'l . Marri Pedda Ram Reddy v. State of Telangana

4. Marri Srinivas Reddy, S/o Late Narsi Reddy, Aged 44 Years, Occ. Agriculture and Business, R/o H.No. 1 -9-3231131 A, Bhagyanagar, Kushaiguda, Kapra Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS Nos.6 to 9 AND

1. State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. 3. The Additional Collector (Revenue), Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhuvanagiri Division, Yadad ri-B huvanagiri District.

5. The Tahsildar, Bommalaramaram Mandal, Yadad ri-B huvanagiri District. .....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

6. Bandla An.iaiah, S/o Late Narsaiah, Aged 65 Years, Occ. Agriculture, Fl/o Rangapur Village, Bommalaramaram Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District.

7. Bandla Ramulu, S/o Late Narsaiah, Aged 60 Years, Occ. Agriculture, R:/o Rangapur Village, Bommalaramaram Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. .....RESPONDENTS^^,RIT PETITIONER 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 orders pleased to passed in lA No 1 of 2021 in W. P No'19917 of 2021 dated O2lO9l2O21 . Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI D.JAGAN MOHAN REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to',l0 : SRI J.KANAKAIAH W.P.NO:20263 OF 2021 Between: Bandla Ramulu, S/o Late Narsaiah, Aged 60 Years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Rangapur Village, Bommalaramaram Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. AND .....PETITIONER 1, State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. 3. The Additional Collector (Revenue), Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. 4. The Reven ue Divisional Officer, Bhuvanagiri Division, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District.

5. The Tahsildar, Bommalaramaram Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. 6. Marri Pedda Ram Reddy, S/o Late Narsi Reddy, Aged 55 Years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Rangapur Village, Bommalaramaram lvlandal, Yadadri- Bhuvanagiri District. 7 Marri Krishna Reddy, S/o Late Narsi Reddy, Aged 50 Years, Occ. Agriculture and Employee, Ft/o Villa No.74, Amulya Enclave, Kushaiguda, Kapra Mandal, lvledchal-Medak District. B. N4arri Dayakar Reddy, S/o Late Narsi Reddy, Aged 46 Years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H.No.1 -.10-2811991G|1O5, Ganesh Nagar Colony, Vasavi Shiva Naga,, Kushaiguda, Kapra ltilandal, Medchal-Malka.jgiri District.

9. Marri Srinivas Reddy, S/o Late Narsi Reddy, Aged 44 Years, Occ. Agriculture and Business, R/o H. No. 1 -9-3231 131 A, Bhagyanagar, Kushaiguda, Kapra Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

10.Mr. Hari Kanakaiah,, S/o. Muttaiah, Aged 63 years, Occ. Business, R/o. 9- 66/2, Brundavan Colony, Kapra (M), Kapra, Medchal-tr/alkajgiri, Telangana, 500062 (R10 is implt:aded as per Court Orderdated 25.08.2025 n l.A.No.1/2023). I .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue arr appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Order dated 16/06/2021 passed in Special Tribunal Case No.F2l1 81712021 by the Special Tribunal, Yadadri- Bhuvanagiri District as well as the Memo No.B/213412019. D1.04/O31202O and the Succession Order passed in File No.A/341312008. Dt.2211012009 issued by the Sth Respondent-Ta hsildar in favour of the Unofficial Respondents in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2-00 Gts in Survey No.283 situated at Bommalaramaram Village and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice, // violative of settled principles of law and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia, and consequently set aside the same and amend the Revenue Records and issue new e-Pattadar Pass Book to the Petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1 -39 Gts in Survey No 283/F situated at Bommalaramaram Village and Mandal. Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. l.A.NO:1 OF 2021 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 Order dated 1610O12021 passed in Special Tribunal Case No.F21181712021 by the Special Tribunal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, and pass l.A.NO:2 OF 2021 Between:

1. Marri Pedda Ram Reddy, S/o Late Narsi Reddy, Aged 55 Years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Rangapur Village, Bommalaramaram Mandal, Yadadri- Bhuvanagiri District.

2. Marri Krishna Reddy, S/o Late Narsi Reddy, Aged 50 Years, Occ. Agriculture and Employee, R:/o Villa No.74, Amulya Enclave, Kushaiguda, Kapra Mandal, Medchal-Medak District.

3. Marri Dayakar Reddy, S/o Late Narsi Reddy, Aged 46 Years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H.No.1-10-2811991G1105, Ganesh Nagar Colony, Vasavi Shiva Nagar, Kushaiguda, Kapra Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

4. Marri Srinivas Reddy, S/o Late Narsi Reddy, Aged 44 Years, Occ. Agriculture and Business, Rl/o H.No.1-9-3231131A, Bhagyanagar, Kushaiguda, Kapra Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. ....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS Nos.6 to 9 AND

1. State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secret'ariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The District Collector, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. 3. The Additional Collector (Revenue), Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhuvanagiri Division, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District.

5. The Tahsildar, Bommalaramaram fVlandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District.

6. Bandla Ramulu, S/o Late Narsaiah, Aged 60 Years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Rangapur Village, Bommalaramaram Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. .....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS .....RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONER 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 vacale the interinl orders pleased to passed in lA No 1of 2021 in W.P. No 20263 of 2021 daled 02i0912O21 . Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI D.JAGAN MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 10 : SRI J.KANAKAIAH The Court made the following COMMON ORDER -l I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION Nos.19 9L7 and,20263 0F 2021 COMMON ORDER: Si.rce, the issue involved in borh these Writ Petitions is r-,r.e and the same, they ,Tc being heard together and disposed of by way ol a common order

2. Writ Petition No.199 17 of 2027 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the foilor,ving relief/s:- "... to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularl]' one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Order dated 08102/2021 passed in Special Tribunal Case No.F2/252212021 b-v the Special Tribunal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, as i[[egal, unjust, arbitrary, rvithout jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of settled principles of law ald also violative of Articles 14, 2l & 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequentlv to direct the Revenue Authorities to continue the name of the Petitioner No.2 in the Revenue Records in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 1-39 Gts in Suwey No.283/F by duly amending the Revenue Records as maintained in Dharani Portal and issue neg, e'Pattadar Pass Book to the Petitioner No.2 for the said land, and pass such other order or further orders ..."

3. Writ Petition No.20263 of 2O2l is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:- '...issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Order dated 16l06/2021 passed in Special Tribunal Case No.F2l1817/2021 by the Special Tribunal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District as rvell as the Memo No.B/2134/2019, DL.O4 /O3/2O2O and the Succession Order passed in File No.A/3413/2OOA, Dt.22l1OI2OO9 issued by the sth Respondent Tahsildar in favour of the Unofficial Respondents in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2-00 Gts in Surve1 No.283 situated at Bommalaramaram Village & Mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of settled principles of law and also violative of Articles 14, 21 & 3OO-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the same and amend the Revenue Records and issue new'e-Pattadar Pass Book to the Petitloner in resp€ct of the land admeasuring Ac.1-39 Gts in Survey No.283/F I I 2 situat€d at Bommalaramaram Village & Mandal, Yadad ri-Bhuvanagiri District, rncl pass such other order or further orders..." For the sake of convenience, the lacts in W.P.No.l99l7 of 2O2l are cliscr,issed as hereunder:

4. Hearcl Mr.D.jagal Mohan Rcdoy, l- arneci counsel for the petitioners, Mr.H.Rakesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr.J.Kanakaiah, learned counsel lor respondent Nos.6 to 9.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are own brothers ald initially the father ol the petitioners namely Sri Bandla Narsaiah had purchased the lands admeasuring Acs.S.OO gts in survey No.283/A, Ac.1.OC gts in survey No.283/8, Acs.4.15 gts in survey No.283i D, Acs.4.35 gts in survey No.283/E and Ac.1.39 gts in survey No.283/F totaling Acs.17-O9 gts, situated at Bomma-lararnararn Village and Mandal, previously in Nalgonda District and presently in Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District; that the afore cited lards were purchased by the father of the Petitioners from Uppal Chandra Reddy, Uppal Narsi Reddy, Uppal Venkata Krishna Reddy, Panduga Bikshapathi, Panduga Sathaiah, Panduga Rama Swami and Bollempaili Somi Reddy during the year 1960 through a simple Sale Deed; that from the \* date of purchase of the said lancls, the father of the petitiolrers was in possession of the above stated lands; that after his demise, the petitioners herein are in continuous possessiott of the said lancts; that the petitioners approached the land lords tc execute the registerec sal.e deed in respect of the above stated properties; that the pattadars have not co-operated in execution of the registered sale deed in respect of the above stated lands and so, the petitioners \4/ere compelled to lile O.S.No.BS of 1985 on the file of the District Munsiff Judge at Bhuvanagiri lor Declalation of Title and for Rectification of Entries in the Revenue Records in respect of the Suit Schedule Properties torally admeasuring Acs. 17-09 Gts from the above stated survey numbers; that a-fter the receipt of the notice, the pattedars/1and lords filed their written statement and agreed that the above stated lands rvere purchased by the father of the petitioners arrd that the narnes of the petitioners car be mutated in the revenue records, as the petitioners were minors at the time of purchase of the above stated lands; that basing on the consent written statement, the District Munsiff Judge Court at Bhuvanagiri has passed a judgment and decree dated 01.05.1986 in O.S.No.SS of 1885 by declaring the petitioners as the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule lands and ordered the District I Coilector to rectifv the revenue records; that the said Decree u'as implemented in the revenue records concernecl and the District Collector, irl turn, directeC the authorities to mutate the names of the or:titioners in the revenue ,:cords as pattedars & possesscrs; that the narnes of the petitioners are incorpc:a...d in the revenue records even jn the Faisal Patti of the year 1986-87, mutated the narnes of ttre Petitioners as per the instructiorrs of the District Collector vide Letter C.D.R.No.6592 187, dated 06/05/1987 ln compliance of the judgment arrd decree, dated O I .05.1986 passed in O.S.No.BS of 1BB5; that the land admeasrlring Acs. 1 1-09 Gts rvas mutated in the name ol petitioner No.2 i.e., Bandla Ramulu and land adrneasuring Acs.6-O0 Gts rvas mutated in the name of petitioner No. 1 i.e., Bandla Anjalah as per the Mutual understanding ol the petitioners; that they were also issued the pattadar pass books and title deeds; that petitioner No.2/Bandla Ramulu has thereafter a-lienated lands by retaining Acs.3.29 Gts, out of Acs.6-OO Gts.

6. It is f-rrther stated that the name of oetitioner No.2 continued in the revenue records for the iarld admeasuring Acs.3-29 gts till 2016-17; that when the name of petitioner No.2 was not seen in the revenue records alter 2016-2017, he l approached the revenue authorities to continue his name in the revenue records and to issue new e-Pattadar Pass Book-Cum- Title Deed in place of old Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed. Then respondent No.S-Tahsildar issued a Memo No.B/2134/2019, datc,! t4 l03/2020 stating that, as the unof{icial respondent Nos.6 to 9 raised an objection stating that their father Narsi Reddy purchased the land admeasuring Acs.2- 0O Gts from Somi Reddy in Survey No.283 through simple sale deed for which 13-B Certificate was issued on 07 /O9/199 1; that the said Somi Reddy ',r,as having Ac. 1-39 Gts only which was sold to the petitioners' father in the year 1960 itself and the same is part of the Judgment ald Decree dated O1/05/1986 passed in O.S.No.85/ 1986, which has become fina-l; that the said Somi Reddy is arrayed as defendant No.7 in the said Decree and he has a-lso filed consent u,ritten statement; that M.Narsi Reddy, i.e. father of unofficial respondent Nos.6 to t had purchased the land only in Survey Nos.263, 276,279,280 and 284 situated at Bomma-laramaram, which is evident from the perusal of Form-i7- C obtained under R.T.l AcU that he has not purchased any extent of land in Survey No.2B3; that the Pass Book issued to them also clearly mentions the Lands held by them as Acs.5-16 Gts in Survey Nos.263, 276,279, 28O & 284 only. Aggrieved by the I v (r Memo issr.red bv Respondent No.S-Tahsildar bearing No.B/2134 l2Ol9, Dr.O4 l03l2O2O arrd the Succession Order passed in favour of unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 9 in respect of Iand almeasuring Acs.2-00 Gts,n Survey No.2B3, the Petitio:-er No.2 has filed an Appeal No.D/906/2020 b,,^cre respondent No.4/RDO and also requested to direct the Taisildar to issue e-Pattadar Pass Book by dulv updating the Rer.enue Records for land admeasuring Ac.1-39 Gts in Survev No.283/F as per the entries in the revenue records and the Jurlgment & Decree passed in OS No.85/ 1986; that the unofficia-l respondents herein have a-lso filed tw'o (2) Appeals under Sectior-r 5(5) of ROR Act belore respondent No.4/RDO vide Appeal File No.D/24812O2O and File No.D/ 107 | l2O2O w'ith same prn-\,ers in lroth the Appeals seeking to set aside the Mutation Proceedings vide Faisal Patti for the year 1986-A7 of respondent No.S-Tahsildar in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1-39 gts in survey No.283(283/F); that due to amendment of the ROR Act, the above stated Appeals were transferred t,r the Special Tribunal, Yadaciri Bhuvanagiri District; that the Appeal liled by the 2na petitioner is numbered as Special Tribunal Case No.F2/lBl7 12021 and the Appea:ls filed by the unofficial respondents herein were numbered as Special Tribunal Case No.F2l 1824 12021 and F2 1252212021. The Special ,l 't Tribunal has initially passed Order in the Appeal filed by the 2"d petitioner herein on 04 l02 /2021 stating that the matter does not lall under the Special Tribunal constituted U/ s 16 ( 1) of Telangana R:ghts in Land and Pzrttadar Pass Books Act, 2020, and hence, the matter is Cisposed of accordingly and not admitted. Further, the Appeal liled by the Unofhcial Respondents was also not admitted and dismissed vide Order dated 05/0212O21 passed in Special Tribunal Case No.F2l1824/2021 (Old case No.DllOTl /2020) stating that as the matter does not fa1l under the Special Tribuna-l constituted U/s 16(1) of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2O2O; that the unoflicial respondent Nos.6 to t herein have also filed I two Appeals belore respondent No.4-RDO vide File No.D / 248 / 2O2O and D I lO7 1 I 2A2O with the same prayer challenging the Mutation Proceedings vide Faisal Patti for the year 1986-87 for the land admeasuring Ac. 1-39 gts in survey No.283 (283/Fl situated at Bommalararnara-rn Revenue Village and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District in favour of the petitioners; that the filing of the said Appeals is against the principles of law; that they were re-numbered as F2 12522 /2021 and F2l82a/2021; that the Case No.F2l 1824 l2O2l was rightly dismissed by the Special Tribunal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District 3 vide Order clated 05/O2 l2O2l by holding thzrt the matter does not fall uncier the jurisdiction of the Special Tribulal. The Special 'l'ribunal, jrr the Case No.F212522/202 1, w.hich was filed for the same r',,I-ef as F2/1824/2O2i, has p:ssed the impugned Ord,;. dated O8/()2 l2O2l as beirw:- "The Tahsildar, Bommalaramaram shall rectiFi' tlre errorleous entrie:i concerning implementations of ROR Amendment made in respect of Bandla Anjarah, S/o Narsiah and also Bandla Rarnulu, S/o Narsiah in respect of land to an extcnt of Ac. 1-39 Gts in Slz.No-283 situated in Bommalaramarzirn Villaee in Bommalaramaram Mandal, Yadadri Bhuvan:rgiri (carlier Nalgonda) District rvhich is apparent on record thar the name in Faisalpratti alone was entered and pahanies lor only fer.r vears ancl other record other than Faisalpatti so rcflcct the implementation in terms laid down to regular sada bainama the ROR appeals D /248 /2O2O is disposed off wit]r a.lirection to thc Tahsildar, Bommalaramaram Manda] to delcte tlrc entries in Faisa-lpatti l9a6-a7 and consiCer maintaining in dharani as pcr physical enjol'ment and possession over tJ.e appeal schedule lald herein. "

7. It is stated that the Special Tribunal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District dismissed the Appeal filed by the unolficial respondents vide order dated 05.02.2021 stating that the matter does r.rot lall with the po\.r'ers under the new R.O.R. Act ald on the other hand, passed the impugned order dated 08.02.2021 in the case filed for the same relief by the unofficial respondents; that the Special Tribunal ought to have dismissed the Case No-F2/2522/2021 in the light of the order dated 05.02.2021 in Case No.F2/182412021. Therefore, the impugned order is conflicting with its own order dated 05.02.2021; tt:,:at the Special Tribunal, ! I I Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District has also dismissed the Appeal filed by petitioner No.2 vide order dated 16.06.2027 in Case No.F2l l8l7 l2O2L and the same is challenged by ',vay of separate Writ ['etition-

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the AppeaJs are not maintainable as the_t are filed challenging the mutation proceedings granted in lavour of the petitioners during the year i986-87 i.e., after a span of (34) y'ears. In the light of the judgment dated 01.O5.1986 in O.S.No.85 ol 1986, he states that the revenue authorities have no authoritv to set aside the mutation proceedings and if at all the unofficial respondents are aggrieved by the said judgment, they are at liberty to approach competent civil Court. To substantiate his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukesh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and anothert and the order dated 14.10-2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.24 191 of 2021 and seeks to allow the Writ Petition. / ICivil Appeal No.14808 of 2o24 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.4293 of2o2ll l0

9. Learned counsel for respondent No.5. bir filing counter affidavit contends that aggrieved b1' the mutation sanctioned by respondent No.5 in favour of the petitioners through Irisala Patti for the .,.,.ir I986-87, unofficial responCents Nos.6 to t herein have filed an Appeal betbrc respondent No.4 helein vide old Case No.Dl248l'2020, Special Tribunal Case No F2./252212O21 \\'as also transmitted to the Special Tribunal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District for disposal. After hearing the AppeaJ, the Special Tribunal, Yzrdadri-Bhuvanagiri District disposed the A1;peal vide order in RDO, Bhongir Appeal file No.D/24812020, Special Tribuna-l Case No.F2l2522/2021 dated O8-02-202 1 stating that the father of the petitioners has given his consent for implementation of the land admeasuring Acs.2.00 Gts in S-v".No.283 in favour of Marri Narsi Reddy who is the lather of the unofficial respondent Nos.6 to t herein and that- respondent No.5 shall rectily the erroneous entries concerning implementations ol ROR Amenclment made in favour of the petitioners herein in Sy.No.283 admeasuring was Ac. 1.39 gts situated at \ Bomrlalaranraram Village and Mandal, Yadarlri-Bhuvanagiri District, which is apparent on record that, the name in Faisala Patti aione lvets entered ald pahanies for only feu' r'ears and other records other than Faisala patti so reflect the implementation in t1 terms laid down to regulate sada bainama the ROR appeals D l248l2O2O is disposed off u,ith a direction to respondent No.5 herein to Celete the entries made in the Faisa,la Patti for the year 1986-87 and to consider maintaining the same in Dharani as per physical possession over the appeal schedule land. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition.

10. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 9 bv liling counter alfidavit denied the contentions of the petitioners in material terms and contends that the petitioners failed to produce the copy of the judgment in O.S.No.85 of 1985 and that there is no such judgment with regard to respondent No.7. He further states that except Faisalpatti there are no narnes of petitioners in the pahani naka-ls since 1985 to 2O2l; that the contention of the petitioners that the narnes of petitioners continued till 2016 l7 is false and the petitioners were never in possession of the subject property; that the pahani nakals submitted by the petitioners does not reflect any account number and that mere entries made in favour of writ petitioners for one or two years u'ill not carry title to them. 1 1. He further contends that the father of answering respondents had purchased the subject lands prior to 1985 and 7 in that in the possession column, their fathcrs name stands reflected vide proceedings B/ 1560 187; that alt er the demise of thcir tather, the ans'wering respondents succr:eded by way of Virasat p.o,-Ledings u,hich was entered in ame n:lrnent register in the year 2009 10 and si:rcc then, their names r.vere reflected in pahaninakerls as on 2O2O-21; that the land cess/ta;i r,vas paid by the father of answering respondents. Relying on the decisions passed b_r, this Court in D.Sudhakar Reddy Vs, Joint Collectorz, Musku Maliaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another3 arrd Khaja Bee Vs. Joint Collector, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District and othersa, he seeks to dismiss this V/r it Petition

12. The unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 9 preferred an Appeal before the Special Tribunal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District vide Special Tribunal Case No.F2/2522/2021 aggrieved by the mutation proceedings vide Faisal Patti for the year 1986-87 of the Tahsildar, Bommalaramaram in respect of thr: land bearing No.283 (283 /F) admeasuring Ac.01.39 gts onlv, situated at BommalararrLaram Revenue r/illage, Bommalaramaram Mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District in favour of petitioners. Upon careful consrderation of the material available on record, the 'zozL lr)ero z:s (Ts) I2o0sll)ALD 485 (Dllr r 2011 (4) AID 313 / Tribunal passed the above cited order dated 08.02 .2021. A perusal of the decree dated 01.05.1986 in O.S.No.BS of 1986 on the file of the learned District Munsiff, at Bhongir reveals that the petitioners are plaintiffs in the origin:l suit and the defe:rdarts are persons other than unofficial respondent No.r.6 -o

9. Though the said suit is decreed in favour ol petitioners the same is not binding on the unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 9 as they are not the parties to the said suit ald the same is rvith regard to the personal rights of parties therein. Therefore, the hndings in the said decree shail not be applicable in the case on hand. Therefore this Court, without making arly observations on the merits or demerits of the case, is not inclined to entertain these Writ Petitions and the sarne are liable to be dismissed

13. Accordingly, W.P.Nos.199 17 and 20263 of 2021 are dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT RE9ISTRAR l ,,, 1 SECTION OFFICER I

1. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

2. One CC to SRI D.JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRI J.KANAKAIAH, Advocate (OPUC) 4. Two CD Copies To SA PVL HIGH COURT DATED:231A912025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.19917 AND 20263 o1202.1 rit, ) L) 1 [':$ iff( .A i;Il t:t' ; I:i DISMISSING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS @ \ 1\t\ {