B.Sri Vummldi Dayakar Reddy, S/o v. Ram Reddy, Aged aboul

Qgsilgss, Rl/o. t1. No. 184, Sri Ram Nagar, Moinabad, Ranga Reddy District - 501 504. Chev:lla Division Chevella - 501 503. Sri Y. S. Srinivas, The Tahsildar Moinabad Mandal, Moinabad RR, District - 500 075. '17. Sama Manik Reddy, S/o. S. Swamy Reddy, Aged about 39 yeirrs, Occ. Farmer, R/o. H. No. 1BB, Murthuzaguda, Moinabad, R.R. District - 501 504. 1B.Sri Vummldi Dayakar Reddy, S/o. V. Ram Reddy, Aged aboul 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 8761/6, Old Bowenpally, R.R. Nagar, Tiruma-lagiri, Hyderabad - 500 011 l9.Vanagala Jagan-Mohan Reddy, S/o late Buchi Reddy, Aged aoout 64 years, Occ. Business, lVo. H. No. 12621236, Viveknagar Kukatp-ally, Hyderab;d - 500 072.

20. Naidu Sumalatla, Wo. Kota Eswara Rao, Aged about 39 year;, Occ. Business, Rl/o. l-1. No. 7120913, Flat No. 501, SeleganceAf partrents, Beside Slate School, l-lyderabad - 500 016.

21. Kota Eswara Rao, S/o. Kota Mallaiah, Aged about 41 years, O :c. Business, R/o- Flat No 1{}08, creen hitt Rainbow, Hitech City, MiVtTS, KF,HB, Hyderabad - 5(r0 018.

22.Thatikonda Rarna Devi, Wlo. Narahari Reddy, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Flat No.510, Fortune Castle, DoCtors Colony, Staroomagar, Hyderabad - 5t0 035.

23.Thaniparthy Bhanu Prasad Rao, S/o. T. Prabhakar Rao, Aged ,about 58 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H- No- 831'10, Flat No. 50'1 Hanuman [rrlan sion, Srin'agar Colony, Hyderabad - 500 073.

24.Kodali N!pu1, S{o K. Sudhakar Reddy, Aged about 28 years, (rcc. Business, Rio. H. .No. 8268413172, Banjara Green Colony, Baryara Hills R cad No. .12, Hyderabad - 5CCr 034 .

25. Kallem Rakesh Chandra Reddy, S/o. K. Raghuram Reddy, Ag<:.d about 44 years, Occ. Bq;!n999, cUo. 11287111t7, Chikkadpally, Mubheerabad, Hyderabad - 5CCr 020.

26. Sri Naveen Mittal, I.A.S., Principal Secretary to Revenue, Telarrgana Secretariat Road, Central Secretariat, Khairtabad, Hyderabad, ielangana - 500 022.

27.9ri Dr. S. Harish 1.A.S.,, Distrlct Collector, Ranga Reddy Distrir.t, Kongarkalan, R.R. Dist., Hyderabad - 50'1 5'10.-

28. Sri Venu Madhirv Rao, The Land Reforms Tribunal-Cum-Reverrue Divisional 29. Sri Y S. Srinivas, The Tahsildar Moinabad Mandal, Moinabad I:{R, District - Officer Chevell:r Division Chevella - 50'l 503. 500 075. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under riection '151 cpc praying that in the circumsternces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pl,,)ased to direct ...RESPONDENTS the respondents not to dispossess the 2nd appellant and the 3rd Appellant from their legal, lav,rful possessed lands in Sy.nos. '159, 161 and 162. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 revenue authorities to mutate the 1st Appellants land to an extent of Ac.18-00 Gts in survey no.168 in Surangal Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in Bhu Bharathi records and issue pattedar pass books as land of the 1st Appellant which is distincUdifferent and separable from Appellant No.2 and 3 and is not the subject matter of the impugned proceedings of the 6th Respondent in Case No.L/530 of 2022, Dt. 101612022 by implementing the orders of this Honourable High Court in WP.No. 28573 of 2021 , Dt.1211112021 which had become final. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 1 51 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 Honourable Learned Single Judge orders, Dt. 2410312025 in W.P. No. 21156 I 2023 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. Counsel Counsel for the Appellant Nos.1 & 2: SRI V.VENUMADHAV for the Appellant No.3: SRI CHAVA HANUMANTHA RAO (PARTY IN Counsel Gounsel Counsel Counsel Gounsel Counsel Counsel PERSON) for the Respondent Nos.1,5,6 & 7: GP FOR REVENUE for the Respondent Nos.2 & 10: GP FOR MPCL ADMN & URBAN DEV for the Respondent Nos.3,12 TO 15: GP FOR HOME for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR PANCHAYATH RAJ & RURAL DEV for the Respondent No.8: SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA for the Respondent No.9: SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC for the Respondent No.11: SRI P.KISHORE RAO, SC FOR GRAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.16,22TO 25: SRI DAMMALAPATI Counsel SRINIVAS, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI ROHIT POGULA for the Respondent Nos.l7 TO 21: - PANCHAYATH The Court made the following: JUDGMENT a THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THI) HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA Yr\RA \YRIT APPEAL No.52l OF 2025 JUDGMENT: (Fer the Hon'ble the Acting Chief ,Iustice Sujog Pa.i Lt) Sri Chav:r Hanumantha Rao, appellant No.3, irs party-in- person and on behalf of other appellants; learned r ;overnment Pleader for Rer r:nue for respondent No.1; DammalapiLti Srinivas, learned Senior Counsei representing Sri Rohit Pogt Ia, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 16,22,23,21 and ,15 and Sri G.Madhusuclhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for -iHIvIC

2. With the consent finallv heard

3. This lnlro Court appeai takes exception ro thr' )rder dated

24.O3.20'25 in r[r.P.No.21156 ol 2O23, rvherebr. the learned Sir.rgle Judge declined interference because of existence of a statutory remedy under Section 8O of The Telangana Terrancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 195O (for short, Tenancy Acr).

4. The party-in-person submits that no doubt the re exists a statutory remeci-'.' of appeal, but said remedv is not proper course because the rer r:mre entries of the appellants have be:n chalged to their detrimerLt 'r'r'hich is baci in lryv. This violates principles of I I ! i I I 2 HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J Wa 521 2025 natural justice because they were not heard before issuing the certiflcate under Section 38-E of the Tenalcy Act. Secondly, he submits that the iearned Single Judge ought not to have relegated the appellants to avail the said remedy because there exist an order of this Court in W.P.No.28573 of 2O2l for recording revenue entries in their favour. Lastly, it is submitted that one of the private respondents 1S politician and, therefore, the appellate remedy wili not be efficacious

5. The other side opposed the prayer ald supported the order of learned Single J rrdge.

6. We have heard the parties at length and perused the record 7 . It is clear that there exists a statutory a,lternative remedy The said remedy can be bypassed only on satisfying certain factors. The argument of the appellants needs to be looked into one by one. The pleadings of writ affidavit norvhere show that the nalnes of the appellants were recorded in the revenrle records. Sadly, the order passed in W.P.No.28573 of 2021 is also projected in an incorrect rvay. The relevant portion of order in W.P.No.28573 of 2O2l reads thus: In view of the above made submissions, without going "5. into the merits or demerits of the case, the Writ Petition is 1 =-t \ Y -) H \( rJ (SP,J) & RY,J Wa 521 2025 disposcd of Cirecting the respondent authorities to < onsider the online rrrplications of the petitioners, dated 05.12.2017, and pass n( ( essary orders thereon, strictly in accordar Lce with lan , as expe clitiouslv as possible, preferablv. within a I,eriod of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thi; order duly puttin all the interested parties on no ti :e and considcring the objections, if any Penc ing miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Thei': shall be no order as to costs." ( d

8. A careful reading of this order shows that thr :re was no direction b1, th s; Court to record the names of the a1rpel1a,ts in revenue recordl. Instead, the direction is onlr, to c;nsider the oniine applicatrons of the appellants. The appeilants have not rightly projectecl the outcome of the said u,rit pelition while arguing the mertter. We deprecate the said pract ice. Even assuming that c,ne of the respondents is a pohticalh' tnfluential person, it cannct be said that as a rule of thumb, tl- e appellate authority rvill rLot be able to deliver justice. More s r, no such allegation r,vas nade in the writ petition. Another argurrent faintly raised rvas that the High Court has passed ser.eral orlers in the matter. The appellate authority will not be able to rnderstand and interpret tlte said orders. We do not see any n erit in the contention. Thrrs, in our view, the learned Single Judgr: has taken a plausible vieu, .;rzhich does not warrant interference. 4 HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J Wa 521 2025 o

9. Accordingly, the u,rit appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed' //rRUE coPY// sd/- A. PRATHTMA DEPUTY RFGISTRAR ./ To "..rrk{rrr"=* 1. Sri Chava Hanumantha Rao, S/o. Late Chava China Veera Bhadraiah, Aged about 75 years, Occ. Advocate, R/o. Siri Nilayam, Plot No. 361, Road No. 80, Phase - lli, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 096. 2. One CC to SRI V.VENUMADHAV, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. Triro CCs to GP FOR MPCL ADMN & URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CC; to GP FdR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. Trfuo CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV, High Court for the State ofTelangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

7. One CC to SRiV.NARASIMHA GOUD, Sc FOR HMDA [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRI P.KISHORE RAO, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYATH [OPUC] 9. One CC to SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] 10.One CC to SRI ROHIT POGULA, Advocate [OPUC] 11.Two CD Copies PSK. t HIGH COURT HAC,J & RY,J DATED:02105t2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.S21 of 2025 ( TE o c e4F s*s y,, +\ I I l-, ,! ,'.' ! ,i ;/ ..:!.,2' -)j' .i... r?. . 'i :, -_ ..- -... r .r,. .i , '-'.:i);:-.'- DISMISSING -I-HE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT GOSTS @