The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 4: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR WRIT PETITION NO:4 5530 0F 2022 Between: KOTHA -MANI, Wo. Kotha lVlalta Reddy, Aged about. 37 years, Occ. H_o.us-ewife, fil/o. H.No. 3-1-6141t1t129, Gretin Hit"ts Coiony, trrtiliap'ui, ff,f'eOcnaf - Malkajgiri District. AND ...PETITIONER Department, Secretariat Hyderabad. '

1. THE STATE OF TELAN.GANA, B"p by its. principat Secretary Revenue 2. THE COLLECTOR, Yadadri Bhuvangir District At Bhongir. ' 5

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, Bhongir Division Bhongir, Yadadri Bhongir District.

4. THE TAHSILDAR CUM SUB-REGISTRAR, Yadagirigutta Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.

5. YEDEPALLY SULOCHANA, W/o.Ashok, Aged about. 62 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o. H.No. 1-3-176173, Kawadiguda, Gandhinagar Post, Hyderabad.

6. I.SATHWAR SINGH, S/o. Balram Singh, Aged about. Major years, Occ. Business, FUo. H.No. 15-36, VT Colony, Nakerekal Nalgonda District.

7. MhLLISHETTI SOMA NARAYANA, S/o. Lakshmi Narsaiah, Aged about Major years, Occ. Business, Fl/o. H.No. 3-4-6311518, Aravind Nagar, Ramanthapur, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

8. KATANGURI SUNITHA, Wo.K.Rammohan Reddy, Aged about 44 yea$' Occ. Housewife, Fl/o. H.No.9-55/758, Flat No.301 , Sri Srinivas Residency, Boduppal, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

9. EDAPALLY MURALI KRISHNA, S/o.Late E. Ashok, Aged about 49 Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o.H.No. 8-5-142, Mallikarjun Colony, Road No. Bowenpally, Secunderabad. 3, ars, 1O.E RAVINDRANATH, S/o E.D Mallesh, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o Saidapur village, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District.

11. E. RAMAKRISHNA, S/o. E.D mallesh, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Saidapur village, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District. l2.E.HARIKRISHNA, S/o. E.D mallesh, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Saidapur village, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning the action of the Respondents more particularly the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not considering representation Dated O6h2l2O22 wherein Petitioner requested not to entertain any transaction or issue any Pattadar Passbook in respect of land admeasuring Ac.13-14 Gts, in Sy.No.303 situated at Sidapur village, Yadagirigutta Mandal, Yadadri Bhongiri District as the said land is converted from agriculture to non-agricultural by the virtue of Proceedings Daled 19t0612015 vide No.A/3167/2013 issued by Respondent No.3 is illegal, arbitrary against principal of natural Justice consequently Direct the Respondents Nos.2 to 4 not entertain any transaction pertaining to Ac.13-14 Gts in sy.No.303 situated at sidapur village, Yadagirigutta Mandal, Yadadri Bhongiri District and Direct the Respondent Nos 2 to 4 to include the land admeasuring + 4c.13.14 Gts in Sy.No.303 situated at Sidapur village, yadagirigutta Mandal, Yadadri Bhongiri District as Non-Agricultural land in Dharani portal pursubnt to the proceedings Dated 19loot201s vide Proceedings No. No.A/3167/2013 issued by the Respondent No.3. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affldavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to DIRECT the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 not entertain any transaction pertaining to Ac!13.14 Gts in sy.No.303 situated at Saidapur village, yadagirigutta Mandal, Yadadri Bhongiri District pending disposal of the Writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under section i51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to DIRECT the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider Representation Dated 0611212022 thereby to include the land admeasuring Ac.13.14 Gts, in Sy.No.303 as Non-Agricultural land in Dharani portal pursuant to the proceedings Dated 1910612015 vide Proceedings No.A/3167/13 in Dharani portal pending disposal of Writ Petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2o23 Between: 2 _SULOCHANA, Wo.Ashok, Aged about. 62 years, Rl/o. H.No 1-3-176t73, Kawddiguda, Gandhiriagar

1. YEDEPALLY Household, Hyderabad. LSATHWAR S]NGH, S/o Balram Singh, Aged about. Major years, Occ. -rudter6fat Nalgondibistr'itc. -' --- Business, R/o. H.No. t5-36, VT Colony, MALLISHETTI SOMA NARAYANA, S/o. Lakshmi Narsaiah, Aqed about Maior years, Oc6 .Business, Fl/o. H.No. S-+-Oa/1 siB, Arr;"4 N;b;;:Hjil;;tffii,; Amberpet, Hyderabad. Occ. Post, 3 4 5 KATA.NGURI SUNITHA, W/o.K.Rammohan Reddy, Aged about 44 vears. Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.No 9-S5/7S8, Ftat No. gOi, S;'Srinivi.-nJ.iiJ_,i.Jl Boduppal,GhatkesarMandal,MedchaiMalkajgiriOistriit. "-vrevirv'' EDAPALLY MURALI KRISHNA, S/o.Late E. Ashok, Aqed about 49 vears. Occ. Agriculture, R/o.H.No. B-S-142, Mailikarjun C<iton-v, noiO-i,J.;. i,-Oi,i Bowenpally, Secunderabad 5 ...PETITIONER AND 1 THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Rep. by its. Principal Seeretary Revenue Department, Secretariat Hyderabad. 2 THE COLLECTOR, Yadadri Bhuvangir District At Bhongir. 3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BhonEir Division Bhongir, Yadadri Bhongir District. 4 THE TAHSILDAR CUM SUB-REGISTRAR, Yadagirigutta Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District. 5 E RAVINDRANATH, S/o E.D Mallesh, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Agriculture, Fl/o Saidapur village, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District. 6 E. RAMAKRISHNA, S/o. E.D mallesh, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Saidapur village, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District. 7 E.HARIKRISHNA, S/o. E.D mallesh, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Agriculture, Fl/o. Saidapur village, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District. I KOTHA MANI, Wo. Kotha Malla Reddy, Aged about. 37 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No. 3-1-6141111129, Green Hills Colony, Mallapur, Medchal - Malkajgiri District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 please to vacate the interim orders passed in interim orders passed in WP No.45530/2022 dated 201 1 212022. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5 to 9: SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.10: M/s. D.Y.N.L.N.CHARYULU WRIT PETITION NO: 46479 OF 2022 Between: KOTHA MANI, W/o. Kotha Malla Reddy, Aged about. 37 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No.3-'l-6141111129, Green Hilis Colony, Mallapur, Medchal - Malkajgiri District. ...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Rep. by its. principat Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariate Hyderabad.

2. THE SPECIAL TRIBUNAL UNDER TELANGANA RIGHTS IN LAND AND PATTADAR PASS BOOK ACT, Rep. by its Chairman-cum-D'rstrict, Collectoi, Yadhadri Bhivanagiri District, Telangjand.

3. THE COLLECTOR, Yadadri Bhuvangir District At Bhongir. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFF|CER, Bhongft Division Bhongir, yadadri Bhongir District.

5. IHE TAHSILDAR CUM SUB-REG|STRAR, yadagirigutta Mandat, yadadri Bhongir District. 6 YEDEPALLY SULOCHANA, Wo.Ashok, Aged about. 62 years. Occ , Household, Rl/o. H.No. 1-3-j76113, Kawadiguda, Gandhiriagar' posi, Hyderabad.

7. LSATHWAR SINGH, S/o. Balram Singh, Aqed about Maior vears. Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No. 15-36, VT Colony, Naker6kal Nalgonda District.

8. MALLISHETTI SOMA NARAYANA, S/o. Lakshmi Narsaiah. Aqed about Maior years, Occ..Business, Rl/o. H.No. 3-4-6311518, Aravind trtabarl RamanthJpiri, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

9. KATANGURI RAMOHAN REDDY, S/o. K. Vasantha Mohan Reddv Aoed qb.oyt 5! years, Occ. Business, Fi/o. H.No. 9-SS/758, Ftat No. Sbt, tii srinivas Residency, Boduppal, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District. I0.KATANGUR| SUNITHA, W/o.K.Rammohan Reddv, Aqed about 44 vears occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.No. 9-55/758, Ftat No. 301: sri Sri;itiJ ne.i,i"n"r' Boduppal, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchai Malkajgiri Disirict ll.EDAPALLY MURALI KR|SHNA, Sio. Late E. Ashok, Aqed about 49 vears Occ. Agriculture. Rl/o.H.No. B-S-142. Mailikarjun Coion!, noiO-No. i,-Oici Bowenpally, Secunderabad

12. E.RAVINDRANATH, s/o.E.P Malresh, Age_d about 53 years, occ. Agriculture, Rl/o Saidapur village, Yadadri Bhuvanagit District.

13.E RAMAKRISHNA, S/o. E.D.Mallesh, Agedabout 5.t years, Occ. Agriculture, R:/o. Saidapur village, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District. l4.E.HARIKRISHNA, S/o. E.D Maltesh, Ag9! ab.out 50 years, Occ. Agricutture, Rl/o. Saidaur village, Yadadri Bhuvanagi-ri District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to lssue a Writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari questioning the orders Dated 21 .o1.2019 in proceedings No. D|1813113 on the file of Respondent No.4 without any notice to the petitioner and without any jurisdiction in view of orders Dated '19.06.201 5 in proceedings No.A/3167/13 conversion of land from Agriculture to Non Agriculture issued by -7- Respondent No.4 is bad under law without Jurisdiction, unjust illegal, arbitrary, against to the law and against to the Telangana Rights in land Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 in violation of Article 300 of Constitution of lndia and conseqtrently to set-aside the Orders Dated 21 .01 .2019 in Proceedings No. D11813113 on the file of Respondent No.4 and Order Dated 131O112022 in Proceedings No.8/780/2021 on the file of Resporident No.5. Prayer amended as per C.O. dt.2610312025 in l.A.No.1/2023 IANO: 2 OF 2022 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 SUSPEND the Orders Daled 21 .01 .2019 in Proceedings No. D/1813/13 on the file of Respondent No.4. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counset for the Respondent No.6 to 1 1: SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.5487 45530 and 46479 of 20.22 COMMON ORDER: . Thc issue involved in these writ petitions is intrinsically interconnected and therefore, they are taken up and hearcl together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.No.5487 of 2022 is filed seeking following relief: "...to poss an order or orders one in the nature of WRIT OF ITANDAMIIS declaing the crction the impugned proceed.ings No.B/780/2021. dt.13 0L2022 oJ tlrc Respondent No.4 after conuersion of the propeftg agnculture to non-agiculture uide proceedings No.A/3167/r015, dt.19 06.2015, and mutation proceedings No-D/ 1354/2012, dt.03.04.2012 in respect of land in Sg.no.260 to an ertent of Ac.4_36 Cuntcts tn Sg.No.303 to an ertetlt of Ac.13-14 Gunta-s and. in Sg.No.31l to an extent of Ac.2-35 Guntas totql erte of Ac.21-025 Guntas, uithout pqrtg tn the proceec,lings no.B/ 162/2Oj9 dt.j3.O2.2O1g of the petitioner nor hauittg igltt on the propertA is tLlegal and arbitrary against the pnncipal of naturctl justice without following the due process of laut under Sectton 5 (3), Rute ii & ntle 9 O @) (t) of Telangana Rights in Lancl and Pottadhar l,ctssbook Act, 1971.."

3. W.P.No.45530 of 2022 is filed seeking following relief: "...to Issue o Wit, t)rder or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Wnt of Mandarnus questioning the action of the Respond.ents more particutarlg the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not consideing repre,sentotion Daled 06.12.2022 utherein petitioner requested not to entertain ang transoctton or i.ssue ang pattadar passbook in respect of tand admeasuring Ac. 13 14 Gts, in Sy.No.3O3 situated at Sid.apur u lage, Yadagirigutta MandaL YadadrtBhongiri District as the soLir,, land. is conuerted from ogiculture to non-agiculfural bg the uirtue of Proceed[ngs Dttted j9.06.2015 uide No.A/3167/rOj3 tssued by Respotldent No.3 is illegal, arbitrary against principal of natural Justice consequentlA Dire.ct the Respondents Nos.2 to 4 not enteftain ang tronsaction pertatning to Ac.13-14 Gts rn Sg.lvo.3O 3 situated at Sidap;I. uillage, Yadagingutta Mandal, yadadiBhongiri District and Direct'the Respondent Nos2 ta 4 to include the tand admeasuing Ac.73.14 Gts in Sy.No.303 situated at Sidapur v tage, yadagligutta Mand.al, -Dharoni porial YadadriBhonqin rri.sfnct as Non-Agiculfitral land 1n 2 pursuant to the proceedings Dated 19.05.2015 uide Proceedings No.A/3167/2013 issued bg the Respondent No.3..." 4 W.P.No.46479 of 2022 is filed seeking following relief: "...to Issue a Wit, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Wnt of Certionti questioning the Orders Dated 21.01.2O19 in Proceedings No.D/ 1813/ 13 on the fte oJ Respondent No.4 uithout anA rtotice to the Petitioner and uithout any jurisdiction in uieu of Orders Dated. 1 9.06.201 5 in Proceedings No.A/ 3 167 / 1 3 conversion of land. Jrom Agiculture to Non Agriculture issued b4 Respondent No.4 is bad und.er lau uithDut Juisdictton, unjust iltegai, arbitrary, against to the lau and again-st to the Telangano Rights in Land Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 in violation of Article 300 of Constitution of Indru and consequentlA to set- aside the Ord.ers Dated 21.01.2019 in Proceedings No. D/1813/j3 on the file of Respondent No.4 and consequential ord.er Dated j 3.O 1.2022 in Proceedings No.B/ 780/ 2021 on the f.ie of Respondent No.5..." 5 Writ Petition No.46479 of 2022 is taken up as a leading case to decide the lisin this batch of cases.

6. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of lands admeasuring Ac.4.36 gts in Sy.No.260, Ac. 1.00 gts in Sy.No.314, Ac.2.35 gts in Sy.No.3t1, Ac.13.14 gts in Sy.No.3O3, toral admeasuring 22.O5 gts situated at Saidapur Vitlage, yadagirigutta Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, . having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 2l .1I .2011 vide document No.7315/2O11 from the respondent Nos. 12 to 14 represented by General Power of Attorney (GPA)-Nagaram Anjaiah (vide GpA document No.8/2O09 dated 18.05.2009). It is further stated that the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records vide proceedings No.D I 1345120 12 dated O3.O4.2O12 and she was also issued pattadar passbook vide patta No.l165. It is also stated that J the respondent Nos. 12 to 14 acquired the subject property along with other properries under unregistered sale deed dated 15.06. 1991 from Pinnapu r'enkat Reddy, Pinnapu NarasLmha Reddy, E.Narasimha Redrl' ar-rd Jaya Chandraiah represented by their GPA holder E. D Mailt:sh (vide GPA document No.9/ 1990 dated

15.08.1990) for a valid sale consideration. It is further stated that the respondent Nos.12 to 14 got validated the unregistered sale deed vide Proceedings Nr>.Bl43l12009 dated 29.11.2OO9 by paying requisite stamp (lufy and after mutation of their names in the revenue records. they were issued pattadar Passbooks vide Patta Nos.114l, I 142 ancl I 143 respectively. It is stated that the petitioner made an application to thc respondent No.S for convr:rsion of land admeasuring Ac.l3. l4 gts in Sy.No.303 from agricultural use to non- agricultural use and lhe respondent No.4 after conducting due enquiry, issued proceedings No.A/ 3167 12013 dated 19.06.2O15. Thereafter, the petitioner converted part of the subject property into residential layout. and sold 7Oo/o of plots to various prospective purchasers. While so it is stated that the respondent No.6 in collusion with thc re.spondent Nos.12 to 14 and the revenue officials obtained proceedings No.B I ),62120 19 dated 13.O2.2019, wherein the respondent No.5 ordered for deleting the names o[ petitioner's vendors in resper:t c,f lands admeasuring Ac.4.36 gts in Sy.No.260, Ac.13.14 gts in Sy.No.303, Ac.2.35 gts in Sy.No.311, rotal 4 admeasuring Ac.21.O5 gts and to mutate the names of p.Venkat Reddy, P.Narsimha Reddy and a-lso advised the respondent No.6 to file Form-VIA claim under Section 4 of the ROR Act, 1971 seeking mutation of her name as per registered sale deed Nos.952 and 953 of

2006. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.p.No.27ggg of 2Ol9 otr the file of this Court and this Court vide order dated

02.12.2021 allowed the said writ petition by setting aside the proceedings dated 13.02.2019 on the ground that no notice was issued to the petitioner before issuing the proceedings and remanded the matter to the respondent No.4 for passing orders afresh on merits, duly putting all the parties on notice and calling for their objections, if any.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that after remand, the respondent No.5 passed orders dated 25.O1.2022 vide proceedings No.Bl78Ol2O21 confirming the earlier order dated 13.02.2019 in Proceedings No.B / 162 /2019 stating that the orders dated 2l.Ol.2olg passed in Appeal No.D/ 1813/2013 dated 21.Ot.2019 by the respondent No.4-appellate authority are still subsisting as the sarne was not challenged or set aside by any competent authority/ court of law. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent No.6 has frled appeal vide No.D/ l8l3 l2Ol3 questionirrg the proceedings No.Bla3l/2009 dated 29.11.2OO9, without making her 5 as party to the pror:eedings. It is also case of the petitioner that the respondent No.6 in furtherance to create litigation has executed GPAs dated 28.06.2019 in favour of respondent Nos.7, B and 9 in respect of lands admeasuring Ac.1.10 gts in Sy.No.303, Ac.l.10 gts. in Si.No.3O3 ancl Ac.O.20 gts in Sy.No.303 respectively and thereafter, the respr>ndent Nos.7, g and 9 has executed sale deeds dated 01.11.2019 vide document Nos.31295, 31294 and,31306 of 2Ol9 in favour of respondent Nos.g, 9 and 1O respectively. It is further case of the petitioner Lhat the respondent No.6 executed GpA dated 07.08.2019 in favour of respondent No. 11 in respect of iand admeasuring Ac.3.35 gts in Sy.Nos.311/AA & 314 and also registered settlemert deed dated 03.12.2019 vide document No.34176 of 2O).9 in favour of respondent No. 1 1 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.10.02 gts rn Sy.No.303. It is also case of the petitioner that the respondent No. i 1 basing on the above documents has instituted a surt vicle o.s.No. 16 0f 2020-on the file of principal Junior Civil Judge, -at Aleru, against the petitioner seeking to declare the sale deed dated 2I.I7.2O11 bearing document No.731S/2011 as null and void.

8. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the land admeasuring Ac. 13.14 gts in Sy.No.3O3 situated at Saidapur Village, being converted from agricultural to non_agricultura-l use by 6 following due process of law vide Proceedings No.Al316Z 12013 dated 19.06.2015 issued by the respondent No.4, and despite several transactions being effected based on the said conversion, the respondent authorities, particularly respondent Nos.3 to 5, failed to act upon the petitioner's representation dated 06.12.2022, wherein she requested that no further transactions or entries be entertained in respect of the said land.

9. A counter aflidavit has been hled by the respondent Nos.S to 9 inter alia stating that the alleged unregistered sale deed dated 15.06.1991 is forged and created document for the purpose of obtaining 138 certificate. It is further stated that aggrieved by the 138 proceedings in File No.Bla31 12009 dated 29.tL.2OO9 and also issuance of pattadar passbooks in favour of respondent Nos. 12 to 14, in respect of lands admeasuring Ac.8.10 gts in Sy.No.260, Ac. I3.20 gts in sy.No.303, Ac.05.31 gts in Sy.No.311, Ac.05.1o grs in Sy.No.250, Ac.07.00 gts in Sy.No.314, total admeasuring Ac.39.31 gts situated at Saidapur Village, the respondent No.6 has hled appeal vide D/ 1813/2013 on the Iile of respondent No.4 and the same was partly allowed vide order dated 21.01.2019 setting aside the l3B certificate in respect of lands admeasuring Ac.4.36 gts in Sy.No.260, Ac.13.14 gts in Sy.No.303 and Ac.2.35 gts in Sy.No.3i1, total admeasuring Ac.21.O5 gts and the consequential entries made in the 7 revenue records rvere cancelled. It is further stated that the respondent No.6 hits purchased the subject property under registered sale dee ds dated 20.O2.2006 vide document Nos.952 and 953 of 2006 fr,:m the legal heirs o[ P.Venkat Redd1., p. Narsimha Reddy through GPA Ilolder Ashok. It is also stated that no notice was issued to the respondent No.6 before mutating the name of the respondent Nos. 12 to 14 in the revenue records. It is further stated that the orders passed by the rcspondent No.4 in proceedings No.D/ 1813/20i3 u,ill bind on the petitioner as her vendors i.e, respondent Nos.12 to 14 played fraud before the Revenue Tritiunal by not disclosing the alleged sale transaction in favour of petitioner.

10. Considered t he submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record

11. It is seen tha[ the core dispute revolves around the validity of the sale deed dzrted 21 .11.2011 bearing Document No.73lS/2011 executed in favour o[ the petitioner and the competing claim of respondent No.6. Ir is brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No. 1 1, ctaiming rights from respondent No.6, has instituted a suit vidc o.S.No. 16 of 2o2o on the file of the principal Junior Civil Judge, Aleru, secking to declare the said sale deed dated 21.1 1.201 las null ancl void and the same is pending for adj udication. 8

12. It is settled law that revenue authorities do not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate inter se disputes between the parties with regard to right, title or ownership over the property. Their lunctions _ are limited to maintaining and updating revenue records, and they cannot decide complex civil disputes involving declaration of title. In the present case, the proceedings in Appeal Case No.D/ 1gl3/2013 dated 21.01.2019 and consequential proceedings No.BlTgO/2021 dated 13.O 1.2O22 issued by the respondent No.4 are vitiated on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not made a party in the appeal proceedings which directly affected her rights. Further, the order dated 2l.Ol.2O 19 was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and without taking into consideration the earlier conversion proceedings No.Al3167 /2013 dated 19.06.2015. Accordingly, borh the impugned orders dated 2l .Ol.2OI9 and 31.O 1.2022 are set aside.

13. In view of the submission that a comprehensive suit, vide O.S.No. 16 oi 2O2O is pending before the Civil Court, this Courr deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petitions, relegating the petitioner to hle an appropriate application in the said suit and seek appropriate relief, in accordance with law. In order to put an end to the litigation, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the said suit as expeditiously as possible. In the event of any orders 9 being passed in the said suit, the respondent-authorities shall act in accordance with such orders.

74. Accordingl1., these Writ petitions are disposed of Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. No order as to costs SD/.P. PADMANABHA REDDY TDEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// -\ T \ \ -sEcnoN \\ Revenue OepartmeiruJ Telangana Secretariat, oFFicER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Hyderabad.

2. The Chairman-cum-District Collector, Special Tribunal Under Telangana Rights ln Land And Pattadar Pass Book Act, Yadhadri Bhivanagiri District, Telangana.

3. The Collector, Yadadri Bhuvangir District At Bhongir. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir Division Bhongir, Yadadri Bhongir District.

5. The Tahsildhar, Yadadri Bhuvangiri District. (Erstwhile Nalgonda District.) 6. The Tahsildar Cum Sub-Registrar, Yadagirigutta Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.

7. One CC to SRI K PRADEEP REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] B. One CC to SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR, Advocate IOPUCI 9. One CC to M/s. D.Y.N.L.N.CHARYULU, Advocate [OPUC] 10.Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 'l'1 .Two CD Copies BSR BS W HIGH COURT DATED:2610312025 COMMON ORDER tr€ S lAt. e ( ! ( o o 2 E APd 7rr,,, t .- W.P.Nos: 5487,45530 and 4G419 ot 2022 DISPOSING OF ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS \\t .od4 uI?{,