Mr v. Jayachandra Reddy another

3. S. Venkatarama Reddy(Late),, R.R.Dist., 4. V. Muthyam Reddy, Sio not known, aged Major, R/o. h4 rdchal, R.R.Dist. 5. K. Balvanth Reddy, S/o not known, aged major, Rl/o. Ivt dchal, R.R.Dist. 6. V. Sunanda(Died),, (died per L.Rs-are already on reco 1 ) 7. V. Srilatha, D/o. Late Narsimha Reddy, aged 52 years ,)cc. Not known, B Vidyullatha,, D/o. Late Narasimha Reddy Respondent z and B are Rl/o. H. No. 3-5-1 7OlN43, Narayanguda, Hyderabad.

9. G. Gopal Reddy, S/o not known, aged 63 years, Occ. [) :fessor, '10.G. Harishwar Reddy, S/o Gopal Reddy, aged 33 years )cc. Not known, 11. G. Kautilya Reddy, S/o Gopal Reddy, aged 32 years, Cr( c. Not known lespondents 9 to 1'1 are R/o. H. No. 3-5-199/8, Street I o. 5, Hari Vihar Colony, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad Respondents/JDRll 1 , 4 to12 (Respondent No. 2 to 1 1 are not necesshry parties) RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the , ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Corr t may be pleased to grant interim suspension of the order daled 22-09-2025 in E:.,, No. 744 of 2015 in EP No.43 of 2024 (Old EP No. 58 of 1984) in O.S.NO 389 rf 1969 on the fite of the 381 of '1969 instend of o.S No court of the Addl senior )rvil Judge Medchal- Malkajgiri District at lVledchal. Counsel for the Petitioners- JDRs 2 & 3 : SRl. ASHOK REt Dy KANATHALA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 SRI VIJAY B PAROFT KARI The Court made the following: ORDER ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3643 4173 & 4t77 0F 2025 DATE:19-12-2025 Between: Mr. V. Jayachandra Reddy & another Mr. B. Ashok Rao & others Vs. This Court made the following COMMON ORDER: Petitioners - J.Dr. Nos.2 & 3 Rcspondents - D.tfu. & J.Dr. Nos. I &4to12 Heard Mr. Ashok Reddy Kanathala, Ieamed counsct for thc petitioners herein - Judgment Debtor Nos.2 & 3 and Mr. Vijay B. Paropkari, leamed counsel for respondent No.I - Dccrcc IIoldcr.

2. Al[ these revisions arise out of Ir.P.No.43 of 2024 (Otd E.p. No.58 of 1984) and the parties therein are one and the same. Therefore, these revisions wcre heard together and are being disposed of by way of common order.

3. The petitioners herein and respondent Nos.2 to I I are the judgment debtors in E.P. No.43 of 2024, while respondent No.l herein is the decree holder. 2 (L.J r N \o i61l ollolt & baEh

4. C.R.P. No.3643 of 2025 is filed chaltenging I : order dated

22.09.2025 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Jut1e, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Medchal in E.P. N o.43 o12024 (t d E P No 58 oi 1984) in O.S. No.389 of 1969. The said E.P is file'l for enforcing the judgment and decree dated 28.09.1971 in O S' }..I'r 389 of 1969' lticle the satcl order dated 22.09.L025, learned Ert:uting Court allowed the said E.P. directing the petitioners herein -.irrt gment debtor Nos.2 and 3 to execute and register sale deed in Iavour tf respondent No.l - decree holder or his assignee within two (02) frt I the date of said order, failing which the decree holder or his assign: is entitled to take steps in accordance with taw under Order - 2l Rule - 34 of Cl.P.C. for execution of sale deed.

5. In the E.P., it is contended by respondent lkr.l - decree holclsr that the appeat preferred by him vide C.C.C.A. )'l ' l 90 of 1972 against the clccree dated 28.09.1971 in O.S. No.361 r1' 1969, was ended in conrpromise on 20.07.1976 in terms of C.M | . No 3738 of

1976. Judgment debtor Nos.l to 3 failed to execute ar J register the sale cleecl as per the terms of the compromise decr:: in the said CCCA. Meanrvhile, .iudgment debtor No.1 (responderrl No.2 hercin) died. Icdving behind judgment debtor Nos.2, 3 and 7 to ) as his lega ) 3 KL,J CRP No.l&l of2025 & b6lch representatives. The description of the properties shown in the E.P. schedule is as under: i) The land admeasuring Acs.6.03 guntas in Survey No.l30, Kandtakoya Vitlage, Medchal Tatuq, with boundaries North: Pattia Land of Harijans; South: Survey No.l3l; East: Survey No.l29; and West: Hyderabad-Medchal Main Road. ii) The land admeasuring Acs.2.00 guntas intricately contiguous to Survey No. t 3 1 on thc southem side, with boundarics Norlh: Survey No.l30, South: Survey No.[3], East: Survey No. 129 and West: Hyderabad - Medchal Main Road. iii) 'lhe land admeasuring Acs.12.36 guntas imnrediately contiguous Survey No.l29 on the eastem side with boundaries, North: Patta land of Harijans; South: Portion of Survey No.129, East: Survey No.128; and West: Survey Nos.130 and 1i L All the aforesaid lands are situated at Kandlakoya Village, Medchal 'l'aluq, Rangareddy District, making a total extent of Acs.20.39 guntas.

6. As far as C.R.P. No.4173 of 2025 is concemed, in the said

8.P., respondent No. I - decree holder hled E.A. No.254 of 2023 under Section - 47 read with 151 of CPC seeking a direction to the judgment debtors to convey land admeasuring Acs.1.l5 guntas from out of the I \^\l \ 4 KL.,, aRP N.1611of2025 & bar.h land possessed by them covered by Survey No.13llr trt to lulfill the terms trf cornpromise dated 21.02-1985 contending as rllou s: a) During pendency of the 8.P., the decree-hc I ler cntered into compromise with the judgment debtors in , onnection with conveying land to him. As per the temr:, :f compromise arrivcd hetween them and recorded by Lhis Coufi on

21.02.1985, the judgmcnt debtors have to ( )nvcy the land admeasuring Acs.3.00 guntas in Survey I', .128, Acs.6.03 guntas in Survey No. 130 and Ac.2.37 e.r rtas in Survey No. l -l I of Kandlakoya Village, making i: :otal extent of Acs.l2.00 guntas. b) Pursuant to the same, the decree holder gt: validated the land olAcs.l2.00 guntas in his favour and t,l tained pattadar passbook undcr Section 5.A of the A.P. Rigl ls in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971, by paying n cessary stamp dutl and registration charges vide File No ( /7/1992, dated

30.06 r992. c) 'l'he Judgment Debtors filed appeal ui; r proceedings No.(l1580i 1993 before the Revenue Dir i. ionaI Officer, ,,, Rangareddy District East under Section i ol' the Act ,/ n 5 KL,J CRP No l6al of2025 & b.rch challenging the order dated 25.09.1993 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, and the same was dismissed d) As against the RDO order, the judgment debtors filed revision in file No.D5/8397 /1994 before the Joint Collector. who in tum, vide order dated 04.12.2000 dismissed the e) Chattenging the said order, the judgment debtors filed W.P No.3300 ol 2001 before this Court and the samc was dismissed vide order dated 15. 10.2001. Against the said dismissal order, the judgment debtors prelerred writ appeal vaCe W.A.No.1812 of 2001, which was allowed yide judgment dated 07.02.2005. As against the same, the SLP No.10907 of 2005 filed by the decree holder was dismissed vide order dated 13.10.2015. f) I'hereafter, the decree-holder filed E.A. No.744 of 2015 to execute sale deed in his favour in respect of petition schedule property as per terms of compromise datcd

21.02.1985. The said petition was dismissed on22.10.2018 \ \ .- - -- --^r-i'tl \ = \l 6 KL.I aRP No 3641ot2025 & batch g) ns against the said order, the decree rolder filed C'R'P' No.3l9 of 2019 and the same was allo 'r :d vide order dated

02.08.2022. h) Against the said order dated O2'OB 2 \22' the judgment dcbtors filed SLP No.16694-16695 o1 t-022 arrd the same rvcre dismisscd vide order dated 10' 1 0 1 ( 22' i) 'l'hercfbrc. the decree-holder filed t: ' '(SR) No 3l80 of 20).3 to rcstore Ll.P. No.58 of 1984 to its original number end the srtrne is rcstored. j) Alier restoration of the said l: P'' an Advocate Contmissioner was appointed vide ortfu dated 17'08'2023 to lind out oxact extent of E.P schedule I nd to note down its physical lcatures with the assistance of I landal Surveyor' k) As per Advocatc Commissioner'5 'r port' an extent 01' As.05.16 guntas is available in Surv': No l30 as against Acs.06.03 guntas since Ac.0'19 gunt s \^ as acquired by l.AO for laying NH-44 and another ext' nt of Ac'0 08 guntas was acquired for laying Outer fung Roa I /.1 7 KI.J CRI No.3643 of2025 & harch [) As per the Advocate Commissioner's report, an extent of Acs.2.0l guntas is available in Survey No.131 as against Acs.3.00 guntas. m) An extent of Acs.3.00 guntas is available in Survey No. 128 and, thus, in total only an extent of Acs. 10.17 guntas, and thereby the decree holder was put to loss an extent of Acs.l .23 guntas in the following manner i) Land to be conveyed by J.Drs. is : Acs.l2.00 guntas ii) Land available for execution is : Acs.l0.l7 guntas : Acs. 1.23 guntas Dcficit n) ['he judgrnent debtors possessed the land to an extent of Acs.2.00 guntas in Survey No.l3llPart o) At the time of acquisition of land, the judgment debtors did not bring the said facts of Land Relorms Tribunal Procecdings. Therefore, notices were not issued to the decree holder to claim compensation, but the judgment debtors claimed compensation. Thus, the judgment debtors are bound to convey land admeasuring Acs.l.13 guntas, and in respect of remaining extent of Ac.0.08 guntas, he will claim compensation amount which is in the hands of the Land Acquisition Officer. \ 8 KL.I CRP No 16.1'l o12025 & balch

7. The.iu<Jgment debtors did not choose to lilt counter despite receipt of noticc. [ lowever. the petitioners filed ounter in E A' Nos.744 of 201 5 and 745 of 201 5 and the same w'r e considered as part of record.

8. Vide otder dated 22 09 2025, the teamed ixecuting Court allowed E.A. No.254 o12023, hokJing that the judgrr:nt debtors shall make good the loss oldecrce holder by applying thc 1 rinciples ofjust' lair. equitr nrtd grtod consciencc

9. Challenging the said order dated 22'09'ztl'\ in E'A No'254 of 2023, the petitioners - judgmcnt debtor Nos'2 rr C 3 filed C'RP' No.4l 73 of 2025

10. As far as C.R.P No.4l77 of 2025 is con: 'med' in the said E.P. No.43 ol'2024 (Old E.P. No 58 of 1984), the tl' cree holder filed E.A. No.744 of 2015 under Order - XXI, Rule - 32 5)read with 151 of CPC seeking to execute and register sale deetl in his favour in respect to petition schedulc property in ternrs of order dated 21.02.1985 in ll.P. No.58 of l9tt4, reiterating all I e aforesaid lacts contendgd as lo llows j ) 9 KL,,, CRP No.36al ot2025 & b.rcr, i) While allowing the W.A. No.18l2 of 2001, the Division Bench of this Court held that under Section 5,A' of the Act, compromise decree could not have been validated in the absence of exccution of sale deed pursuant to the compromise decree passed in E.P. No.58 of 1984. ii) The judgment debtors also took the same stand before this Court and their stand is that the order dated 21.02.1985 was not executcd and consequently no registered sale deed was executed in his favour arrd as such, no proceedings can be issued in his favour under Seotion - 54 of the Act. In view of the same. the rights accrued to the decree holder by virtue of order dated

21.02.1985 in the E.P. remained intact and, therefore, he is entitled lor cxecution of a register sale deed. iii) The CCCA No. 190 of 1972 was decreed in terms of compronrise on 20.07.1976 in respect of Acs.20.39 guntas in Survey Nos.l30, 13l and 129 on the eastem side as against his claim for Acs.82.29 guntas i") Thereafter, thc decree holder was constrained to file E.P. No.58 of 1984 seeking to execute the compromise decree dated

20.07.1976 in CCCA No.190 of 1972 as the judgment debtors t0 KL,.I 'RP No 164l of20?5 & brch committed breach of terms of compromise. l'hc aid E.P. No.58 of 1984 was also ended in cotnpromise and r ccordingly the same was ordered on 2l-02.1985 in terms ol )ompromlse m respect of the land to an extent of Acs.l2.00 1lr ntas in Strrvey Nos.128, 130 and l3l of Kandlakoya Villag,: as against the claim of Acs.20.39 guntas v) In terms ol the said compromisc in E.P.No-.; of 1984, the judgment debtors delivered physical vacant p I session ol the land to an extent of Acs.l2.00 guntas and tha: lhey agreed to execute and register sale deed in lavour of dec' e holder at his costs. In case of lailure to execute the same. it ras agreed that the decree holder is at liberty to get the same c\:cuted through the Court of law vi) Since the date of delivery of vacant possession c - the said land, the dccrec holder has been in possession and cr oyment ol the said property. Pattadar Passbook and title deeds were issued in his name and pahanies also reflects his nanre r; pattadar and possessor of the land. vii) Since the judgment debtors lailcd to executc r r J register sale deed, hc sought to reopen the E.P. No.5t of 1984 and n KL.,, CRf No.3Al of2025 & bar.l' consequently to cxecute and register a sale deed for the said extent 1 l. The petitioners hercin - judgment debtor Nos.2 and 3 filed counter opposing the rclicf contending as follows: i) The petitioners herein admittcd about the compromise arrived at in E,.P. No.58 of 1984 in respect of land admeasuring Acs.l2.00 guntas in Survey Nos.l28, 130 and 13 I as against the claim of Acs.20.39 guntas m compromise recorded in CCCA No. I 90 of 1972 ii) 'fhey never delivered the physical vacant possession of the sub.ject land to the decree holder. On the other hand, they havc bcen in continuous possession and enjoyment ofthe sanre iii) As per the terms ol compromise, it was for the decree holder to gct thc sale decd executed in his favour rn respect of Acs.l2.00 guntas in the said survey numbers by bearing the cost of registration thereof. The decree holder is interested in avoiding payment of stamp duty and registration charges so as to cause financial loss to the Govemment. \ \ t t2 xt-.J 'RP No 16,l'l oa20l5 & balch iv) Had the decree holder obtained sale deec n respect of the land admeasuring Acs.12.00 guntas, sub;lantial land in the said survey numbers could have b,:r n saved to the judgment debtors in the Land Ceilinq )roceedings as neither the decree holder nor their father rave shown the said lands in the cciling declarations fi l,: by thcm. On account of said inaction on the part of tlL, decrcc holdcr, substantial lands in Survey Nos.l34 t() ll7 and Part of Survey Nos.126 and 129 and also in Mr reapur Village and Mucharla Village, Narsapur Talucl. '4edak District was declared as excess and they had t surrender the v) The E.P. was filed after the prescri ed period of limitation of 12 years after passing of't c- compromise decree. Therefore, the said E.P. is barred y lirnitation as per Article - 136 of thc Limitation Act

12. Vide order dated 22.09.2025, the leamed : recuting Court allowed the said E.A. No.744 of 2025 holding thus i)- /Though the judgment debtors contended that tl r decrcc holder already sold out the property in 2002 vide regi;:rcd sale deed ('l KL,J CRP No l6tl of2025 & bath in favour of E-max Tech Systerns Private Limited, they cannot insist the Court to execute the sale deed as the decree holder stopped by record, the Apex Court upheld the compromise decreevide order dated 10.10.2022 in SLP No.16695-16695/22, dated 10.10.2022. iD Since the sale deeds were held to be illega[ and void, the doctrine of lis pendence applies as envisaged under Section - 5l ol the Transfer of Propcrry act and rights and liabilities of the parties are subject to outcome of the pending litigation. iii) Therefore, the atteged alienatiotr in the year 2002 held to be void and, therefore, the rights ol the parties are unaffected and unshakable. Therefore, the dccree holder was not having salable interest at the time of such transaction for which the Court cannot transfer the same to his vendee. Thus, the judgrnent debtors remained bound to €xecute and register sale deed for Acs.12.00 guntas or at least for the available land of Acs. 10.17 guntas and deficit to be addressed in E.A. No.254 of

2023. i") Thus, the trial Court held that the decree holder is entitld to obtain register sale deed in his lavour for Survey No.128 \ t4 KL,, CRP N,, 16,l:l o42025 & balch adnleasuring Acs.3.00 guntas; Survey No. .0 admeasr.rring Acs.05.16 guntas after deducting NH-44 and RII eccluisition. In Survey No.131, ACs.02.0l guntas excludir.r thc sub_sration totally Acs.10.l7 guntas. Liberty was alsr, granted to the decree holder to pursue E.A. No.254 of 20231c . delicit.

13. Ohallenging the said order dared 22.09.202\ thc peririoners - judgmcnt debtor Nos.2 and j filcd C.R.p. No.4l77 o I 1025.

11. ln vicw of the aforesaid facts and circur stances ol the case, as discussed supra, suit in O.S. No.3g9 of 196l) r as llled hv the decree holdcr against deceased judgment debtor N r I lirr specific performancc of agreement of sale dated 07.Og.1969 ir respect ol the land to an extent of Acs.82.29 guntas in Survey Nos. j l, t30, 129, 138, 127 and 126, situated at Kandlakoya Village, l\lr dc5111 Mandal and the sarne was dismissed vlde judgment ancl decrce dated

28.09.1971. Challenging the samc, the decree_holcle flletl a llrst appeal in C.C.C.A. No.190 of 1972 before this Cou. wherein rhe decree holder and the legal heirs of the deceased .lur rmcnt debtor No.1 entered into compromise. pursuant to the said cr,r rpromise. the said,GCC]A 190 of 1972 was decreed on20.07.1976 I,r an extent of I l5 CRP No.3&l of2025 & barcl Acs.20.30 guntas in Survey Nos.130, l3l and 129 on eastem side situated at Kandlakoya Village, as against the total extent of Acs.82.29 guntas. Pursuant to the said compromise decree, the decree holder filed an execution petition vlde E.P.No.58 of 1984 for execution and registration of sale deed. In the said E.P. also, another compromise was entered by both the parties for an extent of Acs.12.00 guntas in Survey Nos.131, 130 and 129 of Kandlakoya Village as against the said extent of Acs.20.30 guntas. Pursuant to the said compromise, the said E.P. was closed. Pursuant to the compromise in E.P. No.58 of 1984, the decree holder got validated the land to an extent of Acs.l2.00 guntas in his favour by invoking the procedure contemplated under Section - 5 (A) of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act I97l vide f/.eNo.Cl7l92 dated 30.06.1992 by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Howcvcr, the same was set aside by the Division Bench of this Courl vide order dated 07.02.2005 in W.A No.l812 of 2001. The said order had attained finality in view of the dismissal of SLP No.10907 of 2005 by the Apex Court on 13.10.2015 Thereafteq the decree holder pursued the proceedings by way of present E.P. by filing an application vide F,.A. No.745 of 2015 for reopening the said E.P. No.58 of 1984 l6 KL.J IRP No 3643 ot20l5 & balch

15. However, the main contention of judgmi:r t debtor Nos.2 and 3 is that the decree holder has to obtain sale deetl ,r, ithin onc (01) month to an extent of Acs.9.00 guntas i.e., Acs.6.00 : rntas in Survey No.130 and Acs.2.37 guntas in Survey No.l31, where rs the E.P was filed after 31 years and, therefore, the same is barrr: by limitation Whereas, it is contended by the decree-holder that pr rceedings r.vcrc pcnding fiom thc Executing Court till the Hon'ble Sur cmc Court and the same wcre concluded in the vear 2015. Immedil elv. the dccrcc holder pursued the E.P. proceedings for execution ,f compromise decree dated 2l .02.1985 in CCCA No.190 of 1972

16. ln the orders under challenge the leamed E <ecuting Court held that originally the decree-holder filed a suit in r I.S. No.389 ol 1969 against deceased judgment debtor No.1 for spec I c performance of agreement of sale dated 07 .09.1969 in respect o.- :he land to an extent of Acs.82.29 guntas in Survey Nos.l31, 130, t:l ,138, 127 and 126, situated at Kandlakoya Village, Medchal Manda The said suit \ryas dismissed vlde judgment and decree dat,l

28.09.1971. Challcnging the same. the decree-holder filed an appt rl in C.C.C.A. No.lp0 of 1972 before this Court. In the said apgrr al, the decree t7 KI-,, CRP No i64l 012025 & bdcl holder and the legal heirs of the deceased judgment debtor No.l entered into compromise. Pursuant to the said compromise, the said CCCA 190 of 1972 was decreed on 20.07.1976 for an extenr of Acs.20.30 guntas in Survey Nos.l3O, l3l and 129 on eastern side situated at Kandlakoya Village, as against the total extent of Acs.82.29 guntas.

17. It was also observed by leamcd Executing Court that pursuant to the said compromise decree, the decrec holdcr tlled an execution petition vrde E.P.No.58 ol I 984 to execute and register a sale deed. Thereafter, another compromise was entered by both the partics for an extent of Acs.l2.00 guntas in Survey Nos.l3l, 130 and 129 of Kandlakoya Village as againsr the said extenr of Acs.20.30 guntas. Pursuant to the said compromise, the said E.p. was closed. As per the terms of the said compromise, if the judgment debtors fail to execute and register sale deed, the decree holder is at liberty to get the same executed tkough the Court. I 8. While the things stood thus, pursuant to the compromise decree dated 21.02.1985 in E.P. No.58 of 1984, rhe decree holder gor validated the land to an extent of Acs. 12.00 guntas in his favour by l l8 KL,] CRP No 161l of2(r25 & barch invoking the procedure contemplated under Section . ; (A) of Andhra Pradesh Rights in l-and and Pattadar Passbook Acr l97l vide file No.C/7/92 dated 30.06.1992 by the Mandal F t venue Of ficer. Challenging the said order, the judgment debtors lilr I appeal before Rcvenue Divisional Officer, Rangareddy District turtl rSection-5of the said ^ct |i(le C/580/1993, and the same ras dism isscd. Aggrieved by the same. the judgmcnt debtors filed r revision beforc the Joint Collector vide file No.D5/8397/1994 who ir tum dismissed the said revision by order dated 04.12.2000.

19. Challenging the said order, the judgment debtors filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3300 of 2001 before this Co rt and the said writ petition w'as dismissed on 15.10.2001. As again; the said ordcr, the judgment debtors filed writ appeal vrde W.A No. I l 2 of200l. and the same rvas allowed by a Division Bench ol -his Court 0n

07.02.2005 setting aside the order of leamed Singl,: Judge and the previous orders passed by Quasi-Judicial Authorities The Division Bench also observed that compromise decree coulc rot have becn validated bv Revcnue Authorities and that the pror rr; rns of Andhra PraCeS fughts in the Land and pattadar passhrx k Act. I 971 . Challcnging the said order ol- Division Bench, the de,:r :e holder filed ,/ ,,. l9 KI--J CRP No i64i of2025 & batcn SLP No.10907 of 2005 and the salne was dismissed by the Apex Courl on 13. 10.2015.

20. The leamed Executing Court further held that as per the contents ol the affidavit filed in support of petition since the decree hotder dclivered physical possession of the land to an extcnt Acs.l2.00 guntas in Survey Nos.128, 130 and l3l of Kandlakoya Village as per the terms of compromise entered in E.P. No.58 of 1984 and since then the decree holder has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land. In view of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.l812 of 2001, the decree holder was con.rpelled to file E.A. No.744 of 2015 to obtain regular sale deed in terms of compromise entered and recorded on 21.02.1985 in E.P. No 58 of 1984.

21. During the pendency of the E.P. proceedings, an advocatc commissioner was appointed in E.A. No.l60 of 2023 in E.P. No.58 ol 1984 to find out the exact extent of E.P. schedule property and to note down physical features of E.P. schedule property with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor. On execution of the warrant, he has filed a report on 12.10.2023. As per the said report, only an extent of ( 20 KL,J CRP No 164l oflol5 & barch Acs.l0. l7 guntas of land was available as Acs.0l..l guntas of land was acquired by the Govemment for expansion of ll Ltional Highway No.44, Outer Ring Road and Sub-station.

22. It is also apt to note that there is no , hallenge to the appointment of Advocate Commissioner as well as I is report hy thc petitioners herein.

23. 'fhe proceedings initiated by the decre : holder u nder passbook under Section 5,A of the A.P. Rights in La rd and Pattadar Passbook Act, I 97 I were set aside by a Division Be-r :h of this Court vtle judgment dated 07.02.2005. As against the rame. the S[.P No. 10907 ol 2005 filed by rhe decree holder was disr r ssed vlde order dated 13.10.2015. T herefore, the decree hold: having lost proceedings initiated under passbook under Section . 5A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Parradar Passbook Acr, 1971, prt,, eeded with the altemative remedy of reopening the aforesaid E.p. l 1o.58 of 1984. Accordinglv, the decrcc holdcr filed E.A. No.744 of 2l .5 under Ordcr - XXI, Rule - 32 (5) of CPC ro execute and register : rle deed in his favour in respect of petition schedule property ar per terms ol conipromise dccree/ordcr datecl2l.02.l9g5 passed in tl : said E.P. and ,. 2l KL,J CRP No l61i ot202t & barch another E.A. No.745 of 2025 in the said E.P. to reopen the said E.P. for the purpose of passing appropriate orders for execution of sale deed . The said petitions were dismissed on 22.10.2018. As against the said orders, the decree holder preferred C.R.P. Nos.329 and 350 ol 2019, and the same were allowed vide orders dated 02.08.2022 and

03.08.2022. As against the said orders dated 02.08.2022 and

03.08.2022, the petitioners herein filed SLP Nos.16694-t6695 of 2022 and thc same lr,ere dismissed vide order datcd 10. 1 0.2022. Thus, the said E.A. Nos.744 and 745 of 2025 stood allowed. Strangely, again the learned Executing Court passed order dated 22.09.2025 in E.A. No.744 of 2015 which is challenged vide C.R.P. No.4177 of 2025 by the petitioner herein. There is no explanation from both sides as to what made the learned Executing Court to pass orders in E.A. No.744 of 2015 again when the said E.A. was allowed vide order datcd

02.08.2022 in C.R.P. No.329 of 2019. Everl there is no reference with regard to the same in the order dated 22.09.2025 by the leamed Executing Court.

24. Be that as it may, while allowing the revisions in C.R.P. Nos.329 and 350 of2019, this Court considered the purport ofSection - l4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by observing thus: '--!' 22 LL,J ( 1 No 164l 012025 & bal.h "lt rvas also argued that under Section 14 of t re Limitation Act means only Civil Court, but I re petitioner herein pursued the matter with Rerer tc Authorities and it will not fall within the ambit )f Court. But, civil proceedings prosecuted in I Ly other Forum inctuding the Revenue Authoriti s. will come under the meaning of the Court. Sec i rn l4 of the l.imitation Act includes quasi jutlrc al Tribunals. . . "

25. In view of the above observations in the a[i resaid CRPs, the contention of learned counscl for the petitioners tl rt the E'P' is barred by limitation is unsustainable.

26. Leamed Executing Court considered all th said aspects rvhile passing the impugncd ordcrs. I'hey are reas: led and rvell lounded orders.

27. In view ofthe aloresaid discussion, the petiti' ners have not made out any ground to interfere with the orders under I :visions. The same do not require any interference by this Court.

28. All these revisions are accordingly dismiss:d confirming the orders dated22.09.2025 in E.P. No.43 of 2024 (Oll E.P. No.58 of t98f in O.S. No.389 of 1969); dated 22.09.2025 in l: A. No.254 of t) KI-.J CRP No 3641of2025 & brlch 2023 andrlated,22.09.2025 in E.A. No.744 of 2015 passed by leamed Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal - Malkajgiri Disrrict at Medchal. In the circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed. Sd/- N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6l-/ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkaigiri District, Medchal 2. One CC to SRl. ASHOK REDDY KANATHALA Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. VIJAY B PAROPAKARI Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD CoPiesw HIGH COURT DATED:191'1212025 ( ORDER CRP.No.3643,4173 & 4177 2025 y' ti '.'. (f a) i \ ,-,.- /Y. .A I L:i 3 .\ ..,,, )/ DISMISSING THE REVISIONS V+ 2{,- >)