The High Court · 2025

Petition filed under Article 227 of Ihe Constitution of ndia aggrieved by the order dated 22-01-2014 in File No. F111722 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Joint Collector I Ranga Reddy District, preferred by the order dated 18-06-2005 in File No Jl1723l2OO2 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Saroornagar, Ranga Redd y District. Between:

1. P. Balamarri, W/o Late Anji Reddy, occ Housewife, R/o Nadergul Vitlage, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.Dist.

2. P. Prabhakar Reddy, S/o Pulla Reddy, occ Agrl 1ro Nadergul Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.Dist. ...PETTTTONER(S) AND 1 2 3 Nawab lrilir,\hmed Ali Khan @ Mohd. Ali Baig (Died per t-.rs) Mubarakunnisa Begum W/o. Late Mir Ahmed Ali Khan, l\ged about 80 years, Occ Business Mir lr,4ohamrred Ali Khan, S/o Late Late Mir Ahmed Al Khan, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Business

4. Mir Sardar Ali Khan S/o. Late [/ir Ahmed Ati Khan, Aged about 58 years, Occ Business.

5. Mir Hamid Ali Khan S/o. Late Mir Ahmed Ali Khan, Aged about 56 years, Occ Business.

6. Ayesha Rizwana D/o. Late lvlir Ahmed Ali Khan, Aged about 6'1 years, Occ Household,

7. Mrs Butoolunnisa D/o. Late Mir Ahmed Ali Khan, Aged about 59 years, Occ Household H.No. 9-4-7711/8, Yousuf Takeri Colony, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad. L Aneesunnisa D/o. Late Mir Ahmed Ali Khan, Aged about 48 years, Occ Household.

9. Mukaramunnisa D/o. Late Mir Ahmed Ali Khan, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Household, lo.Basheerunisa D/o. Late Mir Ahmed Ali Khan, Aged about 44 years, Occ Household. 'l 1 . Tahseenunnisa D/o. Late Mir Ahmed Ali Khan, Aged about 42 years, Occ Household All are residents of H.No. 9-4-771118, Yousuf Takeri Colony, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad.

12. Revenue Divisronal Officer, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District.

13. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 1OF 2014 c RP MP. NO: 1154OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances slated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned order dt.18-06-2005 passed in Case No.Jt 1723102 (172112005, 171612002) on the file of the Special Grade Deputy/ Collector/ Revenue Divisional Officer, Rangareddy District East, pending disposal of the above revision by dispensing with the notice to respondents. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri R. Rakesh Reddy representi.ng Sri Resu Mahender ReddY Gounsel for the Respondents 1 to 10: Smt. Y. Sonanjali representing Sri N. Naveen Kumar The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER w THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N, TUKARAMJI C.R.P.Nos.837 and 839of 2074 COMMON ORD ER: The Civil Revision Petition No.B37 of 2014 has; been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2014 passed by the loint Collector-t, RanEa Reddy District in Fite No.FtitT2t of 2010 i.e. 12trr respondcnt herein against case No.J/77t7/2002 dated

18.06.2005 ln the file of 11tr' respondent/the Itevenue Divisional Officer, Saroor \agar, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The Civil levision Petition No.B39 of 2Ot4 has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2014 passed by the Joint Collector-1, Ranga Reddy District in File No.Fl/1722 of 2010 i.e. 121 ' responcent herein against case No)/7723/2002 dated 18.06 2ir0l; cn the file of 11th respon(jent/the Revenue Drvisional Cif ce,r, Sarocr Nagar, Ranga Reddy Distr ct.

3. Hearc Sr R. Rakesh Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr.Resu Mahen ler. Redcly, learned counsel fcr - e, petitioners and Smt. Y.Sonanja r. learned counsel representing Sri \. Naveen Kumar, learned counsei ior the respondent Nos.1 to 10. *ft 2

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the revision petitioner in CRP No.B37 of 2Ol4 was Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) holder of the disputed property. Subsequently part of the property was sold to the revision petitioners in CRP.No.B39 of

2014. The respondents in revision petitions;-before the Revenue Divisional Officer, had contested the ORC and passing of rights by the revision petitioner in CRP No.B37 of 2074 and the same was disposed of against the revision petitioner. The revision petitioners challenged that order and the orders passed by the Joint Collector are impugned in these revisions

5. Learned counsel would further submit that in the impugned order the loint Collector disposed of the appeal by observing that a related writ petition is pending before this Court and for that reason the Tribunal cannot passed the conclusive. However, in the later course, the W.P.No.12322 of 2012 was dismissed by leaving it open to the revision petitioners to avail appropriate legal remedies. Basing on those orders, the revision petitioners approached the ioint Collector, whereupon by setting aside the earlier order remanded the matter for fresh consideration and the RDO on 23.03.2023 vide case -_Io.C/1215/2022 passed an order in favour of the revision petitioners. 3

6. Having regard to the above narrated developrnents and as the cause does not survive for adjudication, the Civil tlevision petitions are dismissed a,, infructuous. No costs Asa seqtrel, 'niscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.V.S. RASAD ISTRAR E DEPUTY SECTIO OFFICER

1. The Joint Collector-l Ranga Reddy District 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Saroornagar, Ranga Rr:ddy District 3. One CC to lVl/s Resu Law Office, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri N. Naveen Kumar, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies To, VH/DL Yk HIGH COURT DATED: 05102t2025 COMMON ORDER CRP.No.837 of 2014 AND CRP.No.839 of 2014 \ \\( 1HE Sr,l rS. )R c tr7 ,,il ru6 t () :!- "t-i ir:a t DlSMISSING BOTH GRP'S AS INFRUCTUOUS + .o6"\ w f\tr