20 guntas is classified as tari inam land and in possession of Agamaiah. In the pahani for the year 1974-75 the land is shown as under the occupation and cultivation of Gandaiah. As such, this Court 15 is of the firm view that the impugned order is liable to set aside.

15. IN TfII,l RtrSULT, this Writ Petition is allou.ed, s,etting aside the order dated 20.O4 .2OO4 passed in Case No.B2l244r),' 12O03, confrrming the order passed by tht RDO dated O6.Oil..2lO3. Misce llaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above Witness THE HON'BLETHE CHIEF JUSTICE SUJYOY PAUL, FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE To, SD/.S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO GISTRAR 1 //TRUE coPY// ASSISTAN I- RE AI | I '/ sEc, toN \l The State of ltndhra Pradesh, rep by Secretary, ReXnue Dep::rtme Secretariat. Sa,fabad, Hyderabad 2 ihe Joint Colleclor cum hdditional District, tt/agistrate, Hyderabad District 3. The Reuenue Dirisional Officer, Hyderabad Distric-t Hyderabad . . 4. The mandal F:evenue Officer, Asif'Nagar Mandal Gudimalkapu-', Hyderabad 5. One CC to SAI D, V. SITARAMAMURTHY, AdVOCAIE TOPUCJ O. two CCs to (]P FOR REVENUE ,High Court fqr the State of Telangana at 7 Ohe CC to SRI C BALA GOPAL Advocate TQPUCI B. One CC to SR! A. PULLA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CD CoPi,-'s, Hyderabad [OLl-] nt, OFFICER BM BS HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 ORDER WP.No.8789 of 2004 ( ,f c q') I sta'6, 1 v o I, ,+ [ ? T\t\ flffi * p(a i I)F :,-frr.1 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS DL--- 7ro>{