The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir lumstances stated in the affidavit frled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned order No.1/402012020, dated. 26.O9.2( 25 Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. M. RAMESHWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: AGP FOR REVENUT: Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5to17:- The Court made the following: OROER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.3O692 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Arricle 226 of rhe Constitution of India, is hled seeking the following relief: '...to issue a Writ Order or direction more partiaiarlg one in tlte nature of Wit of Mandamus seeking to declare the action of the Respond.ent No.3 has passed an impugned order No.1/ 4O2O/ 2O20, d_ated 26.09.2025 tuitlrout notices to the petitioners despite this Honble Court order in W.p.No.23102/ 2O25, dated 06.08.2025 as illegal, improper, arbitrary, urtjust, uiolatiue of Articles 14 jS 21 and. 3O0A of the Constitution of India Consequentlg to suspend. the impugned order No. 1 / 402O/ 202O, dated 26.09.202s.. "

2. Heard learned counsel appearing tor the petitioners and learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue, lor respondent Nos.l to 4 and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners w.ould submit that the petitioners and respondent No.5 and respondent Nos.9 to 12 are the absotute owners and possessor of agricultural land to an extent ol Acs. 13.17 guntas in Sy.No.l87, situated at Mannanoor village, Amrabad Ma5rdal, Nagarkurnool District. Since from their Page 2 of4 grandlather b1.' name Pittala Lingaiah under th(: assignment of government lald as "Kavali Kari Inam Dz.r ", tl-rey are cultivating the land without any disturbance{; After the demise of said Pittala Lingaiah, his four sons having an extent each Acs.3.14 guntas, Acs.3.l6 guntas, Acs.3.13 guntas and Acs.3.l6 guntas respectively.

4. Respondent No.3 passed an impugned or ler in Case No.I/aO2O/2O15, dated 31.O7.2O2O in favour r,l respondent Nos.6, 7 and 14 to 17. Aggrieved by the samt: respondent No.5 filed W P.No. 142 18 of 2O2l before this Court challcnging thc impugned order. This Court .r de its order dated 16.04.2025 has disposed of the writ petition by remanding tl-rc mzrtter back to respondent Nc.3 for fresh consideratiorr [r-v putting the petitioners ar C unofficial respondcnts on notice and affording them an o1 ,portunity of hearing

5. Learnecl counsel further submitted that -. re mother of petitiorler No. I is respondent No.13 in W.F. rlo. 14218 ot 2021. The mothcr^ o[ petitioner No.1 diei b1, leaving I'age 3 of4 petitioner No. I as her legal heir and other petitioners are legal heirs of Pittala Lingaiah, Pittala Peddaiah. Respondent No.3, without issuing any notice to the petitioners 1S proceeding to decide the Case No.I/4O2Ol2Ol5. The unofficial respondents also never made petitioners necessary parties to Case No.l /aO2O /20 15 and W.P.No. 14218 of 2O2I, aggrieved by the same, the AS petitioners hled W.P.No.23lO2 of 2025 before this Court. This Court uide its order dated 06.08.2025 has disposed of the r'vrit petition directing respondent No.3 to decide the Appeal in terms of order dated 16.04.2025 in W.P.No.l4218 of 2O2l , b,v putting the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 to l7 on notice and affording them an opportunity ol hearing. Br-rt respondent No.3 without issuing any notice to the petitioner has passed impugned order dated 26.O9.2025 in Case No.l/4O2O/2015 by denying all the procedurc. Hence, the present rvrit petition.

6. Lcarned Assistant Government Pleader lor Revenue rvourld strbmlt that the petitioners herein are not parties in the Aplreal Case No.l/4O2O/2015 and the Appeal has been I'agc 4 ol-4 decided incompliance of the orders passed by rl is Court on

06.08.2025 ir-r W.P.No.23 lO2 of 2025. Hence, rr )eks to pass appropriate orders.

7. In the light of thc aloresaid facts and circc mstances of the case and upon perusing the material avajlalt e on record, this Court dcems it appropriate to set aside tL e impugned order dated 26.09.2025 in Case No.I/4O2( /2015 and directing respondent No.3 to conduct fresh prr ceedings by putting the pctitioners and unofticial responcl nts ard all interested partics on notice and affordin5 them an opportunit), o[ hcarin{. Hou,ever, he shall c rmplete the entire exercisc u ithin a period of three (O3) mon .hs from the date of receipt of a r:op-r, ol this order.

8. With the abovrr rlirections, this Writ petiticl is disposed of. There shztll be no or.der as to costs. As a sequel, miscell:rneous petitions, if ;r ty, pending, shall stand dismissr:d SD/. A.H.I j. GOWRI SHANKAR ASIJ STANT REGISTRAR t-,9. SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, Secretariat, Hyderabad

1. The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Prl. Secretary, Depa tment of Revenue, 2. The Agency Divisional Officer cum-District Collector, Na;arkurnool District. 3. The Agency Divisional Officer -cum-Revenue Divisional )fficer, Achampet,

4. The Tahsildar, Amrabad Mandal, Nagarkumool District' 5. o;; ccio snt. M. RAMESHWAR RAo, Advocate IqPUCI-- . 6. i; cc.io 7. Two CD CoPies Fon aeveuuE ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] -cp oBtvl PVL HIGH COURT DATED:0911012025 ORDER WP.No.30692 of 2025 :-- {l1r sI,1r€ 2 JAN 202[ ,4 0()t ,,a I * .).: Snal'3r ";., --:-:_-. DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOUT COSTS I