The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appettant : SRI pULLA RAO yELLANKt Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 : -- Counsel for the Respondents No.3&4 : Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Resporrdents No.5 : Counsel for the Respondents No.6 : SRt M.V.pRATAp KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.7to9 : -- W.A.No.601 OF 2021 writ Appeal under clauser 15 of the Letters patent preferred Against the order dated 1510612018 in W.P. No 2tt-683 ot 2006 on the file of the High Court Between: 1 2 cherukuri chakradhar Redd.y-, S/o cherukuri Narayana Reddy, Aged about 60 years. Represented by his GPA_Holder, Smt D Su(iutna n"Olv, ftlo Ch;;;;; Red.dy. Aged about 5-B years, occ. Hdusewafe, Rio irle MLd'colory,'H;;; No 12 Banjara Hills, Hyd-erabad. 9l^giy[,lri.U9-rya Bhaskar .-neopy, ^Slg Cherukuri Narayana Reddy, Aqed aoour b4 years, Represented by his GpA Holder, Smt D Sirkrutha Reddv \fur; Chandra Reddy. r\sed about'SB y""rs, -Oci.'H;E;ii;:-it; id'ilil; Corony Road Nb l2"Banjara uirri, Hi,oeiibaoi" """ AND ...APPELLANTS 1 2 3 4 E t) 7 Sri. A Bharathlat (D ed per LR No.3), Ranga Reddy. Bokka Chenna Reddv S/o Nagi Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Ryo Not Known. Sri A satishlal, s/o Late A Bharathrar, Aged .30 years, occ. Business Rl/o 1- 22, T urkay amjat Vit I age, Hayathnaga r va"noit, nahgirriooy (19:q9!9"*,2 is inrptead and 3rd respondent is brought on record as L.R. of oeceaseo 1 - resoondent as per the court order da{ed 23.04.20t A in W.p. M P. Nos. 41e83 of 2013 a;d 55oii ot nii i"rpl"jr"rvl -- The Joint Collector ll. RR District Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. Revenue Divisronal Sfficer, Rangareddy, East Division at Hyderabad. Cherukuri Chandrar;ekhara Reddy, S/o Cherukuri Narayana Reddy, Aged about 66 years. Cherukuri Muralidhar Reddy, g/o Cherukuri Narayana Reddv. Rl/o Brahmanapali Vilage, Hayatndlar H,ranoir, ningi nLJov,oiiirici.'""", -oistiiii. - ,7 8 Cherukuri Shakuntala Devi, W/o Cherukuri Narayana RedQy' BS 6irf'rinrprlfi Village , Hayatriagar lvlandal' Ranga Redd-y District (R6 to R8 not necesdary pa(ies in this Appeal) ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 3 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 stay the operation of the orders passed by the 4th Respondent in case No. J/3046/04 dated 16.06.2005, pending the consideration of this writ appeal Counsel for the Appellant : SRI SATHVIK REDDY ATLA Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI PULLA RAO YELLANKI Counsel for the Respondents No.3 : M/s.BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondents No.4&5 ; GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.6to8 : -- W.A. No.611 OF 2021 writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against the order Dated 15tO6i2D1B in w.P. No. 22683 of 2006 on the file of the High court' Between:

1. Cherukuri Chandrasekhar Reddy and Another, S/o. Qh, Narayan.Reddy' Aoed about 51 Yrs. Occ. Busin-ess' Rl/o. 11lB, MLA Colony, Road. No'12' ii;;;;-Hilt.-uvoeiiuia. Presentlv Stavins in USA and Beins Rep' bv-their sutrutfra Reddy, W/o. Chandra Reddy' Aged 45 yrs' cCn H"iO"i'Srfit. Occ. Housewife and Agriculture. -o.

2. Cherukuri Shakuntala Devi, W/o. Ch Narayan Reddy, Aged about BB.Yrs' - oCi.-Hout"*ite, nyo. itie, N,lLn Colonv, Road'No'12, Banjara. Hills' Hvclerabad. Presentfv Stavinq in USR and lieing Rep by their GPA Holder dii. ij. Srririn, ni,'uav, Wloi. Chandra Reddv, Ased 45 vrs, occ Housewife and Agriculture. ...APPELLANTS AND

1. The Joint Collector-ll, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad' 2. The special Grade Deputy collector and Revenue Divisional officer, RR East Division, Hyderabad.

3. A. Bharath Lal, S/o. Shankerji (died per LR) 4. Bokka Chenna Reddy, S/o Late Ch Narayana Reddy' 5 6 7 8 A Satishlal, S/,r. Late A Bharathlal. Aged 33 yrs., Occ. Business, Rl/o H No.1_ 22 r urka y amj ar \./i I I ase, Ha ya i ri n Jsa i,tfiJ;d; t, iid; Red d y D ist ri ct Cherukuri Chak-adhara Reddy, S/o_.Ch. Narayana Recldy, Aged about 7.,| yrs., Rro 1 1 /8, h/,lLA corony,-(bi[N;. i i,'B;;j;[ filrs, Hyoeraoao Cherukuri Uday,a Bhaskarz yrs R/o 11;B: ilii dt;,iRl1t ii: i ',Hiilf S["[H]:T;yil',i,lilaiE:iit;,'Ji,?l,"iHI:i:H*ffi [1,,3,"fl iX;[%?l a bout 66 :a&"Si.tfl " lA NO:2 OF 2021 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under s;ection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in sup port of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay the operation of the orr,ers passed by the 4th Respondent in case No.Ji3046l04 dated '16l06i2005 pending the consideration of this writ appeal. Counsel for the Appelt;rnt : SRI NARESH REDDY CHINNOLLA Counsel for the Resporrdents No.1&2 : Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.3to8 : M/s.BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondents No.6tog : SRI M.V.pRATAp KUMAR W.A,N o.619 oF 2021 writ Appear under crause '15 0f the Letters patent preferred against the order dated 15/o7t2o21 in W.p No ztttt ot ziioa "" Between: Hish Court "iihe ir.r" rTrl, 1 Cherukuri Chakradhar Red q.t$f,,i;ilffi ik[*",;ilf f,*:,trilfl i#fl iff ilrr/JlT,a;:"*.tr 9l_9ryIr.lri Udaya r3haskar Reddy, S/o Cherukuri r a b o u t 6 4 v_"lii' n 3lf,Xii"-[Tfl,l,llr#",3|diliu,::;ffi d;?::f i'J',],"*ir" -Rv; ili"liiigo ! v Jr.i.s' c iA i;i;;;, 8 ; iB,.S I? LX r I Ri% ri,fl,?s 1 1 /il' ilti " ...APPELLANTS 2 AND 1 The Joint Collecbr ll. RR District Lakdikapool, Hyderabad Ihe Speciat Grad,: Deo nansarbodt, rr.t*ori"Y#51'rr33l5f:".1 and Revenue Divisionat orricer,

3. Sri A.Bharathlal (Died per LR), Ranga Reddy District 4. Sri A. Satishlal, S/o Late A Bharathlal, Aged. 3-0 years' Occ Business Rl/o 1- - ib','i ur-ri,v i*Jir Vittage, Havathnagar Mandal, Rahga reddv District (R6 is brouqht on record as L.R. of deceased R3 as per the court order dated )s.oq zon"in w.P.tM.P. No. 34684 of 2017)

5. Cherukuri Chandrasekhara Reddy, S/o Chtiiukuri Narayana Reddy, Aged about 66 Years

6.CherukuriShakunthalaDevi,w/ocherukuriNarayanaReddy,Agedabout82 ResoondentsNo5andOarerepresentedbytheirGPAHolder'SmtD drilriilr"n"irav. wlo Cnunotu Redbv, Ased .gpo'1! s9 vears, occ Housewife' nyo'r ile nriA 6btonv, Road No 12Blniata Hills, Hyderabad (R5 and RO Not Necessary Parties in this Writ Appeal) ...RESPONDENTS IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedtostay theoperationoftheorderspassedbythe2ndRespondentinCaseNo,J/3046/04 dated 16.06.2005, pending the consideration of this writ appeal' Counsel for the Appellant : SRI SATHVIK REDDY ATLA Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.4 : M/s'BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondents No.5&6 : " W.A No.622 OF 2021 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated fin7ho21 in the w.P.No. 22683 of 2006 on the file of the High court' Between: 1 Cherukuri Chakradhar Reddy, S/o Cherukuri Narayana ngAQy.' ng9,O lPout 60 ;;;; H;r;;nteo uv rris G'pR Hotaer, smt D Sukrutha Reddv' w/o chandra 'R;i;. A6"A;bort s'a v"u-t.,'oii,HoliJ*ii",-R/o 11/B MLA Colonv' Road No t/ Baiiara Hills, HYderabad c Cherukuri Udaya Bhaskar Reddy, SJo Cherukuri Narayana Reddv, Aoed about 64 years, Represented _b-y his GpA Horoer, smi o Si,riitnl'ir"ior. Wi" chandra Reddv, r\oed about 5ri ve"rs. oic no;i"*i;, Rv;'iie ruiixciir,llv] Road No 12Banja:a Hiils, Hyderibid-. --- AND 1

2. Sri. A Bharathlal (t)ied per LR) Bokka Chenna Rr:ddy, S/o Nagi Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Rt/o Not Known. ...APPELLANTS 3 4 t 6 7 B 9ri A. Satishlal, S,/: Late A Bharathlal, Aged 30 years, Occ Business No 1_22. Turkayamjat Vilage, Hayathnagar lvtanoii nandaUaiD;.ftj"'voo'I w v I -z', The Joint Collec;tor ll, RR District Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. Revenue Divisionel Officer, Rangareddy, East Division at Hyderabad. Cherukuri Chandr:rsekhara Reddy, S/o Cherukuri Narayana Reddy, Aged about 66 years CherukuriMuralidh,rr Reddy, S/o Cherukuri Narayana Reddy Rl/o B ra h m a na pa I I iV i t I a 3 e. H a ya tn a g a r fr/i nOii na n gi n-JOO V O,,.ti[i Cherukuri Shakuntala Devi W/o Cherukuri Narayana Reddy R:/o BrahmanapaliVila,se HayalnagaiN/ind; Hiig?H"ioy oirtri.t ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2o2 1 Petition under sectron i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay the operation of the orcers passed by the 4th Respondent in case No. Jr3o46to4 dated 16.06.2005, penciin,l the consideration of this writ appeat. Counsel for the Appeltant : SRI SATHVTK REDDY ATLA Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI pULLA RAO yELLANKI Counsel for the Respondents No.3 : M/s.BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondents No.4&5 : Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.6tog : W.A.No.629 OF 2O2'l Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 1510712021 in writ petition No.21'l 11 of 2006 on the file of the High Court. Between: 'l . Cherukuri Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o. Ch. Narayana Reddy, Aged about 51 Yrs, Occ- Business Petitioners are presently staying in USA and being rep. by their GPA Holder. Smt. D. Sukrutha Reddy, W/o. Chandra Reddy, Aged 45 yrs, Occ- Housewife and Agriculture, Both Rl/o. 1 1/B, MLA Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

2. Cherukuri Shakuntala Devi, W/o. Ch Narayan Reddy, Aged about BB Yrs, Occ- Housewife, Petitioners are presently staying in USA and being rep. by their GPA Holder. Smt. D. Sukrutha Reddy, W/o. Chandra Reddy, Aged 45 yrs, Occ- Housewife and Agriculture, Both R/o. 1 'llB, IvILA Colony, Road No.1 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad ...APPELLANTS AND 1 2 3 4 5 6 CherukuriChakradhara Reddy, S/o. Ch. Narayana Reddy, Aged about 71 yrs Both 1 and 2 are No.11l8, IVLA Colony, Road No.'12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad Cherukuri Udaya Bhaskara Reddy, S/o. Ch Narayana Reddy, Aged about 66 Yrs, Both 1 and 2 are Rl,/o. 11l8, MLA Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad The Joint Collector-ll, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. The Special Grade Deputy Collector, and Revenue Divisional Officer, RR East Division, Hyderabad A. Bharath Lal, S/o. Shankerji (died per LR) A. Satishlal, S/o. Late A Bharathlal, -Aged 33 Yrs, Occ- Business, R!/o H No.'l- 22 Turkayamjal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 stay the operation of the orders passed by the 2nd Respondent in Case No. J/3046/04 dated 16/06/2005, pending the consideration of this writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellant : SRI NARESH REDDY CHINNOLLA Counsel for the Respondent No.1&2 : SRI M.V.PRATAP KUMAR ,7 Counsel for the Respondent No.3&4 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.5&6 : M/s.BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES W.A.No.630 OF 2021 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 1510712021 in W.P.No 2268312006 on the fite of the High Court. Between:

1. Cherukuri Chardras_ekhar Reddy, S/o. Ch. Narayana Reddy, Aged about 5., 'and being rep. by Yrs, Occ. Business Petitrone-rs are pre_sen y slaying in USA their GPA Hoider Smt. D. Sukrutha Redd!, Wio.-Chandra Reddy, Aqe'd +5 y1s,.Qc_c. Housewife and Agriculture, Bo[h R/o. 11/8, IVLA Coiony] Road No..12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

2. Cherukuri Sha<untala Devi, W/o. Ch Narayan Reddy, Aged about BB yrs, Occ. Housewif,l. Petitioners are presen y siaying in USA-and being rep. by their GPA Holder Smt. D. Sukrutha Reddy, W/o. Chandra ReOav, +5 yls,.9c!. Housewife and Agricutture, Both R/o. 11lB, MLA CoionyJ Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabhd -eq€ja AND .APPELLANTS 1 2 The Joint Coller:tor-ll Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. ]fe Special Gr:rde Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, RR East Division, Hyder,:bad.

3. A. Bharath Lal, S/o. Shankerji (died per LR) 4. BokkaChenna tleddy, S/o Nagi Reddy 5. A. 9atishlal, S/c,. Late A Bharathlal, Aged 33 yrs, Occ. Business, R:/o H No.1- 22 Turkayamjal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

6. CherukuriChakradhara Reddy, S/o Ch. Narayana Reddy, Aged about 71 yrs, 7. Cherukuri Udava Bhaskara Reddy, S/o. Ch Narayana Reddy, Aged about 66 Yrs, R-6 and R-7 are: R/o. 1118, MLA Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad B. cherukuriMuralidhar Reddy, SJo cherukuri Narayana Reddy R/o Bralunanpalli Village, Hayathnagar Mandal Rangareddy Distriit ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2021 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Higtd. court may be pleased to stay the operation of the orders passed by the 4th Respondent in case No.J/3046/04 dated 16.06.2005, pending the consideration of this writ appeal' Counsel for the Appellant : SRI NARESH REDDY CHINNOLLA Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe ResPondents No.3 : Counsel for the Respondents No.4 : SRI PULLA RAO YELLANKI Counsel for the Respondents No.5 : SRI M.V'PRATAP KUMAR W.A.No.634 OF 2021 WritAppealunderclause,l5oftheLettersPatentAgainsttheorderDated 15l}6lio1' in w P No 21111ot 2006 on the file of the High Court' Between:

1. Cherukuri Chakradhar Reddy, S/o Cherukuri lltay'l? n9OO.V.' nq9,O lpout 60 v"lt , ii"pi"."nt"o uv nis C'CA Holder, Smt D Sukrutha Reddy' W/o Chandra hLoov. nirea about s'e yeais, occ. Housewife, Rl/o 11/B MLA Colony, Road No 12 Baniara Hills, HYderabad Cherukuri Narayana. Reddy', Aged 2. Cherukuri Udaya Bhaskar Reddy, - ,oort o+ y"art,'n"piet"nleo oy {d GPA Hglder' Smt D Slkrutha Reddv' W/o -S/o C-n-r"'Oiu'ieOd'y, Aged about'58.ye.ars, Occ Housewife' Fl/o 11/B IVLA Colony, Road Nb 12-Baniara Hills, Hyderabad' ...APPELLANTS AND

1. The Joint Collector ll, RR District Lakdikapool, Hyderabad' 2.TheSoecialGradeDeputyCollectorandRevenueDivisionalofficer' Rangdreddy, East Division at Hyderabad'

3. Sri. A Bharathlal, (Died Per LR) 4. Sri A. Satishlal, S/o Late A Bharathlal, Aged 30-yeart' q".t F.u:!.n9ss ii,f urkayamlit Vittage, Hayathnagar Mandal' Rangareddy Drstnct' (R6 is brouoht on record as L.R. of deceased 23 04'2018 in R3 as per the Iourt ordertated W.P.M.P. No. 34684 ol 2O17) Rl/o 1-

5. Cherukuri chandrasekhara Reddy, S/o.Cherukuri Narayana Reddy, Aged about 66 Years / -,- o Cherukuri Shakunthala Devi, W/o Cherukuri Narayana Reddy, Aged about 82 years, Respondents No 5 anct 6 are_ represented by their GpA Holder, Smt D sukrutha Reddv. w/o chandra n"iqvlnl6i"rn"<iut's! years, occ Housewife R/o 11/B MLA Corony, Road No irB;'"j;?;Hir:iivi'",aoao ( R5 and R6 Not Necessary parties in This Appeal ) . ...RESPONDENTS IANO:3O F 2021 Petition under Serction 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay the operation of the orclers passed by the 2nd Respondent in case No. J/3046/04 dated 16.06.2005, pending the consideration of this writ appeal. Counsel for the Appeltant : SRI SATHVIK REDDY ATLA Counsel forthe Respondents No.1&2: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.3 : counsel for the Respondents No.4 : M/s.BHARADWAJ ASSOCTATES W.A.No.63 6 0F 2021 writ Appeal under crause 15 of the Letters patent preferred Against the order Dated 15to6t2018 in W.p. No 21111 of 2006 on th;iite;; iie Higt"r court. Between: 1 Cherukuri Chandrasekhar Rg!p_V, S/o. Ch. Narayan Reddy, Aged about S1 Rr/ o illd,'uLA 6"r,jri,'fr3a0 ruo.rz, Banjara Hirs, ,W/o. . Ch Narayan Reddy, Aged about BB yrs. rV o. rits' ML"A'd6ff1 ntli ruo.lz, aanjara ujrri, Ii';"Prtot;ot"iness, Cherukuri Shakuntala Devi, ff3",j1"rf"*ire, 2 FfiiT{:$lf,rf,fl"'"d8lJI',,[ilt##:lfJ5.?,i,i"E"f,it=:BI":[il!:#iJ and Agriculture AND ...APPELLANTS

1. 2 Cherukuri Chakradhara Re Rv" ii)B, [,ilA'c;i:fr; RE33'*3'ir?,]3,t3r,i1il,:fti:[i]r',,?i about 71 yrs , 9[::S:i i,g8 lf,,px'3 5ilfi f RlX'd Ri", iUf, 11 Li ff fi s,.fi IaAs e d a bo u t 6 6 -

3. The Joint Collector-ll, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool' Hyderabad 4. The Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer' RR East Divisicjn, HYderabad.

5. A. Bharath Lal, S/o. Shankerji (died) Per L R -6 6. A. Satishlal, S/o. Late A Bharathlal, Aged 31Y6' Occ Business ' No 1-22' " rr[,lilriirVirrag;, Hrvathnagar trla-ndat, Ranga Reddv District' ...RESPONDENTS IA NO: 2 OF 2021 PetitionUnderSection.l5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay theoperationoftheorderspassedbythe2ndRespondentinCaseNo.J/3046/04 dated 16/06/2005, pending the consideration of this writ appeal' Counsel for the Appellant : SRI NARESH REDDY CHINNOLLA Counset for the Respondents No'1&2 : SRI M'V'PRATAP KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No'3&4 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the ResPondents No'5 : Counsel for the Respondents No'6 : M/s'BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE HON'BLID SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLII SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY W.A.Nos.56 of 2A25 60r ,6 11, 6t9, 622, 629, 630, 634 & 636 of 202L COMMON JUDGI4ENI: [,e] th.. , k,1.bLe sr,r,rs,rc. .rrri,,,o,,rr i:,r.,(,, .s, (i,.,r,1 Al1 ttrese .rrppeals are being disposerl of tlrgether bv way of a corrln:.on order as the issue raised in all the appeals is one arrd the same.

2. A11 these rMrit Appeals are filecl aggrieved by the common order, dated 15.07.2021 passecl in Revierv l.A.Nos.I & 3 of 12018 in W.p.No.211li oi 2006 & Revierv I.A.Nos. 1 er" 2 of 2018 in W.p.No.2268:3 oi 2006 and common order dr::terl 05.06.20 1B passed in W.p.Nos.? 1 1 i 1 artd 22683 of 2OOo bv the learncd Singlc. Judgc.

3. Heard bot.h r.he parties.

4. For the sak,: of convenience, the facts in V,/.A.No.619 of 2021 are hcrr:nlcler discussed. ) AI{S,J & VRKR..I w,a 56 i025 & balch

5. Learned counsei for the appellants had contended that respondent No.3 filed an application under the Andhra Pradaesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act' 1955 before respondent No.2 the Revenue Divisional Officer and the R.D.O had granted Occupancy Rights Certihcate (O.R.C) in favour of respondent No'3 uide ptoceeding dated 16.06.2005. Aggrieved by the grant of the O'R'C in favour of respondent No.3, the appellants have preferred an appeal before the appellatc authority i'e" Joint Collector and the appellate authoritr' r'r'as pleaserd to dispose of the appeal uide order dated 15'07 '2006, without granting any relief to the appellants. Despite the cancellation of the O.R.C. granted to respondent No'3' Learned counsel had further contended that the O'R'C' which was granted in favour of respondent No'3 rt'as' in lact' cancelled by appellate authority. By order, dated 15 07 '2006' Aggrieved by the said order, both the appellants and the contesting respondents have approached this Court by hling W.P.Nos.21 111 and 22683 of 2006' 3 \l\S..J d,, \ Rl\R .J \ir rir 2LrJ5 & bar( h 1n

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants had lurther conten(:ted that the appellate authoritv ought to have adjudical,:d weather the R.D.O was justified granting the O.R.C. to respondent No.3. Though tl.re appellate authorjty had the po\^/er to decide on the legality of the original order, it failecl to adjudicate this issue Instead, the altpeal was disposed of with a strange observation tha.- neither the appellants nor the contesting respondents \^'e.e cultivating the land a,d that the iar-rcl had been declart:d as ,,padavar,, 1ancl. Conseq r-rentl1,, no reiref rvas grantccl to either party, and the O.R.C. granted to respondent No.3 was cancelled ,,l,ithout due consideration.

7. Learned counsel had further contended that the appellate authori'y has not examined the padavar records for the 1'ears 19711-1973 and lg73_74.If onty the appellate authority examirLecl the padavar records, he r,r,ould har.e passed appropriate orders. Without looking into the Paclawar records. the appellate authority has adjudicated tliE..gase. Hencr:, the learnecl Single Judge has dismissed -l AI(S..I & VRI\R,.J !\a .;O 202J & l)al.rt1 : 1 \] the writ petitions u,'ithout appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants. Learned counsel had further contended that I t was erroneously held that all factual disputes cannot be adludicated in a Writ Petition' However, the only issue belore the appellate authority was whether the original authority \ ias justilled in granting the O.R.C. to respondent No.3 lf tl-rer appeilate authority had considered the relevant Prldavar records, it could have adjudicated the matter effectively. Thcrelore, appropriate orders be passed in all these Writ Appeals by setting aside the common order, dated 15.07'202 1 passed in Review I.A.Nos.1 & 3 of 2018 in W.P.No.2l111 of 2006 & Review LA.Nos. I &' 2 of 2078 in W.P.lilo.226B3 of 2006 and the common order, dated 05.06.2018 passed in W'P'Nos'21111 and 22683 of 2006 W.P.Nos.21 1 1 I and 22683 of 2006 by the learned Single Judge and remit the matter to the appellate authority so as to enable the appellate authority to pass a detailed order after giving opportunities to all the parties. ./ 5 ,{KS,.J & \'RKR,J $a Ji) 2025 & blLch

8. On the other hand, the learned Government pleader appearing for the respondents had contendecl that 1et the matter be adjr_rdicared to the appeliate authoritl., so as ro enable the appelrate authority to adjudicate the case after giving opportur-ritrr to all the parties.

9. This court, having considered the rival submissions made by both the parties, is of the view that the presenr appeals can be clisposed of arid the common order, datecl 15O7.2O21 passr:cl in Review l.A.Nos.1 & 3 of 2O1B in W.P.No.21t1t of 2006 & Review I.A.Nos. I & 2 ol.2018 in \,V.P.No.226g3 ol 2006 and common order date<i 05.06.20i8 passerC in W.p.Nos.2tttl and 22683 ol 2006 by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside and accorclingly, thc rsame is set aside and the matter iS remitted back to the appellate authority to rehear the case. 'l'he appeliant alrtl-Lority shall also re_examine the records, including the padaiiar records and pass appropriate orders after giving opportrtnity to all the parties. It is needless to say that the appellate authority shall consider the claims 6 AIiS.., & I'RKTI,.J \!a 5ar 202; & batctl for grant of O.R.C made bv al1 the parties after examining the record

10. Accordingly, a1l the Writ Appeals are disposed of No As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending il any, stand closed. To, //TRUE COPYII SD/.A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR e SECTION OFFICER

1. The Joint Collector-ll, Ranga Reddy Distirct 2. The.Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, East Division, Goshamahal, Hyderabad

3. One CC to SRt PULLA RAO YELLANK|, Advocate. IOPUCI 4. One CC to SRt SATHVTK REDDY ATLA, Advocate. [OpUC] 5. One CC to SRI C.NARESH REDDY, Advocate. tOpUCl 6 One CC to M/s.BHARADWAJ ASSOCTATES, Advocate tOpUCl 7. One CC to SRI M.V.PRATAP KU|VAR, Advocate. IOPUCI A L*g CCs to QP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Tetangana at 9. Two CD Copies. Hyderabad. [OUT] BSK HIGH COURT DATED:0 2l09tZ02S ,ii i'-),',- \,' L!) 0 B ll[I P5 , tl .:i I tr. - -,. - L ../ ,,/ , '-,t l, COMMON JUDGMENT WA.No. 56 OF 2025,601,611,619, 622,629,630, 634 & 636 0F 2021 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS v