High Court · 2025

BJalender Reddy, S/o.B. Venkata Narashima Reddy, R /o.H.No.3.9-549/3, Srirama FIills Colony, Mansoorabad, , L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. Ch.La,xman Rao, S/o.Ch.Sambhasiva Rao Aged about,44 years, Occ: pvt. Employee . IU.o.Plot No--? 9.. Mc'd i c ai and hea I th Col ony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. Praveen Kumar, S/o.Upender ,{ged about 38 years, Occ: pvt. Employee R/o.H.No.7- I59, Chairanya Nagar, Miryalguda, Nalgonfl a District K.Ashok Kumar,.S/o. Updnder Aged about 44 years, Occ: Employee Rlo.Flat No.309, SVRS Brundavanam Apartment, Narayanadri Block, Venkaleshwara Colo'ny, R. Madhukar Rathod, S/bl Suryd Rathod Aged about 48 years, Occ: Agriculrure, Rio. FIat No.335, Alekya Towers, Sitaramnaqar Colonv. Bairamalguda, I.lear Sagar Cross Road. Hydeiabad. ' N.Linga Reddy S/.N.Sorqi Reddy Aged abour 32 years, Oc{; Business R ro.H.No.3-8-407/ 1, Suryodaya Colony. Road No.4, L.B. Nagar, Hydirabad. G.Bhaskar Reddy S/o_G.Laxma Reddy Aged abcut 47 years. Occ: Business, i F B t R/o.Plot No.58, Urmilanagar, Hasthinapuram, B.N.Reddy. R.R_ Districl. 33 G.Savitha, W/o.G.Ram Reddy, Aged 42 yeas, Occ:.H6ijSe rtile R,/o. HNo..l -45, pedda,szip,aitlii.Village, Chitiyala Manalal; Nah?f,dii:bisutcl :' -b::'sj"t' ' 7 '

34. A: Nateen" Agetl -about 35 ye Rio.H. No.5-102 Chityal Mandat, NaigirttraO lstIrct. VI,v ,. i. -.:_ ! a-R;qdy.l , _:1 -1,, 35 Jt, 38 39 40 43 '*" r-r': i:..,'j . t:!J . i'.' ,, ; i,'-- ;jJ'i: A.Janakaja, W/o K. Bikiiufi:Reddy Aged abour 58 yeais, Oici Housewife Rro, H. No. 2-4-694; New Nasole L.B.Nagar, R.R. District. Singirikonda.srinivas S/o.S.Lingaiah.:. Aged about 44 years, Occ: Business, 'R/o. H.No.50 l4 l, Grlmpanchayat Strcet, Nidamaauru, Nalgonda. Bejianamoni Narsimha S/o.B.Anjaiah Agedabout 39 years, Occ: Business R-/o. Plot No.79, Hariharapuram. Vanasthalipuram Hyderabad T. Rambabu Sio Kuchiralu, .. Aged abour 5J years, Occ: Ernployce, R/o Flat No.502, Dsor No. ,t6-l t-4lg/2, and 2AB, Sii Sailaja Plazza, Maiisddrabad, Hyderabad. . K.Vijay Kumar Reddy, S/o Seetha Rami Reddy. Aged about 43 years, Occ: Ernployee, R/o.Plot No.860 Pragathinagar, Opp:INTII, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Gauram Srinivas Reddy S/o_G.Narayan Reddy Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business R/o. Gandi Cheruvu Villirge. Abdullapumtet Mandal R.R District. P. Krishnam Raju S/o.Sathyanarayan Raju, Ag,i( about 56 years, R-/o Plot No. 63/,{; FIat No.l02 itage Fresh, Vengalarao Nagar Main Road am Raju S/o. Sita Ram Raju , 1 years R-/o. plot No.86 Siddartha NaEar l-Rao Nagar, Hyderabad lV.suryafh!'sf aramlV./ir;gAgf yNarashimaraju, Aged abou.r'59,years RXo;tolqt No.5 24 H.No.2_23-493 HMT Hi s Near rarnatayam temflqlJNTu posl. Kukarpally. Hyderabad :r.. ,.':.i,i' a'i. - 't, i I { 4 4 48 49 50 5I 52 5l 54 3 5 44 45 46

41. K.Abhishek l{eddy, S/o.K.Surender Reddv Aged 2l years. Occ:- Business, R/o I-lor No-50. Vivekanandanagar Colony Road No.l, Sahara Gate 2 lane, Mansobrabad L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. M.Veera R.eddy, Slo;M SaidiReddy, . A ge{, f J, ye,ars, Occ_: Bus hess nro H. No.3-O-3 t9.'Nhniitha Everest FIat No.20l, SBH Colohv Bahadurguda, Saroornagar Road, L.B.Nagar. Y.Swathi Reddy, W.1o. Verlkat Reddy, Aged 36 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. Plot No. 50, Vivtikanandanagar Colony RoadNo.l, Sharada Gate 2 lane [Iansoorabad, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad Jonnalagadda Sunitha, Wo.J.Venkat Reddy, Aged 44 years, Occ: House Wife, R/O H. No.3-9-1547134, Srisainath Cotony Opp: P. anama Godown, Vanastiralipurarn Hyderabad. 48 49 50 5l 52 53 54 K.Damodara Prasad,.S/o.KotaiaI, Aged 38 years, Occ: Business. R/o Amavyshiny Con.t-.tion FIat No. r\51l, Besicle SBI Opp: Sampuma Hotel, Medipally Village, Medchal. Vasam Rambabu, S/o. Gopaiah, Aged 48 years, Occ: Business, H.No. l5- 17-406/4, Vijayaaagar Colony 2, Khammam. .l.Ram Chandra Reddy, S/o. RangaRedrly, Aged 38 years, Occ:- Business, R/o.H.No.4-2- 159, RTC Colony, Road No.7, Hayarhnagar. M.Sarlri Reddy. S/o.Rnji Reddy, Aged 5l years, Occ: Busiiess. fuo. H.No.8-36, Upparguda, Koheda, Abdullapurmet Mandal, R.R. District S.Tirumala Reddy, S/o. S.yadi Reddy, Aged 44 years, Occ: Business Rro.H.No.23-64, Sdraiwiihi nagar, Saroomagar, Ranga Reddy Distrjct _ 500060 Modem Rangaiah Goud. S/o. Bugaiah. Aged 54 years, Occ: Business, R ro. Gandicherui.t Vii lpge. Abdulapurmet Mandal,iilanga Reddy Districr. C.Sri Devi Wo. Mohan Vantshi ,Aged about 4l years R/o_ plor no.g6 Sidartha Naear Behind Vengal Rao Nagar Hyderabad 38 3,v,s,)grgr lor lL r3t\,lf,tbrtt) 51, 5q, f1,bo, (tt a:,f\\t Lt, b\bLt 6\,1\fr5 A4,21 ...ieftftO NERS/RESPONDENTS 8/ f,l/ LtoAlf q2/u3/W\t\{6/ \-\f /\ B/.^1fr s\trg ,,a c I 8 10) qLl Dr 8 8t AND L The J.oint Collector, R.R.Distiict. 2 J

4. Ther'Revenu e Divisional Officer-, rbiihfip.,u,'a* Di+i$6;.,..-':, . TheTahsil'ddr. d?',' - . aUduliapurin'Jf Manlzii; R.R..Dj.qrricr:..1; ..' '' ;'....41, ;'{.aitrJ{ i. . - -,- . "; - -l r Brf:ji[t:]:5? - '- ,.\"1., ' . 'l'_,+;{.r. 5 .Kanilada Kiishnd 6 y EiiE-iet

7. Kand3-djitutohaft Reddy. S/o.Sarhi Reddyll .j#i :-:Sl_t R/o.UF.rpf$:dirviltage. KorrcdqAbdrilifi!ffii,r#&hffi,,,., :. Hayathnagir, Ranga Rcddy o;srr;ct- !O'i5ili:' . i' .. ,-;' ' .

8. Kandada Ranga Rgddy, S/o.Sathi Reddy .,. $',.., . ,._ I ,ia , _ R;/9. Upparguda..Village. Koheda, Abdulapu.rmer Mandal aiyat'.masit, Rangai.eddy t;;,: idi:il;j' :''r:*'thn:'!(-'1z' '"rt ) 9 Kandada yadi. Reddy,.S/o. Kandaoa yellaiah.Reddy , R/o. Upparguda Villzigc. Kohcda, Abduldpurmet Manda'I._ . Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy Disrricr- 50t5ll) frr, irj: '': ::' ' . RE S P ONDENIS/APPELLA].iITS

10. Khaja.Mohinuddin S/o Ameer Ali, ll. Kamarunnisa Begum, D/o Late Fazalunnisa Begum 12. K.Shailaja, D/o K.Bose 13, P-Venkat Reddy S/o p.Lachi Rcddy 14. Smt.Chebrolu Gourikantam, Wo SatyanarAyana 15. Gani Venkatesyvara S/o Venkateswarlu 16. Jonnalagadda Venkata Reddy, S/o Narsimhir 17. Smt.Surya Deva Hemalatha WO S.Rarnachandra Rao 18. Smt.Amulya. D/o S.Ramachandra Rao I t9. S.arith Nrgendra S/o S.I(amachandra Rao .21. Jonnalagadda Mallapeddy. S/o Late Narsimha 22. Chimmula Prabhakar Redcly, Sio Late Buchiieddy. 23. Chimmula Venkar Reddy. Sr'O Late Buchireddy .24. Smt.Gangidi Premalatha W/o Krislrna Reddy ', '. : j L IT T :i l Bisammaiah Goud

25. Smt.Varada Rangaiah Gor 26. sMr.B.uma ,.,,, ,r" u ,'nrll"rate 27_ Chimmuia Nishitha Wo Ch. Vcnkat Reddy 28. Banala lidiia, Wo Narsimha Reddv 29. Varada Rarnulu,G6uX g,,o-, 30 Kanaa,aRdnb,-d;;;ff"'Jflffi::ffi .',, i ',.', , ,,', I I. V.Mallesh Goad.S/cirV;Sarr . l, :il1g,',T;il;'nT'i::Isr,-*i.i','.' 34. K.Ram,Kumar Reddy. 35. K.Sridhar re. r.fravi 37. K.Lokesh ,Reddy 38 B.Sarhaiah

39. Akarapu Janardhan 40. K.Shiva Kumar Retkly 41. K.Supriya Reddy. 42. K.Maiiatha 43. T.RamGhandra.Reddy 44. Avula Navam ant W/o DevaraSubbarao 45 R.Jeevdn prakash 46 71

48. T.Vartender T.Bartender Larika Sridevi iv/o I_.Ramesh. (Respondents No. l0 to 4g are not necessary parties to this petifion) RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS c.R.P. No.11 60 of 2020 : j.'#;'"::""'J::l;j:l:l*,",sana renancy & Asricurturar Lands Act lsso asainst the t412018 dated 31'08'2019 on the file of the Joint colector, Ranga ",r". Reddy oistrict. _ IAN o: 20F 2020 Petition u nder Section 151 CpC praying that in the cir filed in support of the petttion, the High Court ma proceedings incl uding dispdisession in pursuant to Appeal No. F2l26 74/2018 Dt.31/OBI2O1g by the Joint IAN O:1OF 2021 cumstances ,stated in the affidavit y be pleased to grant stay of all further the common impugned orders passed in Collector Ranga Reddy Distiict petition u;der Section "' ff H r.:::Ii ff i:.;',T [: 2o2o and prace the ",-" ;Ji,]"J.'H::il:"::urt in suo moto wp (civir) No 3 or -t passing appropriate orders for condonation of the same. ;":'#i : J" : :":: H il] ::: :; ; i ; ::il r^: E MFM6AANnI l^, /'iE '^r-h' lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Between - :._-:-- District- 50151I . et Mandal, S/o.Sathi Seddy,'.1- r-' Mandal Sathi Reddy, eda, hnagar, 1. a: ::: i .-.t, :_ 't: 'i J

4. . _: 1q Reddy, S/o. Sathi Reddy, llage. Koheda. aiidat, Hayathnagar, Districr 501 5II. :. . - .... r .,i :: . j , , .,' i." t' . l

6. Kandada Yadi Reddy, S/o. Kandada Yellaiah Reddy, fl/gr-Upp-,gggudaJillige, Koheda, ,_ npaqlapghigJ Mandal, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District. AND l.Madireddy Santosh S/o.M.Jagadish kumar, Aged 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.0. 16-1 1-22lg.,Krish na Tulasinaga r Moosarambagh, Hyberabad.

2. B.Ramaswamy S/o.Lachaiah t\lr \ [+_..\ ( ( Aged about 53 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Rattipalli village Munugodu Mandal, Nalgonda Dishict.

3.G.Saifr Rgetra. Sdnddirf;fgat colony, Miryalag:uda, Nblgonda District S/o.G.Sammaiah, 36vea rs; Occ: Govt teacher, R/o.H.No.2B-560

4.GAshwini, W/o. G.Jithender Reddy ngeg, a"bgu!lp ye-ars Occ: Housewife Uo.H;fl.o.+:g+94l1/A Lecturers colo'ny, Hayatna$ai,village & Mandal, R.R. District. ,

5.'G.Mallesh S/o. G.Nagaiah, OCi; Btdiriesg R/b.H.No.4-7-4317. : Relih.avgnd q na ga r'colo ny, Hayathnalia r, R. R. Distri ct O erqha.qriira Reddy S/o.late P. Lachi Reddy Agail iooui sz yi:ars, dcc: Govt servite do e.ioi r,to.2S. phase-Iv Vanastrratifl-uram, R.R. Dist.

7. P.Nagamma [o.P.Chandra Reddy Aged about 44years, Occ: Housewife. R/o. Plot No.29. Phase-IV Vanaithalipuram, R.R.District. B. Emniadi Ramesh S/o late f.na;aiihi AgeQ. 5J y,q3 rs, Occ : Busi ness R/o. H-. N. 1 1- 1 3- 1 398, Maigadarshi Colony, Road No. 2 Kothapet, Hyderabad. g.Arrepu Raghu S/o.A.Ramallngaiah, . ., Ag ed about 55 years, R/o.'Q.No.sD 230 Bh B-Zone Ramakrishriap Singa ren i Distri lO-K.Sujatha D/o. Seshu Redd Aged about 42years Occ: Ho R/o.H. No.7-98 Madhurapuri, dr, Hvd d ' 'r:l!.: I : 11.K.Aparna D/o.K. Surender Re(dy. ; Aged bout 22years,Occ: Student; ' R/o. Plot No.50, Near Sahara Gate:4, It'lansoorabad, R.R. Dist.

12.S.Raneema @ c'ani Wo. wadhu,i;11dfan Reddy, Aged 38 years, Occ: House Wife,,R/,g. H.No.1-34, Kanakalagudem, Samastha Narayanapuram,Nalgonda District. ( H

13.Smt.Seetha Prasahna W/o. Seetha Satyanarayana Aoed about 38 Years, Occ: Housewife nio.H.trto::-g-sis+lzolsoz, Ragala Enclave, Mansurabad near Gate Opp: SPF Residency, L.B.Nagar, R.R.Dist. )

14.P.Shravanthi, W/o. Venu GoPal, Aged 47 Years, Oce: House wife, Pl-ot No.12, JaiNagar Colony, Sikh Viilage, Secunderabad'

15.Doddi Narsimha S/o.D.Yadaiah Aged about 45 years Occ: GOvt teacher Rfo.H.No.3-136/1, Maal village, Yacharam, Mandal, R.R' District'

15. Jakka Ravinder Reddy S/o.Late St.i6ba nao Aoed about 66 Years, Occ: Buslness, . pj,;. H. ltO. Z-ZZ, ka katiya trta ga r, Ha b$i$uda, H yde ra bad. ';:'r;.:. , i,i::' lT.Tsudhanidhi Sio.T.Dharma Rao'.'-r Aoed dbout 53 years, Occ: Budines6'.. R7o: rlat trto. 6u,prun Apartrne*riti:,iffi ' eiilar No. r82,' opp : Maritral'Mall, Uffiiirpallv, Hvderabad. : :ti. l8.T.Pavani Wo. T. Sudhanidhi , '"' Aged about 44years, Occ: Housewif..e.'1 ^^ ryo. rtat No. 61, PNR Apaftment, Pill;i;No. t82, Opp: Mantml Mall, UpparpallV, Hyderlbad. , qrj-

19.T. Srivani D/o. T.Sudhanidhi , - Aged about 20 Years, Occ:'Stu R/o.Flat No. 61, PNR Apartment, Pillar No. '182, Oppi Mantral Mall, Upparpally, Hyderabad

20.K. Surender ReddY S/o.K.Bala Aged about 46 BuSi R/o.Plot No.50, Saham Gate 2, Mansoorabad n Reddy ;1

21.K.Manjula ffo K. Suren(d Aged about 46 years, Occ: Br.iS e R/o.Plot No.50, Vivekanan da Na Sahara Gate 2, Mansoorabad ii I a

22.G.Rajender Reddy s/o.cJapl 1i)qgVt, ., Aged about 37 'iears, Occ: Busi1ig.si.ii f,:l',; Rio.H.No.lo'L-220,PIotNo''10B/E,'*.S.9-?9:-ry9:15, Ta pova n Col ony, Ka rma nS hat, P t '- ...', t.: r9lT,!$!7!' R. Di strict. I lt! {

23.B.Somi Reddy s/o Amruth Reddy Aged abqut 62 years, Oce: Retd, Employee, R/o,H.No1l-3-187/1, Road No.2e, . Adarshna$ir Colony, Nagole, Hyderabad.

24.M.Shiva Raj Reddy S/o.Sanjeetra Reddy Aged about 38.years, Oce: Business, R/o.Piot No. L27, Venkaramana Colony, Road No.6, Hasthinapura m, L. B. Naga r, Hyderabad.

25.M.Sunder Ram Rqddyrs/o.sanjeeva Reddy Aged about 36 years, Occ: Business R/o. Plot No, 127, Venkaramana Colony, Road No.6, H&thinapuram, L: B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

26.B.lalender Reddy, S/o.8. Venkata Narashima Reddy, R/o: H.No.3-9-5 49 | 3, Srirama Hil ls Colony, Mansoora bad, L.B.Nagat Hyderabad. .

27.Ch.Laxman Rao, S/o.Ch.Sambhasiva Rao Aged about 44years, Oce: hrt. Employee R/o.Plot No.39, Medical and health Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad.

28.Praveen Kumar, S/o.Upender Aged about 38 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee R/o.H.No.7-159, Chaitanya Nagar, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District.

29.K.Ashok Kumar, S/o. Upender Aged about 44years, Oce: EmPloYee R/o Flat No.309 SVRS Brundavanam Apartment, Na raya nadri B lock, Venkateshwa ra Colo ny, Sa roo rnaga r, Hydera bad'

30.R. Madhukar Rathod, S/o. Surya Rathod Aged about 48 years, Occ: Agriculturg, R/o. Flat No.335, Alekya Towers, Sitaramnagar Colony, Bairamalguda, Near Sagar Cross Road, Hyderabad.

31.N.Linga Reddf _S/.N.Somi Reddy Aged about 32 years, Occ; Business R/o.H.No.3-8-4021, Suryodaya Colony, Road No.4, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

32.G.Bhaskar Reddy S/o.G.Laxma Reddy Aged about 47 yeirs, oce; Business,:iR/o.Plot No.SB, Uimi la nagar, Hasthi napu ram, B. N. Reddy, R. R. District. F-: / *e

33.G.Savitha, [o.G.Ram Reddy, Aged 42 years, Oce: House wife.R/o. H.No.1-45, Pedda Kaparthi Village, Chitiyala Mandal, Nalgonda District.

34.A. Naveen Kumar Reddy, S/o.Dasharatha Reddy Aged about 35.years, Occ: Business R/0.H. No.5-102, Vembavi Village, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

35.A.Janakaja; W/o K. Biksham Reddy Aged about 58 yeais, Occ: Housewife R/o, H.No. 2-4-694', New Nagole,L.B.-l,lajar, R.R. District. ,

16.Singlilkonda Srinivas S/o.S.Lingaiah Aged qbAqt 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.50141, Granipanchayat Street, Nidamanuru, Nalgonda. 3T.Bejjanamoni Narsimha S/o.B.Anjai jh Aged about 39 ygap, Occ: Business R/o. Plot N0.79, Hariharapuram, Vanasthalipuram Hydembad.

38.T. Rambabu S/o Kuchiralu, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Employee, R/o Flat No.502, Door hlo. 76-71-47912, and 2AB, Sri Sailaja Plazza, Mansoorapad, Hyderabad.

39.K.Vijay Kumar Reddy, S/o Seetha Rami Reddy Aged about 43.years, Occ: Employee,:R/o.Plot No.B60 Pmgathinagar; Opp:JNTU, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

40.Gauram Srinivas Reddy, S/o.G. Na rayan Reddy Aged about 42yearc, Occ: Business, R/o. Gandi Cheruvu Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, R.R. District.

41.P. Krishnam RajLrS/o.Sathyanarayan Raju, Aged about 56 years, R/o Plot No. 63/4, Flat No.102, Above Heritage Fresh, u . Vengalarao Nagar Main Road, Hyderabad

42.D.V.Krishnani Raju S/o. Sita Ram Raju, Aged about 61 |ears Rlo. plot No.86, Siddartha Nagar Behind Vengal Rao Nagar, Hyderabad

43.N.Surya Bhasl_<aram W/o. late N Narashimaraju, Aged about 59 years R/o. plot No.524 H.No.2-23-493, HMT Hills Near ramalayam temple, JNTU Post, Kukatpally, Hyderabad L I I

44.K.Abhishek Reddy, S/o.K.Surender RF.t.t\, Aged2! years, Occ:- Business,R/o, pfoi ru".'so Vivekdria.ndanasar Cotonv R"ua.iil i;;;;]rl"cate z rane, Man'soorabab, L.B.Nagar, HyderjUao.'

45.M.Veera RedlV, S/o.U. Saidi Reddy, Aqed 5lyears, Occ: Buqiness R/o H.No.3-6_319, Namitha Everest, Flat N;.201, seH i"l"rv B.ilaurguau-, Sargg{lagaf, Road, L. B.Nagar. 19 tt;9-ry+f t*: d!v, w / o. Ven ka t Rebdy, yEard, Occ: House wife, 19.d._99 A/.g,f,tOt fV.o. 50, Vivekanandanagar Colony Road No.1, sleftQa cate z tane Mahsoorau.o, isL,rjgli ivj..o.o ,al,j$.nEf g,t3od Sunitha; W/o.J.Venkat Reddy, ---rI 19.9.41rvS9.r:; o.cc: House Wife, R/g H. .No.3:9- 6+7 lscisiisatnarh Cotony opp: panama Godown, .,.1..| '.,,; , ',.:',,, prat'ad, STo.Kotaiah,,

18.K:?1m9dara $u9 :q years, Occ: Busihess, R/o Arnavyshiny Construction, Flut Nn. nr,, Beside SBI Opp: Sampurna Hotei f"reJipu"rrv irirfugu, Medchal. Rambabu, S/o. Gopaiah, . 19.V?:u^," Aged 48 years, Occ: Busipess, H.No:,15:17_406/4. r' Ivul"r, Vijayanag,r cotonv z, ftrim#iin'iY'!i""

50.l.Ram Chandra Reddy, S/o. RanoaRedrtv Aged 38 yearE Occ:- Business, R/o"l.ruo.il_5_rro RTC Colony, Road No.7, HaVatnnaSq.rrfR Di;iiJ' sl.M.Sathi Reddy, S/o.Anii Reddv.;,;,i,.. , Aged 51 years, occ: Business. riiol:lfi1rvn n_.o upparguda,Koheda,Abdulaprrr6ff|,,1ii-r,=rih.Districr S2.s.lrumata Reddy, s/o. s.yadi'fi6Etii: ' Aged 44 yea rs, occ : Busin ess nld:ifi iri6. zs_e+ Sa raswathi nagar, Saroorna gar, ga iibailnetlov'6i.tria _ 500060 s3.Modem Rangaiah CouO, Slo.euajdih. , Aged 54 yea rs, Occ : Business, f,:,/o.:$p.i gicheruvu Vi t ta ge, Abdulapurmer Mandat, Ranga'neaEfrDirt,ia. :i']r*fu;"''..' ' "'" ' " ... : ,'....]' ' 1.':. ft/ ) , s4.G.Sri Devi W/o' Mohan Vamshi il"'o'-unort +r years RJo- plot no'86 ;y"'ffi -;#'e"r,ino' vun gu t Rao N a ga r Hvderabad' .Respondents/Revision Petitioners

55.The ioint Collector; R'R'Distrist' 56.The Revenue Divisional Officer' Ibrahimpatnam Division' 57.The Tahsildar, Abduilapurmet Mandal' R'R' District'

58. (haja Mohinuddin' S/o'Ameer Ali' 59. Kamarunnisa Begum' D/o'Late Fazalunnisa Begum 60. K.Shaiiaja, D/o K'Bose 61. Penkat ReddY, S/o P'Lachi ReddY 62.Smt.Chebrolu Gourikantam' Wo Satyanarayana 63. Gani venkateswara' S/o VenkatesGrtu 64. Jonnalagadda Venlata Reddy' S/o $arsimha '

65.Smt.Sury'aDevaHemalatha'W/oQ'RamachandraRao 66. Smt.Amulya'.D/o S'RamachandraRao 67. S.Amith Nagendra' S/o S'Ramac(,a,.i!ra Rao 68. Surikanti Krishnaveni' Wo S'Thiru'r1al Reddy 6g.Jonnalagadda Mallareddy, S/o Lqle.llalsimha T0.Chimmula Prabhakar neOoy' slo,!i!e Buchireddv Tl.Chimmula Venkat Reddy' S/o Late Buchireddy 7 2.5fit. Cya n gidi Prema latha' W/o'Kr:r-shna Reddy '-tt,' T3.Smt.VaradaRangaiahcouo;5/6:r-iteB.Sar,nmaiahGoud 74. Snrt.B.Uma Devi, Wo B'shanker 75. Chimmula Nishitha, Wo Ch'Venka! Reddy 76. Banala Indira, Wo Narsimha ReQdy 77. vaadaRamulu Goud' Sio Late V'S4mmaiaJr Goud 78. Kandala Ranga Reddy' S/o Latd'Cdmchbndra Reddy .,.;:.,i i:r . i \ I ! I 0 0 7?'rq. ' '/ ,n.v.Mallesh Goud, s/o V'sammaiah Goud 80. Ganesh Narsaiah Bhonigiri' S/o Naqsaiah Bhongiri 81. Kouur Manjula, W/o' Ravi

82. K.Ram Kumar Reddy'

83. K.Sridhar,

84. K.Ravi.

85. K.Lokesh ReddY,

86. B. Sathaiah.

87. AflaraPu Janardhan,

88. K. Shiva Kumar Reddy,

89. K.SuirriYa ReddY-

90. K.N4amatha.

91. T.Ram Chandra ReddY 92. Avula Navamani, Wo Devara Subbarao

93.R. Jeevan Prakash'

94.T.Vartender. {i i

95.T.Bartender. 96. Lanka Sridevi, W/o' L'Ramesh' (Respondents 58 to 96 are not necessary parties to this petition) ... ResPondent/ResPondents ... 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 1910712017 passed in CRP.No.1160 of 2017 and dismiss the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRI.DAMMALAPATI SRINIVAS REP.SRI P SASIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Rgspondent Nos.1 to 3 : G.P FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 9 : SRI A.H.CHAKRAVARTHY C.R.P.No.1161 of 2020 : Petition U/s 91(b) & (c) of Telangana Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act. 1950 against the Order made in Case No.F2l267312018 dated 31.08.2019 on the file of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRI.KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : G.P FOR REVENUE Cou4sel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 9 : SRI A.H.CHAKRAVARTHY C.R.P.No.1162 ol 202O : Petition U/s 91(b) & (c) of Telangana Tenancy & Agricuttural Lands Act 1950 against the order made in case No.F2l26lsl2o1| dated 31.08.2019 on the file of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. i I Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI.DAMMALAPATI SRINIVAS REP.SRI P SASIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : G.p FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 9 : SRI A.H.CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.17&18 : SRI A.VENKATESH C.R.P.No.1 163 ot 2O20 : Petition u/s 91(b) & (c) of relangana Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act 1950 against the order made in case No.F2l242212o18 dated 31.09.2019 on the file of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI.DAMMALAPATI SRINIVAS REP.SRI P SASIDHAR REDDY , Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : G.p FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to g : SRI A.H.CHAKRAVARTHY C.R.P.No.1164 ot 2020 : Petition U/s 9t(b) & (c) of Telangana Tenancy & Agricultural l-ands Act 1950 against the Order made in Case No.F21267612018 dated 31.08.2019 on the file of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI.DAMMALAPATI SRINIVAS REP.SRI P SASIDHAR REDDY I Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : G.P FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 9 : SRI A.H.CHAKRAVARTHY 4 {_ C.R.P.No.567 ot 2O20 : Petition Uis 91(b) & (c) of Telangana Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act 1950 against the order made in case No.F2l262st2018 dated 3i.08.2019 on the file of the Joint Collector, Ringa Reddy District. Between : 7 Smt. Suryadera Hemalarha, Wo. S. Ramachandra Rao, Aged abouf 59 years, Occ: I-louse Wit-e, z

3. Smt. S. Amulya, D/o. S..Ramachanclra llao, Aged about 35 years, Occ; pvl. Service, S. Amit Nagendra, D/o. S. Ramachaldra Rao, Aged about 3 t years, Occ: Service, 'All are R/o. IJ.No. \-2-293/B2R_II/B_17, Road No..l, Site - It, Iilmnagar, Hyderabld. -. Petitioners,/RespondeDt Nos. 2l to 23 AND I 1. State ofTelangana Revenue Department, Represented by its principfll Sccr.etrr,.,, Lluyderabad

2. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. J. Revenue Divisional Ollicer., Rarga Reddy District

4. Trc IIon,UIe Oisrrict Colleoor, Ranga Reddy District y' Kandada Bakka Reddy, S/o. Satfri Recldy, Occ; Agrl.,Rcsident of IJiperguda , Hamlet of Koheda Vi)lage, I{ayatluragar manclal, It.R. District Kandada Kr.islura Recltly. S/o. Sathi Rcdcly, Occ: Agll., Resident of Uppcr.gu<la , F ,i I Ft:r T. ;- l,' l ! f

8. 9- / 10 Z I-Ianler of Kohcda Village, I-Iayatlxragar Dardal, R_R. District Kandada Naras.irnha Reddy, S/o. Sathi Iieddy, ' ' . :'-.!-i;: : Occ: Agrl.. Resident ol Upperguda , Hamlet of Koheda Village, Ilayatbnagar iuaiidal, R.R. D-isli"ct Kandada lr{ohal Reddy, S/o- Sathi Reddy, " Occ: Agrl., Rcsident ofupperguda, Hamlet of Xoheda Village, Hayatluragar ruandal, R.R. District ''' - ; ::.', ' Kandada Ranga Reddy, S/o. Sathi Itcddy Occ: Agrl., Resident of Upperguda , I.lamlet of Koheda Village, Hayathnagar.mdhjal, R.R: jji'iriicr. .:: : Kandada Yadi Reddy, S/o. K. Yellaiah, :'::r:j' i .. : Occ: Agrl., Rcsident of Upperguiia- Hamlet of Koheda Village, Hayatlqgar rirandal, Ri Di## !x) nespo-i.od.ii . v6s.sio 1 0/Appellaiiis :. ,i,. , 11. Syed Ghani Miyur S/o.lare Sycd Nubi I Aged Major, Occ: Agdculture. /rZ. Svei lqbal S/o.Sved Nabi t- Aged Major, Occ: Agriculture ,13. MirNissar MiyaD S/o.late Syed Nabi Aged Majoq Occ: Agriculrure. ,14. Sycd MLrsthaq S/o.Lare Syed Nabi Aged Major, Occ: Agriculture.

15. Mohd Pasha Sio.Sved Nabi I' .Aged Major, Occ: n griculrure. R/o No.l to 5 erc FUo-1-l-76-Bll/2, New Basararn, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad. i16. Madireddy Sanlosh S/o.M.Jagadish Kunar I R./o.H.No-I6-1 1-2219, Krishna Tulasinagar, Moosarambagh, Flyderabad. I 17. B.Rarnaswamy S/o.Lachaia} Occ: Agriculture Wo.Rattipalli village, Munugodu Mandal, Nalgonda Dishict. ' p8. K.Sailaja D/o.K.Dose Occ: pvr Sen,ice, \ R/o.FIat No- 104, Lotus Residency l; ) r P K ,S o St N G o, Lr AI (21. G. Or Rr * 42. P. Oc Ph '23- P:t Oc Va t 2q. P.\ Oc Phr (

25. En Oc, Nal 26- Arr Ocr Bhz Rar

27. K.S Occ Dil: 28_ K.A / Occ Gatr

29. Suri Occ I : i i I I I 1 I I I 1 I l + I u Plot No.32 and 5th MIG 6rh pha;e, .. KPFTB Colony, Hyderabad. I /8. .Sanpatb S/o. G. Samrpa iatr I ''". Occ: Govt Teacher, R/o.H.No.2g_560, :? _-:=- .r, ,.f. ' . '< :. " .,- ' ',' hrr,irpt - .r, .:,1:_.i,:.i.... i o 1,:,,.1 .-. . ' .t, ,' .i,r,\,-,i i .. _ .::r;- -i,.ijitr.,.a i ,; !'.-; i -i ;'1 - ]1! .]: ( { Sundemagar Colony, Miryalaguda Nalgonda Distri"r .,r&#-s_q .,. r.,r. r..,...^,..r . .. f0. G.Ashwini Wo.C.Jir}ender l ( Occ: Housewifc R./o. H.No.4 _ leddY ' ,.. =, i ' lT::: :"::,:ryp.i-,il#, ^,,,.., ;:, ; .',,i...':,... . aud Mandal, R.R.District_ / 121. c.Mallesh S/o.G.Nagaialq I O8c: Business R/o.H,ry&t_"a111, ,,,., -,. . Raghavendranagrir Colony, ,, I.F:et+c3'"5\p+.$fgro, r, 42. p.Chandra Reddy S/o.late p.Lachi Redrly Occ: Govt Service R/o.pJot No.29, PhaseJV Vanas$alipuram, R.R.District '23. P.Nagamma Wo.p.Chandra Reddy Occ:Housewife R./o.plot No.29, phase _lV Vanastbalipuram,R.RDist_icl. , '24. P.Venkat Reddy S,/o.p.Lachi Reddy Occ; Govt Service R/o.plot No.29, Phase -IV, Vanasthalipuram, R.R.Dist.

25. Emmadi Ramesh S/o.late E.Rajaiah Occ: Busfuess, R./o.H.No. g_30 I Na.lgonda District

26. Arrepu Raghu S/o.A.Ramalingaiah ( 1 Occ: Employee in Singareni Wo.e.No.SD 230 Bhagarh Singh Nag a\ B_Zone, Ramakishnaprn @ost) Adilabad District .,, ._ . f 7. K.Sujatla D/o. Seshu Rertd-v, Occ: Housewifc, R /o.H.No. 7-98, fr4ual,.upuri, Dilsukbnagar, Hyderabad. I 28- K.Apana D/o.K.Surender Reddy Occ; Student, R/o.plot No.5,b, Near Salara Gate -4, Marsoorabad, R.RDistnct.

29. Sumkanti Rtureema @Rani Wo_s.Macliusudban Reddv Occ:Houservife R-/o.H,No. I _ i4 F r Sherigudem village, Kanakanalagudem Rcvenue, Samsthatr Narayanapuranr Maridal, )'lalgonda District. ,/ f . Smt. Seerha Prasanna W/o.Seethjl SaryaDarayana Occ: Housewife R/o.H.N}.3-9-554D61502 - .. .- .\- . - , _-. .l; , ..Il:i Ragala Enclave, Mansurabad riear'Gae -l opp: Sen Rcsiir*"i,. r.'bitaiiar:irn.oi.lie' . : :i:r:.l.,;.:' k'nr- .1. . \ .. :1- ,. '4es.pCndents':lq]g,,29lRespondenrs I ro 20 Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl.A.Venkatesh Sr.Counsel REP,M/s PRATUSHA BOPPANA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : G.p FOR REVENUE r i I I I I Ce ' the . Pet Sar 3, .Ir I Cou.nsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to g : SRI A.H.CHAKRAVARTHY/SRl ALLIKA SURESH The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTTCE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PEf,ITION Nos.116O, 1L61, LL62' LL63' 1164 AND 5,67 OF 2020- COMMON ORDER: Since the parties and Iis involved in these revision petitions are same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order'

2. These revision petitions are preferred being aggrieved by the common order dated 31'08'2019 passed in Case Nos.F2 I 2422 I 2ot8, F2 I 267 3 I 2018, F2 I 267 4 I 2O\8' F2l2675l2}l8 andF2l2676l2OlS. The respondents in the said cases are the revision petitioners, and the appellants in the said cases are respondent Nos.4 to t herein, and respondent Nos.S to l0 in CRP.No .567 of 2O2O '

3. The brief facts of the cases on hand are that the appellants frled the above mentioned appeals under Section 9O of the Telangana State Tenancy ald Agriculhrral Lands Act, 1950 (for short Act 195OJ which were remanded back for fresh determination by affording opporfunity to the 2 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1l60 of 2020 & batch parties in CRP.Nos.1552, 1544, 2663, 4444 and 4447 of 20 15 that were preferred by the same parties as that of these revision petitioos. The case revolv,es around a dispute over land ownership and tenancy rights concerning old Survey Numbers 2712 and 2713 whictr were later assigned new Survey Numbers 135, 136, l3l, 732, and 150 in Koheda Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The appellants, who are descendants of one Kandada Yellaiah, contend that the name of their grandfather was the recorded as Protected Tenant of lands bearing old Survey Nos. 27 12 and 27/3, and that Kandada Yellaiah never surrendered his tenancy rights under the provisions of the Act, 1950, ald that his name was allegedly removed from the tenancy register without following due process.

4. In addition, that Section 38-E certificates were wrongly gr-anted to other parlies by the then Revenue Divisional Ofhcer (RDO) without proper verifrcation of the tenancy records or issuing notices to the rightful claimants. The revision petitioners who are respondents therein contended that the appellants and their family members had already been granted Section 38-E certificates for different 3 SKS, J CRP.Nos.I160 of2020 & batch survey numbers and had sold those lands to third parties, contending that tlre pioceedings in question were finalized through a common order dated 23.O2.L984, following due process under the relevant Tenancy Correction Rules. Further, that the appellants were aware of the corrections made to the tenancy register and that their current claims are invalid and time-barred. It was emphasized that the disputed lands have since been converted to non- agricultural use, several plots were sold to bono ftQe purchasers over the past two decades. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Joint Collector dated 31.08.2019 through which the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer uide File No.N/3O43/78 dated 23.02.7984 was set aside, remanding t1 e matter back to the Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, this Revision Petition is preferred.

5. Heard Mr. D.Srinivas, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P.Sasidhar Reddy, learned counsel - for revision petitioners 1n CRP.Nos.1160, 1161, 7162, 1163 and 1164 of 2O2O, Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Ms.Prathyusha Bopanna] learned counsel for revision petitioners in j 4 SKS. J CRP.Nos.I 160 of2020 & batch CRP.No.567 of 2O2O, and Mr. Avancha H. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for respondents/ appellants.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for revision petitioners in CRP.Nos. 1160, 1161, t162, tl63 and 1164 of 202O submitted that the impugned common orders dated 3f .08.2019 passed by the Joint Collector, are arbitrary, illegal, and against the facts on record and circumstances of the case. He firstlg contended that the Joint Collector failed to consider the crucial aspect of the respondents, acceptance of corrections and the execution of sale deeds to third parties based on the original orders dated 2g.O2.i,!.a4 and asserted tJ.at the same is a vital issue that goes to the root of the matter. Secondlg, ttrat the Joint Collector failed to frame the core issues in the case, which is a fundamental requirement of any adjudicatory process, ald instead, the Joint Collector relegated the adjudication to the RDO, which is not only unwarranted but also outside the purview of the remand order, and lamented that the same amounts to clear violation of the principles of natura,l justice. 5 CRP.Nos.l160 of 2020 & batch SKS, J

7. The learned senior counsel thirdlg, contended that the Joint Collector ought to have dismissed the appeals on the grounds of delay, laches, and lack of bonahdes. He lamented that the respondents had accepted the benefits of the orders dated 23.02.1984 and had executed sale deeds to third parties, and later sought to question the same orders, which is not permissible in law, as such, he divulged that the same is a clear case of approbate and reprobate, where a party cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath, Fourthty, that the Joint Collector failed to consider the fact that the respondents had submitted to the correction of their tenancy records ald had accepted the beneflts thereof, due to which they cannot now be permitted to question the same records. Fifihlg, that tJle Joint Collector ought to have been conscious of the fact that the Hyderabad Tenancy Records (Correction) - Rules, 1956, are framed on O4.02.1956 in exercise of the powers conferred by section 9Z rlw sections 35 and 37 of tJle Hyderabad Tenalcy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, basing on which the Joint Collector ought to have dismissed the appeal cases instead of remanding the same to RDO by taking into consideration the concurrent hndings .t, 6 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of2020 & batch on the factual aspects arrived at in the earlier round of adjudication reflected in the orders dated 15.02.2005 &

17.07.2014.

8. While advocating that the Joint Collector ought to have dismissed the appeal cases by treating them as vexatious litigation designed to harass the innocent plot owners after reaping the benehts of orders dated 23.02.1984 he prayed this Court to consider the precedents hled thereon, and to set aside the irnpugned common order by allowing these revision petitions.

9. l,earned senior counsel appearing for revrslon petidoners in CRP.No.567 of 2O2O submitted that tJle impugned common order is flawed for several reasons, contending that the same is contrary to law ald facts placed on record. He further contended that the established set of legal principles of law, were igrrored, including the principle that "once a protected tenant, always a protected tenant" does not apply in cases where the rights of tenants have been corrected or waived- He pointed out that the respondents never had arly rights in respect of Survey 7 SKS, J CRP.Nos- I160 of 2020 & batch No. 27 13, and that the contention of respondents to protected tenancy rights in respect of the said land is bogus and not supported by any evidence. Ue-iamentea that the . respondents had accepted the corrections made to the tenancy register and had executed sale deeds to third parties, thereby, waiving their rights in respect of the said land and divulged that the respondents had not approached the Court with clean hands. He articulated that the respondents had obtained ownership certificates and sold their land without disclosing the fact, and therefore, their appeals ought have been dismissed at the threshold, as they had suppressed material facts ald had made false statements, which amounts to fraud. He contended that the observation made in the impugned common order that the petitioners had not accepted the corrections and executed sale deeds to third parties, is an error apparent to the facts of the cases. Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow these reyision petitions, setting aside the impugned common order.

10. On the other hald, tJ.e learned counsel for respondentS, vehemently, opposed the contentions made by t 8 CRP-Nos.l 160 of 2020 & barch SKS. J respective learned senior counsel for revision petitioners, and contended that the present revisions are not maintainable, as the order of the Joint Collector is merely a remand order and does not decide the rights of the parties. In support of the said contention, he relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Yerrabothu Sathaiah vs yedla Chellaiahl, and in the case of Kurva Maltamma and another vs Kupireddy Shastriz, wherein, it was held that a revision under Section 91 of the Act is not maintainable against an order of remand. He asserted that the revision petitioners are estopped from raising the same issues that were earlier raised and dealt with by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, and emphasized that the petitioners had earlier challenged the order of the RDO dated 23.2.1994 which was dismissed by this Court, as such, they cannot be allowed ta re-agitate the same issues that were earlier decided against them. He reiterated that the petilioners cannot re-urge tfre issues tlat have been decided and became _frnal in the earlier round of litigation. He incessantly contended that even assuming that an erTor was crept in, ' tgoo (r) aLt p rgr ' 2001 (1)ALD P 382 Y 9 SKS, J CRP.Nos-1160 of 2020 & batch while rendering lindiigs contrar5r to the record, the same cannot be rectihed inrthis revision, as the said findings have become hnal, and that a party canrfot be allowed to re-agitate issues that have been frnally decided against t-hem.

11. He divulged that the contention of revision petitioners' that they were not parties to the earlier round of litigation and that they are bonafide pu_rchasers is not tJle correct law. He contended that the petitioners' contention to have purchased the propert5r pendente tite, and stepping into the shoe of their vendors who have contested the case is false. He placed reliance on the precedents whereunder it was held that a purchaser pendente lite is bound by the decision in the suit, and cannot be allowed to. re-agrtate issues that have been.finally decided against the vendor. He proclaimed that the pltitioners have not challenged the judgment rendered by this Court in CRP No.1552 of 2O15 and batch dated 0-2.O5.2018, which had decided the issues raised thereof, and on contrary, they are now seeking to re-agitate the .same issues that were earlier decided ,against them, which is fiot permissible under the law. 10 SKS' J CRP.Nos.1160 ot2020 & batch

12. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated that the pe[itioners' contention that the judgment rendered in CRP.No. 1552 of 2O15 and batch dated O2'O5 2018 is trad in law, cannot be tenable, as they have not challenged the judgment within the stipulated time' and therefore' the judgment has become final, and also reiterated the principle of law that a party cannot be allowed to challenge a judgment that has become final' Therefore' he concluded his arguments and prayed this Court to dismiss the revision petitions, stating that the same lacks merits'

13. Having regard to the rival submissions made' ald on going through the material placed on record' it is noted that these revision petitions are frled challenging the common order dated 31.08.2019 passed by the Joint Collector' contending that without deciding the issues' the matters were remanded to the RDO. On perusing the impugned common order passed by the Joint Collector' it is seen that the procedure contemplated under the Act' has not been followed while issuing 38(E) Certifrcate' Further' in the order d.ated, 23.02.1984 passed by the RDO' it is clear that an application was frled by Koheda villagers for correction of 11 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1160 of 2020 & batch Iinal record of tenalcy and patta certificate was issued under Qection 38(E) of the Act. However, it is not known as to who has fi1ed the application for co#ection of tenancy . records, and under what authority of law. Furt-her, in the said order it was held that as per the gaideltnes tssued bg tLrc Collector, the Tahsildar, Hagathnagar, has conducted. local enquiry and prepared the tenancE register as per phgsical possession of tLe pTs. No objections were received on t1.e register prepared by the Tahsildar, Hayathnagar. Hence, it was observed ttrat the record prepared by the Tahsildar showing the survey number and extent on which they had possession was accepted in to. Therefore, the tenancy records were corrected under Rule 3(2) of the Rules 1956, and a finding was given that tenancy record was changed based on some guidelines issued by the Collector, and record' prepared by the Tahsitdar, as per the possessions and no mention was made as to the names that have been corrected. Reliarrce was placed in the order dated O2.O5.2O18 passed by this Court in CRp.Nos.15S2 of 2OtS and batch, whereunder, it was observed that once th,e - t 72 SKS, J CRP.Nos.1l60 of 2020 & batch oiginal PT regi.ster enties are clear, tLere could be no change as LeId in Sada Vs. Tah.sida4 Utnoor, Adilabad3.

14. It is settled law that the interest of pT continues to be operable ald subsisting so long as protected tenancy is not validly terminated as recognized by law, irrespective of possession of land in question. Further, it is also held by various Courts that even if the FT has lost his possession, without there being valid determination of his status as protected tenant, he would still be entitled to all incidents of protections under the Act.

15. Reverting to the facts in tJle cases on hand, it is noted that the subject lands were converted to non agricultural lands ald sold to third parties, resulting in creation of third party interests, and most of the sales on the subject lands took place -after the year 1993 i.e., when the litigation on rights over subject lands took place. Thereafter, in view of the direction issued by this Court uid.e order d,ated O2.O5.2O18 in CRP.No.1544 of 2OtS and batch, the appeals ' uwslaeHi rsoz-s-o 7', 13 SKS, J CRP.Nos.l160 of 2020 & batch were allowed, remanding back the matters to the RDO for fresh determination by affording opportunity to the parties. L6. That being so, it is clear that the specihc contention of revision petitioners is that the certificates under Section 38(E) were issued to villagers of Koheda Village, whereas, in the said certihcates, the survey numbers were different and that they are in the possession in the different of survey numbers, as such, some of the PT holders represented before the Tahsildar, for correction of entries and frled afhdavits in this regard, basing on which the Collector, directed the Tahsildar to recti$r the entries, and admittedly, the respondents herein sold away the property in which tJrey are originally in possession and the same would show that there is acceptance of change of entries in the PT register and the sarne was result of acting upon the changes made in FrI register records. Therefore, the Joint Collector, ought \ \ to have verified the records with regard to original tenancy register. and subsequent amendments made in the PT register. Further, the Joint Collector ought to have verilied the records as to how many PT holders hled application before tde concerned authorit5r for rectification of entries I / SKS, J CRP.Nos I l60 of2020 & batch and without specifying the said aspects, the Joint Collector simply remanded the matters to the RDO, without discussing the material on record.

17. In view of the above discussion ald on considering the circumstances of these cases, these revision petiLions are disposed of, setting aside the impugned common order dated 31.08.2019 and remanding the matters to the Joint Collector with a direction to dispose of the appeals within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, only after duly verifying the records thorougirly and validly covering all aspects pertaining to original PT register entries, subsequent entries made thereof, and also with regard to the affrdavits filed by parties for correction of entries. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR Note: This order is amended as per Court order made in lA.No.1 of 25 dated 17 -04-2025 bv rectifvinq the Typographical errors in common oider in bdP.Nos.r t0O,t tOt,t t 02,1163.1164 & 567 ol 2O2O dated 25-03-2025 the following corrections are,made: tn page no.2, para No.3"Survey Numbers 2712 and 2713" in olace ol 27112 and 27113. ln paqe iro.3, para No.4: "file No.N/3043/78" in olace of "File No.3043/78." in page no.3, para No.5: The appearance of learned counsel in CRP No.1161 of 2020 shall be recorded appropriately. ln oaoe no.10, oara no.13: "23-02-1984" in ptdciot "03-02-19A4". * Y //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District 2. One CC to Sri P.Sasidha-r Reddy, Advocate (OpUC) 3. One CC to Sri A.H.Chakravarthv . Advocate iOpUCi 4. One CC to M/s Pratusha Boppahna, Advocate (OpLjC) 5. One CC to Sri Allika Suresh , Advocate (OPUC) 6. Two CD Copies w Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL REGISTRAR DEP t \b \\ etsrtoru oFFtcER : I 0 HIGH COURT DATED:25103t2025 \ AMENDED ORDER CRP.No.1 160, 1 161, 1162, 1163, 1 164 and S6t 6f 2OZO 1 r{E 5TA I e G o( v ?-c ). J o 2 E t?F 7[25 t f-s pr rc\a * Disposing of the C.R.ps Without costs. q\{