High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. z 4 6

7. ...PETITIONER The State of Telanoana rep. by its principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderaf, ad. I!:rl?,jl Coilector, Matkajgiri_Medchat District at Keesara ORR Junction, The Revenue Divisionat Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, (presenfly It4a lkajgiri Division) Matkajgiri_Medtr,"r bYrj,i"i""", -' The Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal, Malkajgiri-A/edchat District. lvl.Laxman Reddv. s/o Late M.Bal Reddy Aged about 70 yeas. occ. Business r/o Ptot No 48, Sbujanya Cotony Ne; d6;"'r;;til $Jrnderabad Smt. M.Arundathi, w/o M.Lr F6i Ni;,is's;;l;";;ufiilfr 3[ Es*ilfigil S"r"nruwc Housewife r/o tvl.Rajsehkar Reddv. s/o [Vl Laxman Reddy Aged 46 years, occ. Business r/o Plot No 48, Soujaiya corony New aori;6jriils*,i,,id'erabad

8. Smt [Vt.lVtamatha, Housewife. tlo Secunderabad. w/o [\4. Raishekar Reddv Plot No. -48, Soujanyb Aged about 42 Colony New ears, occ. owenpally, v B

9. M.Dhiren Reddv. s/o M.Rajshekar Reddy, aged About 21 years, occ. Business r/o plol No +a Soralnyitolo;;iid*?;;enpalry, secunderabad. 10. Ch.lr/alla Reddv. s/o I ate Malla Reddy, aged 62 years, occ. Business. r/o 1'l ch'Karpana. w/o ch.rvrafla Reddy aged about 57 years, occ. Housewife r/o sy.No. 59, Jayanagar Corony, Gw'6;ridfi:td, SScunoerabad. Sy No 59, Jayanagar corony, Ne'w #ilfiiy, Blcunoerabad 12 M Mah.ender Reddy, s/o Ctr.Malla Reddy, aged about 38 years, occ. Business r/o Sy No 59, Jayahagar coionv, rrri,wHo*Eiijri]b""rnderabad. r"1" 5v.ii". ss, .ravanrgribolony lt"'* B5wenpally' Secunderabad'

13. Ch.Shalini, w/o Ch.lvlahender Reddy, aged about 36 years' occ' Housewife '" 14.Ch.Bhadra Reddy s/o-Ch lrilalla Reddy aged ab^out 36. years.occ Doctor r/o '- 5v- ilirlsg. L uy^nl.,ga, Colony. New Bowenpally Secunderabad' '15.Ch.Preeti, w/o Ch Bhadra Reddy, aged about 3^5 years' occ. Housewife r/o '- 5; N;:'d Jivanigar colonv, Ntiw Bbwenpallv, secunderabad' ,,.RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewrth,theHighcourtmaybe pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction' more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dt 6-3-2018 in File No MDL/F1l108/2016 settingasidetheoRCissuedinfavourofthepetitionervideProcs-No.3/961/99 dt.B-3-lgggissuedbythe3rdrespondentinrespectofthelandadmeasuringAc' 4-32gts.inSy.no.82lEE,situatedatJeedimetlavillage,QutbullapurMandal, tr/Ialkajgiri-MedchalDisticterstwhileRangaReddyDistrictandquaShtheSame' IA NO:1 OF 2024

Between: Maktal Vijay, S/o Late Dr Maktal tvladan tvlohan' Aoed about 45 Vears' Occ Pharmacist, Presently resroinf,ai +i7O- Cates Are Ap-artment 2' Jersey City.' New J;&;;?iiiod, LsA'n.p by'it" G"n"r.rt power of Atrorney. lr/aktal Ai11 [ym.ar, ii.'iitJ'5ii""nrrr,trr shvr*'sunder Aged about 52 vears occ: '1-2-57 to.51' F;r;;; sittaian Apartments Firi uo ro7, Domatguda, Himayathnagar, Hvderabad- 500 029' TG ..PETtrtoNER/PRoPosED RESP.NDENT AND 1 K.Sudhama, s/o Late K.Asha Balaiah, aged about 55 years'. occ Business' r/o F'iri-'i..l; ;bi,-ploi r.ro tso,- krlsnna" Palace, Vasavi Nagar, Karkhana' Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTIPETITIONER 2. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary' Revenue Depadment Secretariat, HYderabad.

3.TheJointCollector,Malkajgiri-MedchalDistrictatKeesaraORRJunction' Keesara.

4. The Revenue Divisional officer, Ranga.Reddy East Division, (presently Vtrtf"lgiri Division) li/alkajgiri-lr/ledchal District

5. The Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ir/lalkajgiri-Medchal District' ! t t i i I I t) 7 o I [/.l.axman Reddy, s/o Late [\4.Bal Reddy Aged about 70 yeas, occ. Business r/o Plot No. 48, Sbujanya Colony New Bowe-npally, Secundera6ad. Smt. M.Arundathi, w/o [Vl.Laxman Reddy Aoed 64 years, occ. Housewrfe r/o Plot No. 48, Soujanya Colony New Bowehpaily, Secunder'abad. M.Rajsehkar Reddy. s/o M.Laxman Reddy Aged 46 years, occ. Business r/o PIot No. 48, Soujanya Colony New Bowenfally, Secunderabad. Smt. M.l\/amatha, w/o tvl.Rajshekar Reddy Aged about 42 Housewife. rlo Plot No. 48, Soujany'a e olony New Secunderabad. years, occ. Bowenpa lly,

10. Ml.Dhiren fe_ddy, s/o M.Rajshekar Reddy, aged About 2l years. occ. tsusrness r/o Plot No.48, Soujanya Colony New Bowenpally, Secuhderabad. 11. Ch.I/alla Reddy, s/o Late t\/alla Reddy, aged 62 years, occ- Business, r/o Sy.No. 59, Jayanagar Colony, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad.

12. Ch.Kalpana, w/o Ch.Malla Reddy, aged about 57 years, occ. Housewife r/o Sy.No. 59, Jayanagar Colony, New Bowenpally, Seiunderabad.

13. M.Mahender Reddy, s/o Ch.lvlalla Reddy, aged about 38 years, occ. Business r/o Sy.No. 59, Jayanagar Colony, New Eiowenpally, Secunderabad. '14. Ch Shalini w/o Ch.lt/ahender Reddy, aged about 36 years, occ_ Housewife r/o Sy.No. 59, Jayanagar Colony, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad. 15 Ch Bhadra Reddy, sio Ch tr/lalla Reddy, aged about 36 years occ. Doctor r/o Sy.No. 59, Jayanagar Colony, New Bowenpally, Secunddrabad. '16. Ch.Preeti, w/o Ch.Bhadra Reddy, aged about 35 years, occ. Housewife r/o Sy.No. 59, Jayanagar Colony, Nelw Bbwenpally, Seiunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petttion 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 permit and lmplead the proposed respondent, as party respondent No. 16 in the present Writ Petition No, 4918 of 2019, who is proper and necessary party respondent in the present Wrrt Petition, in the interest of justice. I IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 operation of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dt. 6- 3-2018 in File frlo. \ADLIF 1110812016, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. -'qtEair.}f,-fl IA NO:1 OF 2020 Between:

1. [t/.Laxman Reddy, s/o Late tril'Bal Reddy Aged about 70 veas' occ' Business r/o Plot No. +4, sorra;6Eorti'iv-rtr"* s6*e"npally Secun6erabad

2. smt. M.Arundathi, w/o [t/1. Laxman Reddy Aged 64 years, occ Housewife r/o PIot No. 48, Soujanyati'iJnv Nt* eo*ehpalty' SecLnderabad' Plot No 48, Soulanya"b"oion"y rl"* ao*"nfall! secunderabad'

3. tr4.Rajsehkar Reddy, s/o M.Laxman Reddy Aged 46 years' occ Business r/o [/ Raishekar Reddy Aged aboul 42 years' occ No 'a8, Soujany'a Colony New tsowenpally

4. Smt. M.Mamatha, w/o Housewife. rlo Plot Secunderabad. Business r/o Plot No 48: $;i;;;;torony -r'iew

5. Ir/.Dhiren Reddy. s/o M.Ralshekar Reddy a-ged About 21 vears occ' e'o*enpally Secuhderabad

6. Ch.Malla Reddy. s/o Late Malla Reddy' aged 62 years occ, Business' r/o " 5v tio. Ss. Jaydnagar Corony New Bowenpally Secunderabad' 7 Ch.Kalpana. w/o Ch.ttlalla Reddy aged about 57 years occ, Housewife r/o ' 5; Ni;."5t;,:rvin"grt c"tony' Ne* B"owenpally secunderabad B. M Mahender Reddy s/o Ch lvlalla Reddy aged about 38 years occ Business r/o Sy.No. 59. Jayanagartoio"vl rtrL* rjt*6npally Secunderabad' 9. Ch Shalini, w/o Ch.Mahender Reddy, gged about 36 years occ' Housewife " i" 5v.r.r". ss, .layanagaib-oionv' lt"'* B6wenpally Secunderabad 10. Ch.Bhadra Reddy, s/o Ch tVlalla Reddy, aged about 36. years ,occ' '" E; N';. 5b; jrvr"t'giic"i"nv' r'rew Bowen-pallv, Secunderabad 1 1 . Ch.Preeti. w/o Ch.Bhadra Reddy aged about 3^5 years occ, Housewife r/o ' ' 5; N;""5U Lri"nrgar- Coionv N<!w Biwenpallv secunderabad Doctor r/o AND ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS No'5tol 5 1 K.Sudhama, s/o Late K.Asha Balaiah, aged about Q9 yeats' occ Busjness' r/o ;bi,- Froi No 130,- Kr"h"; Palace, Vasavi Nasar' Karkhana' 'ii;-;{; Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTMRIT PETITIONER The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary' Revenue Department Secretariat. HYderabad The joint Collector, Malkajgiri-tr/ledchal District at Keesara ORR Junction' Keesara. The Revenue Divisional officer, Ranga .Reddy East Division' (presently tltrit algiri Division) Malkajgiri-lt/edchal District' The Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal, Irilalkajgiri-Medchal Dtstrict' 2 3 4 5 ...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 passed in lA.No. 1 of 2019 in w.p.No. 4g1g of 2o1g dated 11103/2019. Counsel for the petitioner : SRI_A.VENKATESH, SENTOR COUNSEL for SRI PAMULA VAMSHT KRTSHNA Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.Sto15 : SRI pERl PRABHAKAR counsel for the Respondents No.16 : sRr CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY W.P.No.13502 oF 2024 Between:

1. M.Rajshekar Reddv. Business(MLA1, Rio Secunderabad S/o. [Vl.Laxman Plot No.48, Aged about 53 years. Occ. ^Reddy, boulanya Cotony, New Bowenpally, B::[.%'j;,0,:1o Sy No se. i,t;n;s;;-, i;",",,, ' I,t;* 2 CH.[Vahender Reddv. S/o CH.Malla Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ. ffi;;p;rd: CH. Malla Reddy, S/o. late Ma a Redrtv P!:ll_"j-rlYq), R/o Sy No 5e Jayanajar secunderabad Aged about 79 Colony, New years, Occ. Bowenpally, - 3 ...PETITIONERS AND

1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 The State of Telanoana Rep. by its principal Secretary, Home Department, Secreatariat, UyOerSbaO. The Superintendent of police, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The Assistant commissioner. of porice, pet Basheerbagh, euthburapur Mandal. Medchat-lVtalkajg iri District, f ef a-n-gana"' The Deputy Commissioner of police, Medchal, Medchal_Malkajgiri District. The lnspector of Police. pet Basheerbagh, euthbullapur Manal, Medchal_ Malkajgiri district. The Tahsildar, Quthbullapur tvlandal, Medchal_A/alkajgiri District. Srinivas Reddv. Sio. not known to.the petitioner, Aged 45, Occ. Business, R/o. Uppa t Viilase, U ppa l vreo cna l_nri ii-aigi,l b"i;iriit'" """"' ': /a'/ './ ./' I ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a Writ of l\Iandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents 3, 4 and 5 respondents accompanied by the 6th respondent in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land to the extent of Ac.2 14gts in Sy Nos.B2ipart and 83, Jeedimetla Village, Quthbullapur mandal, Ranaga Reddy District which was purchased by the petitioners along with other family members under registered sale deeds viz Doc.No.4274 of 2011 ('l67sq.yards, plot No.121) dated 30 4 20'1 1, 4278 of 20'1 1 (3'lOsq.yards, plot No.124), dated 30.4.2011, 4279 of 2O11 (191sq.yards, plot No.122), dated 30.4.2011, 4557 of 2O11 (71sq.yards, plot No.7slpart), dated 30.4 2011, 4558 of 2011 (145sq yards, plot No 75lpart), dated 30.4.2011, 5748 of 2O11(Ac.O.O2gts or 242sq.yards out of Ac..1 29gts), dated 30.4.2011, 3925 of 2011(Ac.0.05gts or 605sq.yards out of Ac.1 29gts), dated 30.4.2011 , 3926 of 2011(Ac.0.05gts or 605sq.yards out of Ac.1 29gts)' dated 30.4.2011, 3928 of 2011(Ac.0.20gts or 2420sq yards out of Ac 1.29gts), dated 30.4.2011, 4276 of 20'l 1(21ssq.yards, Plot No.'123), dated 30.4.2011,3927 ol 2011(Ac.O.10gtsor121Osq.yardsoutofAc.1.29gts),daled304.2011,andthe2nd Petitioner has purchased an extent of 326sq.yards under registered sale deed Doc.No.4277 of 2011 (Plot No.87), dated 30.4 2011 and the 3rd petitioner has purchased an extent of 631sq.yards vide Doc.No.4280 of 2O11 (Plot Nos 79 and 86), dated 30.4.2011 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondents 3 to 6 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in the said property without following due process. lA NO: 1 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 grant interim direction directing the respondents 3 to 6 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in an extent of Ac.2.14gts in Sy.No.B2l part and 83, Jeedimetla Village, Quthbullapur mandal, Ranaga Reddy District which was purchased by the petitioners along with other family members under registered sale deeds viz. Doc.No.4274 of 2O11 (167sq.yards, plot No.121) dahed 30 4.2O1 1, 427 8 of 201 1 (31 Osq.yards, plot No 1 24), dated 30 4.201 1, 427 9 of 2011 (19'lsq.yards, ptot No.122), dated 30.42011,4S5Z of 2011 (7.lsq.yards, plot No.75lpart), dated 30.4.2011. 4s58 of 2011 (145sq.yards, prot No.75lpart), dated 30.4.2011, 5748 of 2011(Ac.0.02gts or 242sq.yards out of Ac.1.29gts), dated 30.4201 1,3925 of 201i(Ac.0.05gts or 605sq.yards out of Ac.1.29gts), dated 30.4.2011, 3926 of 2011(Ac.0.05gts or 605sq.yards out of Ac.1.29gts), dated 30.4.2011, 3928 oI 2011(Ac.o.20gts or 242osq.yards out of Ac..1 .29gts), dated 30.4.2011. 4276 of 2011(21Ssq yards, prot No 123) dated 30.4.20.r 1,3g2r of 2011(Ac.0.1ogts or 121osq.yards out of Ac.1 29gtsj. dated 30.4.201.1 , and the 2nd Petitioner has purchased an extent of 326sq.yards under registered sale deed Doc No.4277 of 2011 (PIot No.87), dated 30.4.2011 and the 3rd petitioner has purchased an extent of 631sq.yards vide Doc.No.42go of 201'1 (plot Nos.79 & g6), dated 30.4.201'1 without following due process. MT,pAMULA VAMSHT KRTSHNA Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.VENKATESH, Advocate appearing for . Counsel for the Respondents No.1toS : Gp FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondents No.6: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.7 : SRI p.BHANU PRAKASH counsel for the Respondent No.8 :sRtcHANDRASEKHAR REDDy coptREDDy Counsel for the Respondent No.9to16 : M/s.RAKESH SANGHI The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VT]AYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITIONN o.4918 of 2019 N f2 4 .135 ETI w COMMON ORDER WP.No.49 aof2O 19: The writ Petition is filed challenging order passed bY the

06.t-t3.20i8 in File No. M DL/F1l 1oA/2016 respondent No.2 dated setting aside the Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) issued in favour of the petitioner vide proceedings No'l/961/99 dated 08.03.1999 issued by the respondent No'3 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.4.32 guntas in Sy.No'82/EE, leedimetla Village' Qutbullapur l'landal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District'

2. Heard Mr. A. Venkatesh, leaneci senior counsel appearing for Mr. Pamula Vamshi Krishna. Iearned counsel for the petitioner' Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned senior counsel appearing for Smt. Kanumuri Kalyani, learned counsel for respondents No'10 to 15 and Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr' Chandrasekhar Reddy, leaned counsel for respondent No.16.

3. Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned senior counsel, raised preliminary objection as to the maintainabillty of the writ petition and contended that the petitioner was granted ORC vide 2 proceedings No.J/961/99 dated 08.03-1999 issued by the respondent No.3, which was already set aside in Case No.F7/1646/2O01 dated 30.06.2007 on the file of the respondent No.2 in an appeal filed by the Union of India, represented by the Defence Estate Officer, EP Circle, Secunderabad, under Section of the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act. 1955. That even when the unofficial respondent filed an independent appeal before the respondent No.2 in File No.MDL/FLI108/2016 challenging the very same ORC proceedings dated 08.03.1999. the said ORC proceedings was non-existent. The said fact was not informed to the respondent No.2 when the aforesaid appeal was heard and order dated 06.03.2018 was passed, which is impugned in this writ petition. Even if any orders are passed on merits, in the writ petition, it would be an empty formality inasmuch the petitioner has not questioned the order dated 30.06.2007 setting aside the ORC dated 08.03.1999 in an appeal preferred by the Union of India.

4. In response to the above submissions, Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submitted that even assuming that the ORC dated 08.03.1999 was set aside in an appeal in Case No.F1l1646/2001 dated 30.06.2007, the order dated 06.03.2018 in File No.MDL/F1I108/2016 has to be set aside as the unofficial respondents are trying to take advantage of the order dated 06.03.2018. Moreover, this order aateO OO.O:.ZOfS witt \ stare at the petitioner and on technical grounds, if this order is not set aside, it will remain on record and the unofficial respondents would certainly take undue advantage of it.

5. Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned senior counsel appearing for Ms. Kanumuri Kalyani, learned counsel for the respondents No.10 to 15, submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed not only for challenging a non-existent order but also for the reason that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands. The petitioner, who suffered order dated 30.06.2007 before the respondent No.2, ought to have disclosed the same before the respondent No.2 in the appeal in File No.MDL/F|I108/2016 dated

06.03.2018. Thus, on the ground of suppression and aPproaching this Court with unclean hands, the writ petition is liable to be dlsmissed.

6. The interesting point, which arises for consideration in this writ petition, is whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the reason if the writ petition were to be allowed by setting aside the order of the respondent No.2 dated 06.03.2018, it would revive ORC order dated 08.03.1999. which was already set aside in Case No.Fll1646/2001 dated 30.06.2007. The essence of the matter is that the writ petition, even if allowed, would revive order dated

08.03. 1999, which would be an empty formality, as the said order / :!!ta{. 4 dated 08.03.1999 was already set aside in Case No.Fl/1646/20O7 dated 30.06.2007, which has attained finality, as so far no writ petition or revision has been filed challenging the same before this Court.

7. The contention of Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned senior counsel, is that whatever may be the consequences that would flow from order in this writ petition, if it is al!owed, law will take its own course. Learned senior counsel submitted that the appeal in File No. MDL/F1l108/2016 was filed along with a delay condonation petition and without hearing the delay condonation petition, the impugned order was passed, which is required to be set aside. It is further submitted that eventually the respondent No.2 may set aside the order dated 06.03.2018 following the order dated

30.06.2007 but the unofficial respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage of order dated 06.03.2018, which was passed in an appeal filed challenging a non-existent order dated 08.03.1999. B. Having given earnest consideration to the submissions of all the three learned senior counsel, this Court is of the opinion that appeal in File No.MDVFL/IOA/2O1,6 flled by the petitioner was against a non-existent order. By the time, the said appeal was filed, ORC dated 08.03.1999 was set aside in Case No.F1l1646/20O1 by order dated 30.06.2007. This confusion would not have arisen if the I I I i I I f I : j?*ryff-Jr - 5 respondent No.2 was informed about the earlier order dated

30.06.2007. Thus, entertaining appeal against a non-existent ORC dated 08.03.1999 was wholly unnecessary. When an appeal is filed against a non-existent order, the order in the appeal against a non-existent order, is non-est and liable to be set aside' Thus, in order to ensure substantial justice, the order dated 06.03.2018 in File No.MDL/FUrcalzOL6 and the order dated 30.06.2OO7 in Case No.FU1646/2001. which is not in challenge, both are set aside. The writ petition is disPosed of WP.N o.13502 of 2()241 g. In view of order passed in WP'No.4918 of 2019, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition and it is accordingly disposed of. In the result, WP.No.4918 of 2019 and WP.No' 135O2 of 2024 are disposed of. The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER , I To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, State of Telangana, I J Hyderabad. 2. The Joint Keesara. Collector, It/lalkajgiri-lVedchal District at Keesara ORR Junction,

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, (presently Malkajgiri Division) Malkajgiri-lvledchal District

4. The Tahsildar, Quthbullapur [VIandal, lVlalkajgiri lVledchal District. 5. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secreatariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 6 The Sr rnerintandont nf Pnlina trilainhal-t\ilalkain iri Fricrrint 7 I I I 7 o The. Assistant commissioner of porice, pet Basheerbagh, euthbulapur Mandar, lVledchal-lVlalkajgiri District, Tetangana. The Deputy Commissioner of police, Medchal, Medchal_Malkajgiri District. \ 9- The lnspector of Police, l\4alkajgiri district. Pet Basheerbagh, Quthbullapur [\/anal, Medchal-

10. one cc to SRt pAIT4ULA VAIVSHT KR|SHNA, Advocate. topucl 11. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 12. Two CCs to GP FOR HOlr/E, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 13 One CC to SRI RAVTNDER REDDY MUppU, Advocate. IOPUC] 14 One CC to SRI CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY GOptREDDy, Advocare [OPUC] 15.One CC to SRt P.BHANU PRAKASH, Advocate. tOpUCl '16.One CC to [vl/s.RAKESH SANGH|, Advocate. tOpUCl 17. Two CD Copies BS HIGH COURT DATED:1 110812025 COMMON ORDER WP.No.4918 of 2019 & WP.No.13502 of 2024 5l l\'t E oA. 5* O O t\ eCS 1\t1 (;:' a..-' f I I * DES * DISPOSTNG OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS 6 l^ Fvr I I i I I h I I I i I