1. Boina Venkata Narasaiah v. consequently direct the

Heard Mr. Srinivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Muralidhar Rcddy Katram, leamed Govemment Pleader for Revenue appearing on bchalfofthe respondents.

2. CASE OF THE PETITIONERS: i) The petitioners hercin arc the owners and possessors of various extents of land forming part ofsurvey Nos.l94, 195 and 198, situated at Mallemadugu Village, Khammam Urban Mandal and District. They have purchased the said lands under sada bainamas from the original pattadars and the same were subsequently validated/regularized as per the provisions ot'thc Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act. l97l (tbr short. 'ROR Act' 1971') and the Rules made thereunder. pattadars in all revenue rccords. 'l'hcl arc in possession of the said nanrcs wcre also recorded as -l-hcir lands since long time. i) The respondcnt authoritics have initiated the proceedings under the provisions of thc Land lincroachmcnt Act- 1905 (for short, 'Act, 1905') by issuing noticc as requircd Lrndcr Scction - 7 of the Act, 2 KI. J WP No 28180 of2025 1905 clairning that the subject lands which are in occupation of the petitioners herein are ceiling surplus lands under the provisions of the 'lelangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short, 'Act, 1973'). Thus, respondent authorities requested the petitio:rers to submit explanation as to why they should not be evicted from the subject land. The petitioners herein have submitted explanation to the said notice stating that the nature of subject lands are patta lands and they have purchased the same under sada hainamas end the same were regularized in their fhvour. iii) liven then, respondent No.4 initiated the procecdings under lhc Act. 1905 and passed eviction orders dared 29. I 0.2 021 vicle procecding:; No.B/3599i2017. Challenging the same, the petitioners preftrrcd an appeal in C3 /902/2024. Vide common ordcr dated

01.()i.2024. respondent No.3 confirmed the said evicrion order. ir,) Challenging the said order, the petitioners tilcd a rr rir pctition vide W.P. No.13754 of 2024 contending that rhe pcririoners nre in lon6i standing possession, therefore, by initiating summar!. procccdings, respondent No.4 cannot pass an order dated 2g.l}.212l tundcr Sccrion - 6 of the Act, 1905. 3 KI. J wP No 2E180 of 2025

3. Considerin g the inter se disputes between the parties which are serious in nature, vide order dated 17 .12.2024, this Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition (W.P. No.13754 of 2024) setting aside the order dated 03.05.2024 in appeal No.C3/90212024 of respondent . No.3 leaving it open to the petitioners and pattadars to agitate their claims before competent Civil Court and after obtaining a decree in the said suits, they are entitled to make an appropriate application seeking correction of revenue records or carrying out amendments as per the provisions of the ROR Act, 2020. Pending finalization of the said suits, the respondent authorities w'ere directed not to change the nature/classification of the property in revenuc records and also directed not to mutate revenue records in any manner pending adjudication of rights of the parties over the sub.iect lands. At the same time, the petitioners were also directed not to alicnatc or create any third party interest over the sub.icct tands and also restrained them for conversion of the said lands for any other purposes.

4. In the said order, it is also obserucd b1' this Court that as it is stated by leamed counsel for the petitioners that as on that date. there is a standing crop which is ready to harvest. the pctitioncrs rvere 4 KI-. J WPNo28l80of2025 permitted to harvest the said crop on the panchanama being drawn by respondent No.4. It was made clear that after harvesting the said crop, the petitioners should not claim any rights over the subject properfy till the srLits have been decided by the competent civil Court in accordanc,: with law. 'lhe alleged assignees were also permitted to implead themselves in the pending suits and contest the matter in accordanct: with law. the civil Court was directed to dispose of the said suits as cxpeditiously as possible.

5. [.eeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an Intra-C,rurt Appeal under Section - 15 of the Letters patent rzZe W.A. No. I ll ot 2025. Vide jtrdgment dated 29.01.2025, a Division Bench of' this Court disposed of the said writ appeal with the fbI lor.vin g tl irections: 'i. -I hc paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of the impugned order stand modified by reserving liberty to the parties to [' lc appropriate civil suits/applications, if not already I' lcd. ii. In the event in such civil suits any interim applications arc already filed, the &ial Court shall make an cndeavour to decide the same within thirty days fronr tlre date of'production ofcopy ofthis order. 5 KL. J wP No l8llto of m25 It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case."

6. It is relevant to note that the Division Bench of this Court passed the aforesaid judgment considering the consensus arrived at between teamed counsel for the petitioners and learned Govemment Pleader for Revenue.

7. Thereafter, the petitioners irled I.A. No'2 of 2025 in W'A' No.tll of 2025 seeking clarification/modification of order dated

29.01.2025 in W.A.No.lll of 2025. Vide ordu dated l9'06'2025, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said interlocutory application observing thus: " In ou opinion, the order dated 29.0t.2025 is clear. Ye! in the interest ofjustice. it is further clarified that while passing thc consent ordcr aforesaid ort 29.01.2025, rve made it clear that paragraph Nos.7 and 8 ol the ordcr ol thc leamcd Single Judge stood modified. The modification means that paragraph Nos T and 8 of the order of the leamed Singlc Judge is substituted by our order and an1' directions contained in the order of the learncd Singlc Judge (t Kl- J WP No.28180 of202i automatically stood modified and pales into insignificance."

8. Since pancharnma was conducted on 15.05.2025, the petitionen; tilcd a contempt case vide C.C. No.l357 of 2025 alleging willful an,l deliberate r.iolarion of the order dated29.Ol.2025 in W.A. No.l ll ol' 2025 and rhat the panchanama dated 15.05.2025 runs contrary t,: rhc said or<ler. Vide order dated 30.06.2025, the Division Bench closed rhe said contempt with the following observations: "[n thc panchanama, dated 15.05.2025, the statcmenr ot' f'acr is recorded that both the parties harc harvcstcd rhe crop in the land. To this exten! no inte rtl'rcnce is required. However, the later portitxr. $ hcre in in the panchanama it was rcc()rdcd thal -thereafter not to raise any crops and dirccted rhc rcsF),ondents not allot this land till the disposal ot cascs in civil Courts.......', is conccmed is based on the order of leamed Single .lutlgc rr,hich srood modified by the Division Bench irr \\'...\. No. I I I o12025. This quoted portion lost its signilicance and witl not be binding.',

9. 'l.hcrcafter. thc petitioners filed the present writ petition .questioninrr thc action ol' respondent Nos.2 to 4 in erecting barbed 1 KL. J wP No 28180 of2025 wire fencing and board in front ofthe gate preventing the access to the subject lands and directing the petitioners not to enter and carry agricultural operations, even though this Court set aside the eviction proceedings in W.P. No.13754 of 2024 as modihed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.l l I of 2025, as illegal, the petitioners contended that they are in possession of the subject lands and the said fact was conhrmed by this Court and the Division Bench in the aloresaid orders. Therefore, the erection of barbed wire fencing and board in front of gate preventing their access to the subject lands by respondents is illegal. IO. CONTENTIONS OF TIIE RBSPONDENTS: i) Originally, the nature of the subject lands are classified in revcnue records as Kariz Khata and they are vested rvith the Co'u e mment as per khasra pahanilsethwar from 1984-85 onwards. ii) The petitioners got mutated their names in revenue records in thc ycar 2018-19 stating that the said lands are not (iovemment land and they are patta lands. iii) On earlier occasion, questioning the proceedings issued by respondent No.4 vide Rc.No.B/359912017, dated 29.10.2021 undcr 8 KL. J \ ? No.28 I 80 of 202s Section - ti of the Act, 1905, the petitioners filed Appeal Nos.l to 10 of 2021 trefore respondenr No.i, who dismissed the said appeals confirmin6l the orders passed by respondent No.4. iv) Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners filed writ petitions vrde W.P.Nos.564, 569, 574, SBt,586, 602,605, 670 and 677 of 2022. Vide common order, dated 02.01.2024, this Court remanded l-he matters back to respondent No.3 for reconsideration. v) Iaking advantagc ol stray entries in revenue records, the petitioners are claiming occupation/possession of subject lands. However, as on the datc. the Covemment is in possession and enjoyment ol' the suhjecr lands. vi) When rhe (iovcmmcnt started disputing the nature of the subject lan,1s. its ciassificarion and enjoyment of the petitioners, they have instituted a suir ldc O.S.No.6i of 2024 and the pattadars have also tiled imother suir urZr, 0.S.No.49 of 2024. Both the suits are pending. ANALYSIS AND }.-I NDINGS OF THE COURT: I I . Vide ctrder 29. 10.202 I . rcspondent No.4 passed eviction g.d". against the petitirlncrs. Challenging the same, the petitioners -- , - 9 KL. J WP No.28180 of2025 filed appeals under Section - l0 of the Act, 1905, vlde Appeal Nos.2. 3, 4, 8,9, 10, 5, I and 7, respectively before respondentNo.3. Vide order dated 29.12.2021, respondent No.3 confirmed the order of eviction. Challenging the said order dated 29.12.2021, the petitioners herein have filed writ petitions vide W.P. Nos.564, 569, 57 4, 58 1, 586, 602, 605, 670 and 677 of 2022. Vide common order dated 02.01.2024. this Court allow'ed the said writ petitions setting aside the order dated

29.12.20?l of respondent No.3. The matter was remanded back to respondent No.i with a direction to re-consider the appeals and pass orders bl' giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and all concemed./intcrested persons within a period of two (02) months from the date of' rcceipt of copy of the said order. ll. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners herein filed a suit lrrle O.S. No.63 of 2024 against the respondents herein and ( l2 ) olhers seeking declaration and perpetual injunction. They havc alst'r tlled an Intcrlocutory Application (IA) No.2 of 2024 secking temporar! injunction. The said IA and suit are pending before learned V Additional District Judge, Khammam at present. There are no interim orrJers. According to learned counsel for the petitioners. thcre l0 KL, J WP No.28180 of2025 is no Pre:riding Ofhcer in the said Court and In-charge Court is IV Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Khammam. Now, I.A. is posted to 24.09.2025. Despite making efforts, the trial Court is not deciding lhe said temporary injunction application. The petitioners are in possession of the sub.iect lands. They are carrying out agricultunrl operations. Due to the illegal acts of the respondents herein in preventing them from carrying out agricultural operations and erecti:lg fencing, the petitioners are being put to irreparable loss and injury.

13. Perusal of record would also rcvcal that pattadars have also filed a suit in O.S. No.49 ol 202-l against the petitioners and the respondents herein sceking declaration ol' title and recovery of possessior.. The said suit is also pending. I'here are no interim orders.

14. Thus, according to thc pctitioners. the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in preve'nting thcm fionr carwing out agricultural operations in the subject lands and f'cncing u,ith barbed wire is illegal contrary t<r the atbresaid orders dated 17.12.20?.4 passed by this Court in W.P. I.Io.13754 ol 1024 and thc.judement dated 29.01.2025 in W.A. No.l I I ot'2025 and thc nrodilied ordcr thcrein dated 19.06.2025 KL, J WP No.28180 of2025 in I.A. No.2 of 2025 in WA No.l1 | of 2025 and also the order dated

10.06.2025 in C.C. No.l357 of 2025. In proof of the same, the petitioners have fi led photographs.

15. It ls also the specific contention of the petitioners that vide order dated 04.06.2024 in W.P. No.13754 of 2024, this Court directed the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 4 to maintain status quo with regard to the subjcct property in all respects. Thereafter, on the complaint datd 29.06.2024 lodged by respondent No.4, the Police of Khanapur Haveli Police Station, Khammam District, registered a case in Crime No.355 ol' 2024 against father of petitioner No.5 and others for the offences under Sections - 447 and 427 oflPC. Respondent No.4 wa-s not allow ing the petitioners to cultivate the subject property' On consideration ol' thc same, this Court modified the order dated

04.06.2025 in W.P. No.13754 of 2024 anddirectedrespondentNos'2 to 4 not to disposscss the petitioners from the subject lands and not to interfere rn,ith their posscssion. [n view of the said protection, they have not pursued I.A. No.2 ttl 2024 in O.S.No.63 of 2024 seriously' Considering the said fact. the trial Court atso did not grant temporary injunction. I lowcvcr, alier disposal of the aforesaid writ petition ulde t2 KL. J WP No 28180 of2025 order dated 17.12.2024, the petitioners are making hectic efforts to get orders in rhe aforesaid t.A. No.2 of 2024. Since the presiding Officer is on leave, In-charge Court is not taking up the said I.A. and dispose it of in accordance with law. Taking advantage of the same, responden.t Nos.2 to 4 are trying to disposscss the petitioners from the subject lards.

16. In the light of the above submissions, it is apt to note that vide order datd 17.12.2024 in W.p. No. 1i754 ol 2O24, rhis Court while settr.ng aside the order dated 03.05.2024 olrespondent No.3, left it open to the petitioners and pattadars to agitatc their claims before competent- Civil Court. After obtaining dccrcc in the said suis, they are entitkd to make appropriate applications secking correction of revenue rr:cords or carrying out amendments as pt:r the provisions of ROR Act, 2020. Pending finalizarion ol'rhe said suits. the respondent authoritier; were directed not to chansc (he nalurc/classification of the property in revenue records and also tlirectcd not to mutate revenue records ir, any manner pending ad.iudication ol'rights of the parties over the subject lands. At the samc time. the petitioncrs were also --directed not to alienate or crealc an1. third part' intcrest over the KL. J wP No 28180 of2025 sub.lect lands and also restrained them lor conversion of the said lands for any other purposes. Since there is a standing crop which is ready to harvest, the petitioners were permitted to harvest the said crop on the panchanama being drawn by respondent No.4. It was made clear that after harvesting the said crop; the petitioners should not claim any rights over the subject property till the suits have been decided by the competent civil Court in accordance with law. The alleged assignees were also pcrmined to implead themselves in the pending suits and contest the matter in accordancc with law. The civil Court was directed to dispose ol'the said suits ir^s expeditiously as possible.

17. Feeling aggricved by the said order, the petitionen preferred writ appcal uirle W.A. No.l I I of 2025. Vide ordet dated

29.01.2025, the Division Bcnch ol'this Court disposed of the said writ appeal modifying paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of the order dated

17.12.2024 in W.P. No.13754 ol-2024 in the manner extracted above'

18. Vide order dated t9.06.2025 in I.A. No.2 of 2025 in W'A' No.l I I of 2025. thc Division Bcnch also ctarihed/modified its earlier order in thc manncr e\tracted above' Even vide order dated

1.1 KL. J WP No 28180 ot2025

30.06.2025, the Division closed the said C.C. No.l357 of 2025 observing in the manncr extracted above.

19. It is apt to note that inthe panchanama dated 15.05.2025, it is mentioned as follows: "In this regard, Giridhavar-ll, Khammam (Urban) as per the orden of the Hon,ble High Court ot Telangana dated 17 .12.2024 in Writ petirion No.13754 of 2024 and Writ Appeal No. I I I /2025 dalsn 29-01-2025, directed the petitioners ancl respondents to harvest the crops in this land and thereafter, not to raise any crops and directed the respondents not allot this land till rhe disposal ol' cases in civil court il any and both parries in respect ofAc.l l-08 Gts in Survev No. 194. Ac_ 06- 08 Gts in survey No.l95, Ac. 10-28 Gts in Sun,e1.. No.l98, total extent Ac.28-04 Gts. In the above said lands, all crops r.vere harvestcd by the petitioners and at present there arc no c()ps in the said land. In this regard, we all three panchas read rhe contents above, understood and same and alicr coming to know truth, u,ith our lirll consciencc. above parrchanama is conducted in our prescnce on l s-05-2025." t5 KI-, J wP No 2El80 of2025

20. In the light of the above, the petitioners cannot contend that the Division Bench permitted them to cultivate the subject lands. Leamed counsel for the petitioners would contend vide j udgment

29.01.2025 in W.A. No.lll of 2025. the Division Benc*r reserved liberty to the 'parties' to file appropriate civil suits/applications, if not already filed. Thus, the Division Bench protected the interest of the petitioners. The said contention of leamed counsel for the petitioners is contrary to the aforesaid orders. [n fact, the paitioners have to pursue the aforesaid LA. No.2 ol 2024 in O.S. No.63 of 2024 arrd on obtaining order of temporary injunction, they have to cultivate the subject lands as held by this Court t'ide order dated 17.12.2O24 in W.P. No.13754 of 2024. lnstead of doing so, interpreting the aforesaid order in the manncr stated above on their own, the petitioners are seeking a direction to the rcspondents to permit them to carry out agricultural operations b1' dcclaring the actions of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in preventing them fiom carrying out agricultural operations and t'cncing the subject property as illegal. Therefore, viewed lrom any angle. there is no ambiguity in the order dated 17.12.2024 in W.P. No. 13754 ol' 2024. judgment dated I6 KL, J wP No.28180 of2025

29.01 .2025 passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. I I I of 2025 and the modilied order dated 19.06.2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.A. No.l l1 ol'2025 and also the order dated 30.06.2025 in C.C. No.l357 of 2025. The petitioners are misinterpreting the same to suit their convenience. Therefore, they are not entitled for any relief, much lcss the relief sought in the present writ petition. Thus, this w.rit petition fails and is tiable to be dismissed.

21. Though the petitioners claim that they purchased the subject lands under Sada Bainoma and the same were regulariz,ed in terms of Section - 5.A of the ROR Act, 1971, they have not filcd copies ol the same. According to the petitioners, they have filed rhc said docurnents in the suit pending before the trial Court. In the light ol the said submission, it is for the trial Court to consider the said document:; and decide I.A. No.2 of 2024 filed by them in O.S. No.63 ol'2024. [n tl.re absencc of the same and without tiline copies ol- the said docurnents, the petitioners cannot seek any protection to thern.

22. lt is apr to note that if the trial Court is not disposed of thc said l.A. t.lo.2 of 2024 in O.S. No.63 of 2024, rhey can as u.cll avail thcir rcmcdv under law, t7 KL, .l wP No 28180 of 20li

23. The present writ petition IS accordingly dismissed. However, tiberty is granted to the petitioners to pursue I.A. No.2 ol 2024 in O.S. No.63 of 2024 before the trial Cou( and on obtaining interim order, they are at liberty to carrv out agricul{.ura[ operations in the subject property. I[the trial Court is not disposing of the said I.A No.2 of 2024 in O.S. No.63 of 2024,liberty is grantcd ro r.hem ro rakc steps in accordance with law. In the circumstances ol thc case, thcre shalI be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/-L.VIJAYA LAKS SISTANT REGI ,TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, One CC to SRI SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA, Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the Two CD Copies 1 2 J cate [OPUC] tate of Telangana iV ,4T c/t( HIGH COURT DATE D :2 40912025 1 iIE SIA 2 3 JAN 2026 (j (, t ORDER WP.No.28180 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ot*"