The High Court · 2025

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no 2 to 4 to consider the application vide ref .Nos C1250007468 and C1250007469, dt 21 08.2025 which was made by the petitioners forewith pending disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. NARSIMULU NEELI Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. tto4: SRI L. RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5to9:- The Court made thi following: ORDER h THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.26829 of 2025 ORAL ORDER: Heard leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr,L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalfofrespondent Nos. I to 4.

2. According to the petitioners, land admeasuring Lc.2-18 guntas in Sy.Nos.853A2, 8534.1, 853/l and 853/2, situated at Mahbubnagar Mandal and District, is joint family property and it belonged to their father. After his death, the petitioners claim a share in the said property. Even then, respondent Nos.5 to 9 are trying to alienate the subject property to the third parties. Therefore, the petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.94 of 2025 on the file of the leamed Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, against respondent Nos.5 to 9, seeking partition and separate possession of the subject property. The said suit is still pending. An Interlocutory Application was also filed for restraining respondent Nos.5 to 9 fiom alienating, altering the physical features, or creating encumbrance over the subject property in favour of third parties. The said lnterlocutory Application is also pending. 2 \

3. It is the specific case of the petitioners that, during the pendency of the said suit and interlocutory application, respondent Nos.5 to 9 are trying to alienate the subject property to the third parties. Therefore, the petitioners have submitted online applications bearing Id Nos. 21T522800003065 and 21T522800003066, dated 21.08.2025, to respondent No.4, with a request to include tle subject property in the Court Cases Module. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said application, respondent No.4 did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent No.4, the petitioners have filed the present wnt petrtlon.

4. As discussed supr4 the aforesaid suit filed by the petitioners seeking partition and separate possession of the subject property and interlocutory application are admittedly pending belore the trial Court. During the pendency of the said suit and interlocutory application, the petitioners cannot submit online application to respondent No.4 with a request to include the subject property in the Court Cases Module and then file the present writ petition alleging non-consideration of the said application. The petitioners have to pursue the interlocutory application and suit, upon I I I i l i 3 obtaining appropriate onders, they have to approach respondent No.4, for implementation of such orders. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief, much less the relief sought in the present wdt petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. M.OSMAN ALI SISTANT RE /ffRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRl. NARSIMULU NEELI, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies BM PSK HIGH COURT DATED:0810912025 i' 1t\E STA i. 2qllt{2$2t * * ORDER WP.No.26829 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS a ".1/ Y