The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. The Joint Collector, Adilabad.

8. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal, Adilabad District. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kubeer Mandal, Adilabad District. Muthanna, S/o.Pothanna Rl/o.Dodama Village, Revenue Mandal Kubeer, Adilabad District. Gangadhar (Died as per LRs R6 to R8), S/o.Laxiya Rl/o.Dodama Village, Revenue Mandal Kubeer, Adilabad District. G. Laxmi Bai, w/o late G. Gangadhar, Aged about 73 years, Occ. Agriculture. G. Sushila, D/o late G. Gangadhar, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Agriculture. Panch Sheela, D/o late G. Gangadhar, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Agriculture. All are Rl/o, Pardi (B) Village, Revenue Mandal Kubeer, District Nirmal. Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased Respondent No. 5 as per C.O.dt. 181'1012024 in lA No. 112019. ...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 an order, writ or direclion, more particulady one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari setting aside the order passed by the l st respondent in Rc.No.D4l1/2/2004 rjated 30.1.2010, confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in Dl4245l2OO3 dated 15.6.2004 and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to issue Occupancy Rights Ce(ificate to the petitioners in respect of the lands measuring Acs. 15.'15 guntas in S.No.100 of Dodarna village, Revenue Mandal, Kubeer, Adilabad District in the interest of Justice and equity. LA. NO: 2 OF 2010(WPMP. NO: 18485 OF 2010) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed irr support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased suspend the operation of the order in Rc.No.D4l1 l2l?-004 dated 30.1.2010, passed by the 1st respondent by directing the respondents 'l to 3 not to dispossess the petitioner from the land measuring Acs. 1 5.1 5 guntas in S.No.100 of Dodarna village, Revenue Mandal, Kubeer, Adilabad District. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2010(UWMP. NO: 3424OF 20'l0l Between: '1 . The Joint Collector, Adilabad. 2. The Revenue lfivisional Officer, Nirmal, Adilabad District. 3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kubeer Mandal, Adilabad Districl- ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO3 AND

1. Sheik Hussain, S/o.Sharfuddin Agriculturist Rl/o.Dodarna Village, Revenue Mandal Kubeer, Adilabad District.

2. Mohd. Yasin, S/o.Meeransab Agriculturist Ri/o.Dodarna Mandal Kubeer, Adilabad District. Vrllage, Revenue ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

3. Muthanna, S/o.Pothanna Rl/o.Dodama Village, Revenue Mandal Kubeer, Adilabad Distri,ot.

4. Gangadhar, S/o.Laxiya Fi/o.Dodama Village, Revenue Mandal Kubeer, Adilabad Distri,;t. (Respondents 3 and 4 are not necessary parties to this petition) Petition under Section 151 Crc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate ...RESPONDENTS the interim order granted on 24.6.2010 in WPMP No. 18485 ot 2010 in WP No. 14695 of2010.

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.MANIK PRABHU Counsel forthe Respondent No.1to3 : GP FOR REVENUE (TA) Gounsel forthe Respondent No.4 : SRI ASHOK REDDY KANATHALA Counsel for the Respondent No.STOB : SRI S.CHANDRASEKHAR W.P.No.39941 OF 2016 Between:

1. Gangadhar, S/o.late Laxiya (Died per LRs petitioners 2to4) 2. G. Laxmi Bai, w/o late G. Gangadhar, Aged about 73 years, occ. Agriculture. 3. G. Sushila, D/o late G. Gangadhar. Aged about 38 years, occ. Agriculture, 4. Panch sheela, D/o late G. Gangadhar., Aged about 40 years, occ. Agriculture. All are r/o Pardi (B) village, Revenue Mandal, Kubeer, District Nirmal. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased Petitioner No. '1, as per C.O.dt. 23.11 .2023 in WP MP No. 1/2019. AND

1. The State of Telangana, rep by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS

5. b. The Joint Collector, Adilabad, District A.dilabad. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal. District Nirmal. The Tahsildar, Mandal Kubeer, District Nirmal. Shaik Hussain, s/o Sharfuddin. aged about 80 years. Dcc Agriculture, r/o Dodama village. Mandal Kubeer. District Nirmal. MoM. Yasin, s/o Meeransab, aged about 62 years, occ Agriculture, r/o Dodama Village. Mandal Kubeer- District Nirmal.

7. Muthanna, s/o Pothanna, r/o Dodarna Village, Mandal Kubeer, District Nirmal. ...RESPONDENTS Pe{ition 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 pass an order, or orders, direction or directions, or issue a writ, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, (i) Direct the official respondents herein particularly the respondent no.3 herein to conduct an enquiry under section 10 of A.P. (TA) Abolition of lnams Act 1955 and Rule-S of the A.P. (TA) Abolition of lnams Rules 1971i for deciding in whose favour the claim of subject lnam land shall be allowed and to issue occupancy right certificate in favour of petitioner herein, whois successor in interest of original lnamdar according to section 4 of the said act in respect of total extent of 15 acres 15 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.100 of Dodarna village, Mandal Kubeer, District Adilabad, (ii) consequently declare the action of official respondents herein in not conducting an enquiry under section 10 of the A.P. Telangana Area Abolition of lnams Act r/w Rule 5 of the Rules 1975 and not issuing occupancy rights certificate in favour of petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, rriolative of Article 14,21,3OO-4, of the Constitution of lndia and section 10 of the A.P. Telangana Area Abolition of lnarns Act r/w Rule 5 of the A.P. (TA) Abolition of lnam Rules 1975. l.A.NO:1OF2016(@ 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 pass an order, directing the respondent No.3 herein to consider the representation daled 25-07-20161 i,.6-7 -2016 given by the petitioner requesting, to conduct an enquiry under section '10 of the of A.P. ( TA) Abolition of lnams Act 1 955 and Rule- 5 of the A.P. (fA) Abolition of lnam Rules 1975, and issue occupancy right certificate in favour of petitioner herein, pending. disposal of main Writ Petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI S.CHANDRASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.sto7 : -- The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER i SK,J W.I'>.Nos.l4695 of2010 and 39941 ol2016 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION Nos. 14695 of2OlO and 39941 of2OL6 COMMON ORDER: As the common issue is involved in both these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this comrnon

2. W.P.No. 14695 ol 2O1O is filcd scckrng to set aside the order passed by the respondent No. I .Jorr-rt Collcctor 1n Rc.No.D4l7 /2/2OO4 dated 3O.O1.201O conhrming thc order passed by rhe responclc nt llo.2 [tr:r,e nue Divisional Oflicer 1n Iic.Nir.l)/424512OO3 dated 15.06.2OO4 and to direct thc lcspondent Nos.l and 2 to issue Occupancy Rights CclLillcatc to the petitioners in respect of thc Lan d s adncatsuring Acs.15.15 gts in Sy.No.lOO of Dodarna Viltagc, Kubecr ) Manda].) ,) , i i(.J \i l).Nos l^69.i o{ llol{i z:nd .19(;a i oi ilLt1,3

3. W.P.No.3'994 1 oI 2016 is {iled seeking to direct the responden I i\1c,.3-Revenr-re Divisional Officer t-o cond uct enquiry undr;r Sr:ciion lC cf the A.P.(TA) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and Rrrle 5 of A.P. (TA) Abolition of Inains Rr.iles, 197:, anrl to issue Occr-rpar c.y Rights Ccrtihcale i;r ftri,orrr cl the petitioners.

1. '[l.-c i:,r:i Li.]r.rors iir

1.1695 oi 20.r 0 ell': Lhr: ".V.]).Ncr. respondenl, Nos,5 and 5 irr V/.P,No.3994i of 20 16 :i;rr.l thr; pr:titior-,r:r' in W.P.No.3994 i of 2o16 is the rcsl.xlrrir:n1 l,lo.i.' in W.l).t\o, i4691\ of 2l) 10 Ii'or Lhc purposc oi rLi:rlating thc facLs, W-.P.No. l4(:95 of'20i0 is being takcn as:r lt'ad casr:.

5. Hearr-l lcrrncri counsel for the petitioners, icarned l\ssistan.t (lirvr. r nrnent Pleader for Revenrie and learned counsel lor tl.rc uirofficial respondents in both the rwit PCtrtlon s I '3 SK,J W.P,Nos.l4695 of 20lO and 39941ol2016

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners 1n W.P.No.14695 of 2010 submits that the petitioners are in continuous possbssion of land to an extent of Acs.15.15 gts in Sy.No.1OO situated at Dodarna Village of Kubeer Maldal, through the registered lease for a period of 99 years executed by the original inamdar, the respondent No.4, on 10.04.1975. Out of the said land, the petitioner No.1 has purchased the iand to an extent of Ac.06.15 gts and the petitioner No.2 has purchased the land to an extent of Ac.9-00 gts from the respondent No.4 through agreement ol sa-le dated 05.02.1974. He submits that the said lands are Bar.r,,atha Inam lands which v!'ere in posscssion ol the respondent No.5 Inamdar from the beginning. L)ven on the crucial dated on O1.11.1973, the petitioners wcre in possession of the said lands and they have been continuously cultivating the said lands ald their names I ) ) 4 SI(.J \\'.P.Nos.i4695 oi20ii) ard i199.1 i of 20 16 a were regularly shou,n in Column No.13 of Aclangal fi-om 1975-'/6 to 2O()9- 10. 7 . Learned Counsel lbr the petitioners ftlrt her sut:mits thirl while it being so. the petitiorrers have made application on 06.tJ9. 1995 ta the r-espondent No.2 for- grarit of (-)r;cupancy Rights Certificate in respect. of thr:ir landri aclmr:-:sr.rririg Ac:.s. i 5.1 5 cts, in Sy.Nri.1O0 and the rr:sirr-rndent No.2 has refeir-cd th.e sajd application t-<-r tht: r'(-'sil()nclcr-lt No.3 foi eh+iir1, under Sec:t.ion il0 ol r\.f'. i"1-t\) r\lroiii;rrir oi Ltains t\ct, 1955, and l-he rerpondcnt No,lJ has s ubmitted his report on

30.C5.2002, but l l.rc respondent No.2 by order d.arr:d. 03.O7.2aA2 dil-cctccl lhe respondenl No.3 to conduct d,,: novo cnciLrr:r, ;rnci t herca-fter, Lhe rcspondt:nt No.3 serrt his; plr',pr,sals dat-cd 06.12.2OO3 to t-he resporrCcnl- No.2. Ijc; furrthcr srrtrmits that though 1.he respondent Nos.4 a.nd 5 l-rave adrnitted the: claim of ) \i t 5 SK,J W.P.Nos.14695 of 2010 arld 39947 of 2016 petitioners by giving statement before the respondent No.3, they retracted from their stand before the respondent No.2 and claimed Occupancy Rights Certificates for themselves. The respondent No.2, without considering and deciding the interse claims among the petitioners and the respondent Nos.4 and 5, resumed the lands to the Government custody and directed the respondent No.3 to take custody of the said lands by order dated 15.06.2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed appeal before the respondent No. 1 , who in turn conlirmed the order ol respondent No.2 in Rc.No.D4/ I l2 /2OO4 dated 30.01.2010 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.14695 of 2O10.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent Nos.l and 2 ought to have decided the claims betwcen the petitioners and the .\ ) (> SK,J W.P.Ncs. 14595 of 2010 at1d 3994 1 of :2016 t respondent Nos.4 and 5. The respotrdent Nos. t and 2 have failed to consider the ioase for a period ,cf 99 year-s executed by the respondent No.5 on i0.04.i975, which was registerr:d on 14 .04. 1 975, and also not considered that- the pcl.ilii)ltcrs havc pi.tlr:h i-rsr:r.l tl-re cnlirc ex:tcnt of land of Ac.I5.15 gts through the agreement of sale dated 05.02. I ()7'4 ar-ri.l rr:ier:;ted thr: c:iaim on l.he ground that man5, pcrsons arc clairning occrrpancy rights certificates. I [e lurthcr subrnits thaL the responcient No.1 r;rred itt crrnsjllr'r-iilg tit(. i-r:lli:;lcr-l stalernent.s of thc rcspon,ir'rit \r'... i ,,:i,i : .rllr., ;lir ing statcmcnl before the rt:sponderrt No.3 irr Lhc enquiry and also failed to corrsiCcr thc adangals hled b-y the petitioners for the years 19'/.t-i6 to 2OO9-2O10 shorving, that they \ rere in posst:ssion of the schcdulcd lands. He rther submits tlrilt il t l-rer pelitioncrs are evicted from -the schedule lands. rltr.:-r' n'ill sr.tflc:r irreparable loss arrl requested to;Lltori lhc u,rit pctition. \l L/ 7 SK,J W.P.Nos.1.+695 of 2010 arld 39941 of 2016

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the following Judgments :

1. Bhimavarapu Venkaiah vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudeml

2. Khurshid Shapur Chenai vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh2

3. S. Veera Reddy vs. Chetlapalli Chandraiah3

10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, based on the counter averments in W.P.No. 14695 of 2010 submits that the land to an :., extent of Ac. 15. 1 5 gts in Sy.No. 100 situated at Doderna Village of Kubeer Mandal was recorded as Balavath lnam and stands in the narne of Sri Gangadar S/o. Laxiya and subsequently, the inamdar has given the land on batai basis to one Sri Mykala Muthanna for a period of 8 years and he had cultivated the land for ' r999 (l) At_D 219 ' roo5(2)^+LD 68 tee5(l) Al.l lTt (D.u. ) ! J 8 SK,J \U.i'.Nos. l.i(>95 ol 20IO:)nd:1994 i of .]016 the period from I9e,7 68 to 1974-75 and later, the Inamdar ha s lorcibiv reve rt back the 1a-rcl to his possession imd entered into lease basis u.ith the petitioners on 10.04.197r.> tcr a period of 99 years for Rs.15,OO0/- ,and thc lease sl-ra[1 conrrncnc:e from

12.O4.1975 and the pctirior-ir--rs.irc irr c:ontinuous possession lrorn 1r,)'/ri.'/6 1r: till nou

11. 'Lear-necl AssislanL Ciovr:rnmt:itt Pleader for Revenue furttier subraits thiiL the Ivl an clai. Revenue Officer, Kubcci- virlt: I,r' lJo.t'r/ 1()?,4,/?.(,1O2 dated OI.12.ilOO3 [.r:r:; L'ccomrrr:;i<ir:,-] the Rcvenu.e Divisional offi<:cr, I\ir nrai t-o qrant ()r:r:irpirr:c-V R.igtrts Cerfficate in favolrr ol Mckal;r Njr.rtirirnn;r ets lrt: r,r,,as in physical possessron .,rs on tl-re c:rtr<;ial date i.e,

01.11.1973 frctrn 1967 onnards, bur the Rever.ue Divisional Offi,:er, Nirmal has returned the proposais structic,ns to conduct thorougtr enqr,riry since SK,J W.P.Nos.14695 of 2010 and 39941 of 2016 different persons are claiming rights for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate over the said land. After conducting enquiry, as there were contradictions in the depositions and after going through the provisions of the Inam Abolition Act, 1955, the respondent No.2 has passed orders for resumption of Inam land to the Government custody until rc-grzrnt 1S made and the sarne was confirrned by lhe respondent No. I . He further submits that the petitioners have not appeared and adduced their evidence on the date ltxed and refused to sign about their presence on the date of enquiry lixed by the respondent No.3-Mandal revenue Ofhcer and as such, the respondent No.1 has confirmed the ordcrs passed by thc respondent No.2 and requested to dismiss thc writ petition.

12. Learnecl Counsel for Lhe respondent No.5, based on the counter averments in W.P.No.74695 of 2O1O I f E ! t i0 ]K,.I Vi.P.l'los.l4(>95 of 2OlO au'rd 3994 I ol .)016 - submits that the father of the respondent No.5, nalrrely Laxiya, was llramda-l' of land to :ur extent cli Ac.15-I5 gts situated .ir-r Sy.No.100 oI Dodama Vill:rge, Kut.reer Mandal. ancl a-fter his death, the respondent Irlo.5 became o\\,'ner of the said iand rand as per thc rcverrue records in 19.54-55 when A.P.(TA) Abolition of ht:rrns Act cime into force, ttrey lr'c rc in p,:rsscssion o[ ihe saicl larrci ar-rd i1s D(.'r Sectior-r ,-l r1l l.t;,; :;;.rirl Al:1 . Iir: is r:nlillcd Occupancy Ril3hts Certilicirlc o',.,.,r- IIr(] s:rid lancl. F{e subnli.ts th.at duc t-o linanciril , rotrl,::lus. 1ltr,. t'r.lspr,,ndr:nt No.5 has given on crop sli:r;-c ii:rsis ro ltrc rcspor-,rdt'nt No.4 and as per lJre pahani piitlil<as lor tlrc 1,car 19 /3- 74, lhe respondent No.4 u,as ir-t p,1rs;5s55i1rn of t-he said land. Theleafter, the pctitionrrrs t ook his land on crop share basis for lcasc lrrr a pcrinrl r,l- I OO \cilrs i-ls lre r rhr- lease deed dat,ed 14.O4.1975 ancl thc rcspor-rdenr N(r.5 never executed the agreement oI sak: datcd 05.02.1974 \ ,[ I SK,J W.P.Nos..14695 of 2010 and 39941 of 2016

13. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.S further submits that admittedly the petitioners a-re not in possession in the year 1955 when the Act and ttre Rules came into force on 01.11.1973 and as such, they are not entitled to claim over the subject land as per Sections 4 to 8 of the A.P.(TA) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, and as per Section 3 of the Act, when the Inam Lands vesLed to the State from 1955, the respondent No.S has no authority or right to lease out or enter into any - agreement over thc subject land with the petitioners and thereforc, thc rcspondent Nos.l and 2 have rightly rejcctcd t,he r:laim of thc pcLitioners by the impugned orders and rcqucsted to dismiss the writ petition.

14. Learned Counsel lor the respondent No.5 further submits that after the Rules undcr A.P.(TA) Abolition of Inams Rules, 1975, came into force, the respondent .I ) / l2 :;K,J W.P.Nos.! 469:) of 20 lO and 39941 c'f')Clr:t -' No,5 has apF,roached.the responder-rt No.ii 1o issue C)ccupanc5, Rights Certificate in his favour as per Section 4 of thc AP (TA) Abolition ol'lnams Act, 1()55 ancl as per Se,:tion 10 of thc Aci, the rcspcnr.lcnt No 3 has t-o conduct. enqrriry for d-eciding in wi-iosc f:rvour tlte claim of the in;,rm land should be erilowecl arrC hence. be filea $1.P.No.39t94i of 2O16

15. r\fter hearing both sides ancl perus.rl ci- []rr: rei:r;r-d, this Coirt isl oi tlle ,:onsidr:red iu is r,1,- lfl;i'1 r hr-: r.lt'1iirort,.r.., as u,cll ers l-he con'l.osting rr;sl:rr,ln:lr:r.ris ;l'i; cl.riinL;xr C)ccupzrrrcy Ri54hts Certihcatcs in r,rs1'r,.:c:I c-rl '.ht: l:rLr.rl admr:asurirl.g to arr extent of Ar:. 15j.15 gts in S,,'. l.Jo. i 00 situated at Dodalra Viilage of Kubc<:r N{zrnda1. '|he peLitioners al'e claiming thror.rgh rcqistcr(id sale dr:cd executed 'by the original owrler i.c.. rcspor-tricnt No.4 on 10.04.i.975. On the other harrd, thc rr:spondLrnt Nos.4 and 5 are claiming Lhat lLrat thr: ialhcr o[ rl.rc ( \. l3 SK,J W.P.Nos.14695 of 2010 and 39941 of 2016 respondent No.S was Inamdar o[ the schedule property and they are entitled for the Occupancy Rights Certificate for the schedule land. Now, basing on the application made by the petitioners, the respondent No.2 has passed impugned order dated i5.O6.20O4 rejecting to grant Occupancy Rights Certificate and resumed the land to the Governmcnt custody on the ground that there are different staLements and explanations of the Inamdar ald the claim of different persons over the inam land and Lhe documentar5r ! s t evidence do not permit lo consicicr tl-rc claim of the petitioners in the light of Section 3 of the A.P. (TA) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 ancl as such, interest vests with the Government until re-grant is made and the sarne was conhrmed by the respondent No. 1 by passing the impugned order on 30.O l 2010 \, )' t4 SK,.J V"I.P.Nos.14695 o12010 anrl 39c1,1 I oi 2OIf;

16. Once the petitioners made application lor Occupar-rcy;f,rights Certi.hcate Linder the: !,,c1, the te spondent iVo.1 has to pass orders rvhe ttLer the petltloners ale eligible .for getting Occupancv Riel-rts Cei'tiljcate o.r rtr)t; brtt cannot taL,e ovcr ltos,l;csr;ior,. cll thc subject l.and with the Government custocl.\,. -i.hcre i:; no provisi()n undet'the Ac:t. to take or.er posscssion of thc latrd from thc pdvate parties. The Judgncr-rts rr liccl on b,r, the lea.rnecl c<;qnsel lbr the pctrtir>nci-s in Bhi.rnavaraprr Ve.:nkaiahrs cils(; (1 supr.a), ff.trurshid Shapur Chen.ai's czrsc (2 su;rrai :rn rJ. in $. Veera Rcddy's <:ers,-. (.), supra) squarely appl.v ro lh<: insralt c:.rsr:. Thc rcsponCent No.2 has to hear thc mul t.[(j] ur botl-r sides and pass appropriate orders aboul Lhc rights of Ll-rc parties hut. not to take over possession of Lhc s u bi er-: t gtroperl,ie s under Government custod y. ,l t5 SK,J W.P.Nos.14695 of 2Oi0 and 39941 of 2016

17. In view of the same, the impugned orders of th€ respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to be set aside and it 1 is a ht case to remand the matter to the respondent \ No.2 for conducting fresh enquiry and pass appropriate orders with regard to the rights of the private parties as per law. I I

18. In view of the above hndings, the Writ Petitions t are disposed of by setting aside thc impugned order in Rc.No.D/4245/2OO3 dated 15.06.2004 passed by the respondent No.2 and the order in Rc.No.D4 lll2l2OO4 dated 30.01.2O10 passed by the respondet-rt No. I and the respondent No.2 is directed to conduct lresh enquiry and pass appropriate orders as per law and declare ttre rights of the parties by giving opportunity to both the parties. Till disposal ol ttre said proccedings, both parties are directed to maintain slafus qtro existing as on today. There shall be no order as Lo costs. I / t6 W.P.Nos.l469ii oi20lO rurci 39941 ,,f 2sft':

19. [\4isce]laneous applications, if any pending irr these w-rit petitions, shall stand closed. SDFL.VIJAYA LAKSHMI I R ASSI /ITRUE COPY// R 1 . The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department' Telangana Secretariat' State of Telangana, l-lYderabad. 2. The Joint Colle':tor, Adilabad. 3. The Revenue Divisional fficer, Nirmal, Adilabad District' 4. The Mandal Re'venue Officer, Kubeer Mandal' Adilabad District 5. One CC to SRI K MANIK PRABHU, Advocate' [OPUCI 6.TwoCCstoGPFoRREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana'

7. One CC to SRI S.CHANDRASEKHAR, Advocate lOPUCl 8. One CC to SRI ASHOK REDDY KANATHALA' Advocate lOPUCl 9. Two CD CoPies. BSK A pr \ \ To, I I I I I I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:0310112025 COMMON ORDER WP.No.14695 of 2010 & WP.No.39941 ot 2016 )<-" ,/{+" ,t/l- :),a1 .c. \:l ar gE ST4 r-l: L:. t- FEB 2025 +I /' -^ * . -'l' SF,4T|: Y \.--.' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS lr- 2, 2-\ \L{spL[\'