The High Court · 2025

6. Smt. Kamarurnisa Begum, Wo.Shaklal, Age. Major, Occ. Not known R/o.Opp Masjid Hilal, Ta:iguda, Adilabad. 7 Sm! Reshma, \V/o. Mujahid Age.Major, Occ. Not Known R/o. Tatiguda, Adilabad. B. Mujeebuddin, S/o.Aminuddin Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o.H.No 3-5-55, Tatiguda, Adilahad.

9. Ruksana Begunt, S/o.S.KFareed Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o. Tatiguda, Adilabad. 10 Smt Hasten Banu, Wo.AbdulRasheed Age. Major, Occ Not Known R/o.Near Hilal Majid, Tatiryuda, Adilabad. 'l 1 Smt Arifa Bee, r/i//o.ShaikJamal Age. Mapr, Occ. Not Known R/o.Near Hilal Majid, Tatiguda, Adilabad.

12.Smt.Arifa Begurr, Wo.Shaik Moula Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o.Near Hilal Majid, Tatigruda, Adilabad.

13. Smt. Nazeera B,=e, Wo.SK.Hgssain Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o.Baid Hotel Servent, Tatiguda, Adilbbad.

14. Smt Raziyan Begum, Wo.ShaikHusan Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o.Opp.Basid l-lotel Servent, Tatiguda, Adilabad. .15. Muduthkor Savilha, Wo. Shivnath Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o. Tatiguda, Adilabad.

16. Borkar Kalpana, Wo. Ganesh Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o. Tat iguda, Adilabad 17,Hameed Begum, Wo. Shaik Sattar Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o Tatiguda, Adilabad.

18.Smt. Mumtaz Begum, Wo. Moinuddin Khan Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o Tatiguda, Adilabad. 1 9. Smt. Haneefa.Begum, Wo. Abdul Raheem Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o Kranthinagar, Nerar Dr. Javed Dispensary, Adilabad.

20. Smt. Shameem llultana, Wo. SK. Madhar Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o. Tatiguda, Adilabrrd.

21.Shanker, S/o. Lirnbayya,Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o Tatiguda, Adilabad

22.Ashanna, S/o. Linbayya Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o. Tatiguda, Adilabad.

23. Smt. S. Sindhu E,ai, Wo. Kishan Rao Age. 59 years, Occ Household R/o. H.No. 6-8-57, Bhoktapur, Adilabad.

24. R Gajanan, S/o. Late Vasudev Age. 37 years, Occ. Employee R/o. H.No. 'l-2- 186, Shantinagar, Adilabad.

25. Sunanda Deshpande @ B. Sunanda, Wp. Late Kishan Rao, R/o. Gowliguda, Rammandir, Hyderabad. (R25 is impleadbd as per Court Order. dated.27 .6.2025 vide lA No.212024 in CRP No.'161 212025) i ...Respondents/Judgment debtors (Respondent No.3 to 24 not necessary partiQs in CRP) lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section '151 CPC prayi4g that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,,the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedingd in an order dated 03.0{.2025 in E.P.No.01 ot 2025 in LGOP. No.02 of 2000 orir the file of Principal District Judge, Adilabad, pending disposal of the above revisiDn petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SOMA RAVI KIRAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI VIJAY,B.PAROPKARI The Court made the following: ORDER THE ITONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA crvl L REVISION PE-TITI ON No.1612 of2o25 ORDER: This Civil Revision petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to se: aside the order dated 03.04.2025 passed in E.p. No.1 of 2O25 in L.G.O.p.No.2 of 2000 by the learned principal District J udg,', Adilabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the said Execution Petition was f iled by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Order XXI Rule 35 of O.P.C. for delivery of possession of the E.p. schedule proF erty. The petitioners filed a counter stating that in Sy.No.41, r\dilabad town, no agricultural land is available, as the entire llnd has been converted into plots. They claimed that plot Nos.13 and 14 pertain to them, and therefore, it is not possible tl execute the decree when no agricultural land exists. They lurther contended that once agricultural land is converted into plots, its status as agricultural land ceases, and accordingly rerluested dismissal of the E.p. After trearing both sides, the tri r1 Court a,llowed the E.p., holding that the petitioners hacl not produced any documents to show that no agricultural land exists in Sy.No.4l of Adilabad or that the SKS,J CRP.No.l612 of2025 2 land had been converted into plots. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners hled the present Civil Rpvision Petition

3. Heard Sri Soma Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Vijay B. Pqropkari, Iearned counsel for respondent No. 2.

4. Learned counsei for the pe[itioners submitted that the impugned order is illegal and that respondents Nos.l and 2 had earlier frled LGOP No.02 of 2000 seeking a declaration of ownership and to declare ,1. petitioners and other respondents as land grabbers of agricultural land in Sy.No.41, admeasuring Ac. 1- 18 guntas sitr.lated at Adilabad Mandal, Adilabad District, and that judgment was passed on

09.11.2005. He further submitted,that respondents Nos. I and 2 subsequently frled E.P.No.S4 ,of 2022 before the same executing court, which was dismissed on 12.lO.2O24 on tJre ground that the land had been, converted into plots and houses had been , constructed, rtendering demarcation ald execution untenable. SKS,J CR P.No.l6l2 of 2025 3

5. l,earne,l counsel for the petitioners contended that although thi s Court remanded the matter to Lhe executing Court for r€ consideration, the respondents filed the same application v,ith no substantial changes except for the date, and the exe<:uting Court allowed it without considering the objections ra sed by the petitioners and further contended that both the LGOP judgment and the earlier execution order had clearly obserred that the land was no longer agricultural and had been converted into plots, and thus the present order allowing exer:ution is contrary to law and facts on record. Therefore, pr ayed the Court to allow the civil rer ision petition by setting aside the order dated O3.O4.2025.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 hled counter denying the petition averments bl stating that the judgment- and decree in LGOP No.2 of 2O0O had attained hnality, as no appeal was filed and the related writ petition was dismisse d on 24.7O.2024 and that E.P.No. 1 of 2025, was rightly filed and t the executing Court acte<l within its jurisdiction, rdhering strictly to legal procedure. He further submitted that the attempt of the petitioners to reopen adjudicated issues through the CRP is barred by res judicata SKS,J CRP.No.l6l2 of2025 4 and prayed the Court to dismis$ the present Civil Revision Petition.

7. Upon considering the subrFissions made by both the learned counsel and the materidl available on record, it is noted that the original land grabhing petition was filed by the respondents claiming ownership oif Sy.No.41 and alleging that plol owners in Sy.No.4O had encioached into Sy.No.41. The L.G. Court allowed the petition, dBclaring the respondents as the owners of Ac.1-18 guntas in Sy.No.41 and directed removal of encroachers therein. Based on this, the present tr.P. was hled. Now, the petitiongrs claim ownership of plot Nos. 13 and 14 in Sy.No.4l under the guise of the land grabbing order. They contend that their plots are being targeted for removal, wtich was hot considered by the E.P. Court. The dispute essentially per[ains to the identihcation of properties in Sy.Nos.4O and 41, a$ such, ttris Court is of the considered view that the petitionefs can hle a petition before the Executing Coult seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner with the help of Surveyor to conduct a survey in Sy.No.4l, which will bring finality to the dispute. Therefore, SKS.J CkP.No.1612 of 2025 5 liberty grantt:d to the petitioner to hle appropriare appiication before the tri al Court.

8. With the above observation, this Civil RevLsion Petition is disposed c f, and the matter is remanded to ttie trial Court for further proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR p //TRUE COPY// (\ I \ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 The Principal District Judge, Adilabad One CC to Sri {ioma Ravi Kiran Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Vilay B.Paropkari, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies NVB.igh .s ) 'i 'F- i-. j. , \\ ' c), ) ,-) :a) )., * 2 5 AU8 2025 D \ J..:--..,.'-' -+-..--.r-... -,:-':r' HIGH COURT DATED:0610812025 ORDER CRP.No.1612 of 2025 DISPOSING TTIE CIVIL REVISION PETITION t b \ q- \