High Court · 2025

Petition under !lerction 151 cPC praying that in the circumstan,les stated in the affidavit flled in suplort of the petition, the High court may be pl€rased to stay the proceedings initierte cl by the respondent authorities to effect ch.lnges in the record of rights regardin(t the land over an extent of Ac. 5.00 gts localed in Sy.nos 4O2,403 Et 422 of L,al Siab Guda, Hamlet of Gajularamram village, ,:lutubullapur Mandal, stood in the rarne of Late V. sudhakar during the pendency of the writ petition before this Hon'5le Court. ,,:- lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Between: 'l . B. Vanaja, W/o. Vijay Kumar, Aged about 58 Years, R/o. Rat'No. 504, 8-3- 'l6B/E/50-51, Sri Venkateshwara Residpncy, Rajiv Nagar, Hyderabad - 500045.

2.' Smt. T Danamma, W/o. Vardhanapu Ramesh, Aged about 57 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No. 13-1-237111407, Maha Lakshmi Residency, Mothi Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad - 5000'18.

3. Smt. V. Varalaxmi, W/o. Late Hemagiri, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Housevrljfe, R/o. Flat No. 504, 8-3-168/E/50-51 , Sri Venkateshwara Residehey, Rajiv Nagar, Hyderabad - 500045

4. Smt. T. Jayathra, W/o. T. Keshav Rao, Aged about.45 years, Occ. House Wife, Fl/o. Plot No. 57, Flat No. 501, Tarangaraju Towers, Rajeev \agar, Hyderabad - 500045.

5. T.Sumana, D/o. T. Keshav Rao, Aged about 21 years, Occ. Student, R/o. elri.t t'lg 57, Flat No. 501 . Tarangaraju Towers, Rajeev Nagar, ffyderabad - 500045. 6. T. Satya Vani,b/o. T. Keshav Rao, Aged about 19 years, Occ. Student, Ri/o. Plot No. 57, Flal No. 501, Tarangaraju Towers, Raieev Nagar, Hyderabad - 50p045' ...'ET,r.NERS/RES'.NDENTS 7 To 12 AND 1 Smt. Barla Shalini, W/o. Kartheek Reddy Gopu, Age.33 years Occ. Company .Executive, Rlo. 13-1-217/8, Flat No.' 203, VLN Towers, BSP Colony, Spencers Supermarket, tvloti Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana-500018. ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

2. Theistate of Telangana, Rep. by its, Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad

3. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, The state of Telangana, . Hyderabad.

4. The Collector and Districl lvlagistrate, It/edchal tr/alkaigiri District, State of Telangana, ECIL - Keesara Rd, Near ORR Keesara, Godumakunta, Secunderabad, Telangana 501 301

5. The Thahasildar, Quthbullapur lvlandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, State of TelangEna, Sivalaya Nagar Road, Cfg Church, Suraram, Hyderabad 500055, Telangana 6- The lnspector General for Registration of Stamps, For the state of Telangana, 5-3-953, Nizam Shahi Rd, lr4o2amjahi fVlarket, Herza Estate, Risala.Abdullah . Colony, Jam Bagh, Hyderabad, Telangana 500095 7. TI1e Sirb-Registrar, Qlthbullapur Mandal, Medchal llalkaigiri Diskict,.Office . 1st Floor, Suiaram X [oad, 1-303/1 , Suraram Main Rd, Authbgllapu(lttl)' Suraram, Hyderabad, Telangana 500055 . 8. .A. Ashwini, Wo.. A. Varun, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Private Service. Fl/o. Flat No. 103, Balaji Towers, Plot No. 165/4, Moti Nagar, Hyderabad - 500018' ...RES'.NDENTS/RES,.NDENTS 1To6& 13 I' Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in s rpporl of the petition, the High Coud may t e pleased to vacate thp interim or,ler dated 06.04.2022 made in W.P.No.1716812022. Counsbl for the Petitioner: SRI B.CHINNAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 6: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Res;rondent Nos.7 TO 12: SRI S.S.R.MURTY Counsel for the Respondent No.13: -- C.C.NO: 1153 OF 2024 Between:,., . Snt. Aarla 6halini, W/o. Kartheek Reddy Gopu, Age. 33 years, Occ. Company Executive, Rlo. 13-1-21718, Flat No. 203, VLN lowers, BSP Colony, Spencers Supermarket, lt/oti Nagar, Hyderabad, Tela ng,ana-5000 1 B. , AND ..,PETITIONER

1. Sri Naviri'ti/ittal, ..A.S, The Chief Commissioner of Land Adminis:ration The State of Telanlya n a, Hyderabad.

2. Sri. Goutham Potru, LA.S, The Collector Et District Magistrate, kledchal lvlalkajgiri Districl, State of Telangana, ECIL - Keesara Rd, Near ORR Keesara, Godumakunta, Secunderabad, Telangana 501301,

3. Ms. Y. Gourivalsala, The Thahasildar Quthbullapur l\rlandal, I\,4edchal lValkajgiri District, State of Telangana, Sivalaya Nagar Road, Cfg Church, Suraram, Hyderatrad 500055, Telangana. 4. Sri. Abdul Reh.nan Khan, The Sub Registrar, Quthbullapur Mancal, I\,4edchal A/alkajgiri District, State of Telangana, 'ist Floor, Suraram X Roari, 1-30311 , St-traram Vlg Rd, Quthbullapu(lV), Suraram Hyderabad, Telangana 500055 5- Vakati Sudhak,ar S/o. Vakati Chinnasunkana Aged.52 years, Oc:c. Business and Railway ErrrJrloyee, Rl/o. H.No. 41-2, Rallway Quarters,-Kurn rol, A.P - 518001 .

6. Chilukuri Venkata Rami Reddy, S/o. Chilukuri Veera Reddy, AgeJ about.33 years, Occ. Bus;inr:ss, Rl/o. H.No. 5-125, Bowrampet Village, Dundigal- Gandimaisamn-ra lv4andal, lVledchal-l\/alka.jgiri District, T.s - 500 043. Business, R/o. ll l.lo. 25-5, Chityal, lt/edak lt/andal a District, T.S

7. K, Narsima Rar Goud, S/o K. Ramakrishna Goud, Aged about . 34 years, Occ. 8. Munagala Sridl'ar. S/o. [t4. Srinivas, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Plot no. 31, H.Nlo. 32-21911, Shapoor Nagar, IDA Jeedimetla, Qr,thubullapur I/andal, lr/ledch al-Ma lkajg iri District, T.s - 500 043.

9. Dyavanpally Shylender, S/o. D. Rajalingam, Aged about . 44 yea.s, Occ. Business, R/o. Plot No. 4,5, Spring Filed Colony, Jeedimetla Village, Quthbullapur lvandal, Ir/edchal-Malkajgiri District, T.s - 500 043.

10.Maloth Venkate:sh Naik, S/o. IV. Raju Naik, Aged about.39yearu;, Occ. Business, R/o. ll.No 9-1 1, Dundigal Thaanda-l, Dundigal-Gandirnaisamma I\/andal, lVed cl^,; l-li4a lkajgiri District, T.S - 500 043. ...RESPONDENTS

11. Sri. D. Amoy Kumar l.A.S, The former Collector and District Magistrate; Medchal fMalkajgiri District, State of Telangana, ECIL - Keesara Rd, Near ORR Keesara, Godumakunta, Secunderabad, Telangana 501301 . ...(PROPOSED RESPONDENT) '12. Sri. AbQUI Rehman Khan, The former Thahasildar Quthbullapur l\ilandal, Iriiledchiitjr,4alkajgiri District, State of Telan$ana, Sivalaya Nai)ar Road, Cfg Church, Sureram, Hyderabad 500055, Telangana. . (Leave granted to file the present CC against RR-4 to RR12 as per the Hon'ble Court Order dtd .12.07.2024 in IA No.1I2A24 in CC No.1 153/2024). ...(PROPOSED REsPONDENTy RESPONDENTS Contempt Case filed under Secttons 10 to 12 of Co.ntempt of Courts Act 19fl praying that the HjOh Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for willful .and deliberate violation of the orders dated-06-0412b22 passed in WP No.17168 of 2O22 on the file of the High Court. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 direct the respondent authorities to restore the status quo ante by rectifying the revenue records relating to the land over an extent of Ac. 5-00 gts in Sy.No. 402, 403 and 42211 of Lal sabguda, Hamlet of Gajularamaram Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, lvledcha l- tt/a lkajgiri District by restoring original name of the petitioners adopted father Late V SUrlhakar in the revenue records by cancelling. all th.e proceedings relating to partition and succession transactions including pattadar pass book issued in his name of 5th Respondent consequently to cancel the sale deed dated. l

28.12.2023 bearing documenl no. 31 of 2023 executed by R-5 V. Sudhakar in the name of Respondents no 5 to 10, ndmely Chilkuri Venkatran Reddy, K. Narsima Raj Goud, Munagala Sri{har, Dyavanpally Shylender and Maloth Venkatesh Naik consequently to dancel the Pattadar passbooks issued in their name during the pendency of the contempt case before this Honorable Court. ,l Counsel Cou nsel Counsel Cou nsel Cou nsel for the for the for the for the for the Petitioner: SRI B.CHINNAPA REDDY Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: GP FOR REVENUE Respondent No.5: SRI MOHAMMAD AFSAR Respondent Nos.6 TO 10: SRI KATIKA RAVINDER IIEDDY Respondent Nos.1 1 & 12: - The Gourt made the following: COMMON ORDER Iil: i) ir1 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASI{AR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17168 of 2o22 6s CONTEMPT CASE No.1153 of 2o.24 COMMON ORDER: W.P.No. 17 768 of 2022 is hled seeking a 'direction to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to mutate the names of respondent Nos.7 to 13 in place of Late V. Sudhakar in the revenue records including issuance of pattadar passbook-cum-title deed book in favour of the pnofficial respolident Nos.7 to 13 in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.S.OO gts., in Sy.Nos.4O2, 4O3 & 422, situated at Lal Sab Guda, Hamlet of Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur Mandai, during the pendency of the declaration suit ulde O.S.No.61 of 2022 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under the guise of implementing the order dated 27.O7.2027, in W.P.No.16869 of 2021.

2. The writ petitioner claims to be adoptive daughter of Late V. Sudhakar, whose name was recorded as pattadar and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.5.00 gts., in Sy.Nos.402, 4O3 &, 422, situated at La1 Sab Guda, Hamlet of Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur Manda-I. It is stated that late V. Sudhakar has constructed Geetha Ashramam in part of the said land and rendering services by conducting religious and spiritual activities. It is further stated that 2 Late V. Sr-xlh a kar died intestate on OS .O9 .2O2O ancl 1 .is wrfe pre- deceased h: rr . It is further stated that the pe titione r being the adopted daugrter has submitted an application fr rr grant of succession/ pc,uthi izafa in respect of the subject lands and u,hen the said applica:ic,n has not been considered, she was const-'ained to file O.S.No.61 o 2()22 on the file of III Additional Chief Jridg;e, City Civil Court, H},flsr2bad (for short, 'the trial Court') seeking to declare that (i) defendanl N,r.1 is not the adopted daughter of latc \'. Sudhakar and the plaintiff alone is the adopted daughter of late \'. Sudhakar and his rvil'e 1'. Bajar amrna @ T. Bharathi (ii) the unrelJistered will deed dated Ct1.()7.2O2O is sham and fabricated aftcr thc <leath of late V. Sudhakar eLnd the same is not binding on the plzLin tiff and the defendant Nos.2l to 7 are no way concerned with the propt.rties left by late V. Sudh;lkar, who died intestate on 05.09.2020 zrr cl for other consequen t ia I r<.iiefs.

3. Mr. Ch.irnapa Reddy, learned counsel for the pelitioner has stated that pencling adjudication of the suit urde O.S.No.rl7 of 2022, the trial Cou't.., ,ide order dated 14.O2.2O22, in I.A.No.135 of 2022 in O.S.No.61 of 21,022 has granted interim order directinll both the parties to mainlain status quo till further orders. Learnr:cl counsel vehemently contended that contrary to the said interrm c,rder dated 14.02.2022, vrhen third parties are making claim over thi: propertSr, ) 3 the petitioner was constrained to fiie the writ petition and this court, uide order dated 06.04.2022, directed respondent Nos.2 to 4 to maintain status quo obtaining as on date with regard to the entries in the revenue records in respect of the subject lar-rds and the said interim order was extended from time to time and finally, extended until further orders. It is stated that while the interim order dated 06.04.2022 passed by this court is in force, the officiar respondents granted succession in favour of respondent No.S in respect of the ' subject land and consequentry entertained the sare deed in favour of respondent Nos.6 to lO in the contempt case. Alleging the said acts as willful and deliberate disobedience of the interim order dated 06.04.2022 passed by this Court in W.p.No. 7T 168 ot 2022, the writ petitioner has filed contempt case uid"eC.C.No. l1S3 of 2024.

4. Mr. Mohammad Afsar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 in the contempt case has contended that the petitioner is not the adopted daughter of rate V. Sudhakar and there are serious dispules with regard to the rights of the petitioner as adopted daughter of the deceased and the respondent No.S is class II legal heir of the deceased and in the absence of crass I legar heirs of the deceased, class II lega1 heirs of the deceased are entitred for grant of succession/ pouthi izafa as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short ,the Act, 1956). Learned counsel has -- - --1c.__J.:rr.!,Pr{?r-.:- '- I 4 further stated tlrrrt respondent No 5 has made an appli< ation for succession in llttarani portal in TM4 module, duly enclosi rg all the documents ancl s;ince he has complied with all the requiren Lents and being the class Il lcgal heir of the deceased, the ofhcial res'>ondents' after conductillg enquiry has granted succession and mu taled the property in hrs frlvour. Therefore, there is no illegalitv or ir regularity in the procedure aclopted by the ofhcial respondents u arranting interference of t b is court under Artrcle 226 0f the con s1 itution of India and hen.:e. prayed for dismissal of the writ petition .rs well as , the contemPt cils;t:. The lear:recl Assistant Government Pleader for Reven -re rclying 5. upon the coult t(l': afhdavit hled by the responden t No 4 lias stated that the responc:cnt No.5 in the contempt case has submitted online application in Meeseva for grant of Pouthi Izafa/ successio -r through TM4 Module antl the same was forwarded to the office o[ r,rspondent No.4. The resl:or.dent No.4 after calling for report liom tlLe Mandal Girdawar and as the application submitted by the respordent No 5 has fulfilled tlre norms prescribed in Dharani Portal, mrrtated the name of the rr:soondent No.5 in the revenue records- It is submitted that the respondent No.4 came to know about the fraud played by the respooder.t ftro.5 only after receipt of the notice in the contempt {. 5

6. Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 10 in the contempt case has vehemently contended that respondent No.5 being class II legal heir of the deceased is entitled for mutation of the properties in the absence of Class I legal heirs of the deceased. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner, who is claiming to be cognate of late V. Sudhakar's wife, has instituted a suit uide O.S.No.61 of 2022 seeking declaration as adoptive daughter of the deceased and unless the said "suit is decreed, the petitioner is not having any right to maintain W.P.No.17i68 of 2022 or to make any application objecting for grant of Pouthi Izafa/ succession certificate in favour of respondent No.5. As such, the revenue authorities have rightly entertained the appiication and granted Pouthi Izafa in favour of respondent No.5 and basing on the same, the respondent Nos.6 to 1O in the contempt case have purchased the subject property and hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition as well as contempt case filed by the petitioner.

7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

8. A perusai of the record would reveal that the subject lald to an extent of Ac.5.O0 gts., in Sy.Nos.402, 4O3 & 422, siLuated at Lal Sab Guda, Hamlet of Gajularamaram Village, Quthbuliapur Mandal, was <_ 6 recorded in r-h,: name of late v. sudhakar in the rcvenut records as pattadar a.:l r.he revenue authorities have also issur d pattadar passbooks a:rcr title deeds in his favour as pcr [re provr,;ions of the Telangana Rig'rts in Land and pattadar passbooks Act, 1971. It is stated that SirrLl . T. Bajaramma @ T. Bharani, pre deccased Late V. Sudhakar. Thereafter, the disputes arose over the subjcct property and the petitroner clarming to be adoptive daughtcr of tlre deceased has made ar: application before the revenue authorities and also instituted th. suit. Admittedry, rate v. Sudhakar or hrs wife is not having an1' s;u: ce ssors-in-interest to craim the cstatc o cleceased. The petitioner ,;raiming to be adoptive daughter of Lhe dc:eased has instituted a :;ur1 uide o.s.No.61 or 2022 before the triar court and the same is -:re rLding for adjudication. The case of the p:titioner is that pending zrcljudication of the said suit, the unofficial r.spondents are making elTrrrts to dispose the subject property in far our of the third parties. rhe further case of the petitioner is th:rr in view of granfing stahl.s quo orders in I.A.No.135 of 2022 in O. S.No.61 of 2022, rleitber r,:spondent No.5 in the contempt case nor any other parties are enr.ir.led to deal with the subject properq, in zrr y manner. The case of the respondent No.S in the contempt case is that he is thc class II leg;al heir of the deceased and in the absence of class I legal heirs, thr: estate of the deceased would devolve uporr the legai heirs of class I) a,s per the Schedule prescribed in the Acr. 1956. W 7

9. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that pending adjudication of the suit instituted by her, the unofficial respondents are making efforts to alienate the properl5r or meddle the property with third parties. It is also stated that at the instance of the third parties, earlier when the subject land was .listed in the prohibited properties, the same was got deleted and taking advantage of the same, respondent No.S in the conternpt case has fraudulently obtained pouthi izafa/ succession certificate and consequently transferred the property in favour of the respondent Nos.6 to 10 in the contempt case.

10. Since there are serious inter se disputes among the class II legal heirs and the petitioner claiming to be alleged cognate of the deceased Late V. Sudhakar (original pattadar) in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.5.O0 gts., in Sy.Nos.402, 4O3 & 422, situated at Lal Sab Guda, Hamlet of Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal. It is stated that the original pattadar died rntestate without leaving any successors-in-interest. Since it is stated that the civil suit vide O.S.No.61/2020 is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare her as adoptive daughter and the same is pending for adjudication before the trial Court and the name of respondent No.5 and other purchasers in the contempt case has already been mutated, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is not an appropriate 7 8 remedy to re :lo \.e tine inter se dispuLes tretween the pa rties with regard to the ratrre of the lands and the entitlement of the petitioner as an adoplivt, Caughter of the deceased or the responcie'-rt No.5 in the contempl case is class Ii heir for grant of po rrthi izafa (succession) for mutation of subject properties. Thes,: ssues are required to bc decided by competent civil court ir t properly instituted sui,, trased on the evidence adduced by the p,rrties, but not in a wril: rr:t ition filed under Article 226 of the Cons titution of India.

11. ln Moh.a.n Pandeg as. Ushd- Rani Rajgarial Lhe Hon'ble Supreme Cciur'l :bserved as follows: "6: xrxx. . 'I_he Hiqh Courl cannot aLlow the constitutlotLal iLLi:.diction J)' decidinq disoutes. for u)hich remedies. under the r eneral to be ]lF:.11 latu <:iuil or cimin[ are auailable. It is not intended to r [c. ce the 1.r y:dtes bu wa4 of a suit or applicatton auailab_Le t9 .fl !ylsf!!, ,rct be !u!lon 1S Speclal and extraordinaru and shottLcl The exercised t4 suollu or Liohtlu." (emphasis supptied) ordincu

12. In Dwarka Prasad Agarusal o. B.D. Agarwdl2, tlrc Hon'b1e Suprcme Court :lbsered as follows: "The High Court uthtLe exercising a pou)er of judicial reu eu) LS conce,nte,cl uith illegalitA, iftatrcnaLitA and. proceduraL impropnet,l of an order po:;sed bA the State or a statutory authoitg. R'emedg uftde,r Att;'.Le 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be inuol ed for resolution of a priuate law dispute as contra distingutshed ,'rom a '(1992) 4 scc 6I '(2oo3) 6 scc 230 ,, 9 dispute inuoluing pub[ic lau character. /t r.s olso utell settled tlrut a utit remedA is not auailable for resolution of a propertg or a title dispute."

13. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to relegate the parties to approach the competent Civil Court to establish their rights in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.5.00 gts., in Sy.Nos.4O2, 403 & 422, situated at La1 Sab Guda, Hamlet of Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, over the estate of the deceased Late V. Sudhakar, in accordance with law. In the event of obtaining any declaration decree from the competent Civil Court by either of the parties or any other person interested in the property, the revenue authorities shall implement the same and mutate the subject property in favour of the decree holder and consequently issue pattadar passbooks. The trial Court sha11 dispose of the suits instituted over the subject lands without being influenced by the observations in this order. As it is stated by the respondent No.4 in the writ petition that soon after receipt of the notice in the contempt case, the subject lands have been blocked for transactions, the parties to the lis are directed to maintain status quo in respect of subject property, in all respects including change of nature of lands, till the disposal of the suit/suits. If the parties to the lis or any other interested party fail to produce the declaration decree in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.5.00 gts., in Sy.Nos.402, 4O3 & 422, situated at La1 Sab Guda, Hamlet of Gajularamaram Village, I j l0 Quthbullapur l,4andal, held by lhe deceased Lale V Sudhakar, the District Collector is directed to exercise powers undcr the provisions of the Telanganz Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, 1971 and take custody of lhc :;ai,1 properry to Government custody. L4. With |clErL;-d to C.C.No.115312024, the responde'r-rt No.4 Tahsildar statr:d that the petitioner did not follow the 1:rescribed procedure for b ocking the subject survey numbers. Fu:ther, the representation. t1:.ted 10.05.2020 and 14.06.2020, submrtled by the petitioner, u,err: filecl much prior to the respondent No.4 assumed charge as Tahr;illar ot 12.O8.2023. It is further submittcd that soon after coming tr; <no"r' about that respondent No.S is not e rtitled for grant of Pouthi Jzafa/ succession in view of the sfafu's quo orders dated 06.04.2()2 2 granted try this Court, the subject sun'e) numbers were blocked r.ide Proceedings No.D1/1111/2024 dated 25.06.2024. The above cir-crlmstances would reveal that there is -ro wlllful negligence or cLeli rcrate action by the respondents in entertrlining the application subrr itted by the respondent No.5 for grant of Pouthi Izafa/ succession. Furthermore, as the petitioner also fail,:d to take necessary steps 1br blocking the survey numbers try subreitting an application thro'rgh the TM26 Moduie, it is not a fit ca se to initiate contempt procerrlings or subject the respondents to rig marole of contempt trial 1l

15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of and the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- M. MANJULA E UTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To ,2 1 4 The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hvclerabad. State of Telanqana i6. Ch6i ior"missioner oI Land Administration, The state of Telangana, Hvderabad. ifrJt"rr""to,. and District Magistrate, Ir/edchal tvlalkajgiri District, state of r.Lnoani. fClL - Keesara R-d, Near ORR Keesara, Godumakunta, Securiderabad, Telangana 501 301 i;; ii;h;;il.i;r, Qrttiurtt"p* I\rlandal, tvledchal tVlalkajsirl District, Sla^teof- ilj["gr"J, Si"aiaya ttagarnoad, Cfg ihurch, Suraram, Hyderabad 500055' Telanoana S ih" iiilp"cf.r General for Registration.of Stamps, For the state of Telangana, " 5_5"95t: fulr;m Shahi Rd, Iyo"zamjahi 1rrlarket, He-rza Estate, Risala Abdullah Colonv, Jam Bagh, Hyderabad, Telangana p09999- 6. i#5i,'b:R;gGirii, oiihorlapur rr/andat, Medchat Markajsiri District,,office . " iiirI"-, sr%ram x Ro;d, 1:303/1, Suraram tr4ain Rd, Quthbullapur(ltil)' 7 o;;CC to 6ni a.cHiruunpA RrooY, Advocate IoPUCI 8 i;; ccsio cp ron REVENUE, High court for the State of Telangana' at s. o;e-c-C to shl s.S.R.tvluRTHY, Advocqte {oPUCl ib o;; cc i; 5Ri xnrtrn RAVINDER REDDY, Advoqale^[oPUcJ i i. o;; cc to snt N4oHAIUMAD AFSAR' Advocate [oPUC] 12. Two CD CoPies Suraram. Hvderabad, Telangana 500055 Hvderabad. [OUT] PSK GJP 6 HIGH COURT DATED:1310312025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.17168 of 2022 & OC.No.1153 OF 2024 ( o tJ \- {E r.i,"{' t!A ( _t' / 17 AP! 2025 'i -ui!;r,.r( DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION AND CLOSING OF THE COI{TEMPT CASE WITHOUT COSTS 0r,4"q W