I s311 ]

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

WRIT APPEAL NO: 501 OF 2023

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Order dated
3110312023 passed in W.P.No. 22O32 ot 2019 on the file of the High Court.

Between:

M1s. Plime Propertiesa Partnership Firm, (Registration No. 1608 of 2001 ),

10-5-21118, Maheshwari Complex, Masab Tank Hyderabad represented by its
partner Shri Najeeb Ahmed, S/o. Late Mohammed Ali, Aged 63 years, Occ.
Hyderabad
Business' Rl/o
...A''ELLANTrRE',.NDENT No.6
AND

1. Pilli Mallaiah, son of late Pilli Balaiah, aged about 76 years, occ. agriculture,
r/o Khaitalpur, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
2. Pilli Prameela, wife of late Sri P. Pentaiah, aged about 67 years, occ.
housewife, rlo 5O11, Khaitalpur, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
3. Pilli Narsimha, son of late P. Mallaiah, aged about 57 years, occ. business, r/o
Khaitalpur, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
4. Pilli Mallesh alias Mallaiah, son of late Balaiah, aged about 40 years, occ.
business, tlo 88211 Khaitalpur, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
5. Pilli Srisailam, son of late Sri Mallaiah, aged about 25 years, occ. business,
rlo 88?y'1, Khaitalpur, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
6. Pilli Renuka, wife of late Shiva Raju, aged about 45 years, occ. housewife, r/o
88Zl Khaitalpur, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
All are represented by their GPA M/s Aditya Constructions Company lndia Pvt.
Ltd., rep. by its authorized signatory Sri Thota Satyanarayana, aged about 55
years, occ. business, r/o Aditya Mansion, Plot No.29lA, Road No.s, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad.)

7. The Deputy Collector/Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district,

Hyderabad.
8. The Revenue Divisional Officer, BalanagarMandal, Ranga Reddy diskict,
Hyderabad.
9. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, H.No.6210, Lakdikapul Rd.,
Lakdikapul, Hyderabad-500 004.
10.The State of Telangana, rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad.
1 1 . The Deputy Collector/Tahsildar, Kukatpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy district,
Hyderabad
...REspoNoENTs 7-lllREspoNDENTS 1-5
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
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 operation of the Order dated 3't.03.2023 passed in Writ Petition
No.22032 of 2019
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI G. VIDYA SAGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SRI MOHAMMED OMER FAROOQ

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: SRI P. SRI RAGHU RAM,

SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SRI ZEESHAN ADNAN MAHMOOD

Counsel for Respondent Nos.7 to 11: SRI T. SRIKANTH REDDY,

GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIryAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

WRIT APPEAL No.5O1 of 2o23

JUDGMENT: eer he Hon'ble the CtLief Justrce LLral BhuVan)

Heard Mr. G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel for

the appellant; Mr. P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior

Counsel for respondents No.I to 6; and Mr. T.Srikanth

Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue

representing respondents No.7 to 11.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated

31.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing

W.P.No.22O32 of 2Ol9 filed by respondents No.1 to 6 as

the writ petitioners.

3. Respondents No.l to 6 as the writ petitioners had

Itled the related writ petition seeking a direction to

respondent No.7 to issue regularisation certillcate under

\
Section 5-A( ) of the Telangana Rights in Land and
 2

Pattadar Pass Books Acr, 1971 (eariier also known as

Telalgana Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar

Passbooks A<:t, 197 1) (briefly, 'the 197 I Act' hereinafter) to

them pursuant to regularisation proceedings dated

O2.O4.2012; besides updating the manual and electronic

revenue records reflecting the names of respondents No.1

to 6 as the ou'ners and possessors of land admeasuring

Acs.74.30 guntas situated in Survey No.1O07 of Kukatpally

Village, Balanagar Mar.rdal in Ranga Reddy District

('subject land', hereinafter)

4. Belore \ re advert to the proceedings dated

02.O4.2012, it would be apposite to refer to the averments
made by respondents No.1 to 6 in the writ affidavit. It was

stated that Pilli Balaiah, S/o. Danaiah, was the absolute

owner of land admeasuring Acs.81.O0 in Survey No.1007,

Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ralga Reddy

District. He had purchased the same from one Mir

Fazeelath Hussain by way, of an unregistered sale deed

dated 04.04.7974. Rather, he was in possession and

 3

enjoyment of the subject land since 1962 when there was

an agreement of sale in respect of the said land which was

also mentioned in the unregistered sale deed dated

04.04.1974. On the death of Pilli Balaiah, he was survived

by his legal heirs i.e., respondents No.l to 6 and some

others, who have died.

4.1. Granddaughters of Pilli Balaiah had filed a partition

suit against respondents No.1 to 6 in which Aditya

Constructions Company India (P) Limited was a.lso arrayed

as one of the defendants. It is stated that respondents

No.1 to 6 had entered into development agreement with

Aditya Constructions Company India (P) Limited. The suit,

being O.S.No.Ll2L of 2012, was decreed on 20.03.20 15

when a preliminary decree was passed by the learned

Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

L.B.Nagar. An application for drawing a hnal decree was

filed wherein an Advocate Commissioner was appointed for

demarcation of respective shares.

\
 .+

4.2. One M/s. Prime Properties claiming vast extent of

land admeasuring Acs.346.00 filed a claim petition which

was dismissed. The dismissal order was confirmed by the

High Court and later br. the Supreme Court. Further,

claim of M/ s. Prime Properties in a review application in
C.R.P.No.6697 of 2OO4 q.as dismissed by this court vide

order dated '23.02.2018 This challenge was carried to the

Supreme Court whererr-r an order was passed on

01. 10.2018 directing maintenance of status quo

4.3. Pilli Balaiah being an occupant of the subject land

and having purchased the same under an unregistered sale

deed had applied for regularisation of the sale transaction

under Section 5-A of the 1971 Act. The unregistered sale

deed dated 04.O4.1974 r,vas validated vide proceedings

dated 09.06.1995 beforc respondent No.7. Sale of land
was validated and confrrmed to an extent of Acs.74.30

guntas in far our oi Pilli tsalaiah. Respondent No.7 had

conducted an enquiry and after being satisfied about the
claim of respondents No.I to 6 issued notification under
 )

Forms I I and 12 calling for claims and objections. No

objections were received by respondent No.7. Accordingly,

after deposit of the required stamp duty and registration

charges, respondent No.7 issued certificate in Form 138

validating the unregistered deed in favour of Pilli Baiaiah.

4.4. Respondent No.7 vide regularisation proceedings

dated 02.O4.2O12 conlirmed the patta rights of

respondents No.1 to 6 and mutated their names, being
legal heirs of Pilli Balaiah, as pattadars following which

mutation proceedings were issued.

4.5. Pursuant to an application filed by the legal heirs of

Pilli Balaiah i.e., respondents No.l to 6, respondent No.7
issueda report and a sketch prepared by the Mandal
Surveyor. In the paharti issued for the year 20 15,
respondents No.1 to 6, being the legal heirs of pilli Balaiah,

were shovvn as pattadars ald possessors of land to an

extent of Acs.74.30 guntas.

 6

4.6. Grievance expressed by respondents No.1 to 6 rrr.,as

that responclent No.7 had not issued the consequential

regularisatior-r certificate as contemplated by Section 5-A(4)

of the 197 1 Act, rvhich is a mandatory requirement.

Respondent No.7 had lailed to discharge his statutory duty

and had not issued thc consequential regularisation

certificate to respondents No. i to 6 being the lega1 heirs of

Pilli Balaiah. Despite submission of numerous
representations by respondents No.1 to 6, no action u'as

taken and the consequential regularisation certificate was

not issued. It is in such circumstances that the related
writ petition came to be liled seeking the relief as indicated
above

5. Tahsildar of Kul<atpally Mandal filed counter

affidavit. Stand taken in the counter affidavit was that
subsequent to formation of new district r.e Medchal

Malkajgiri District, Balanagar Mandal was divided into two

mandals i.e Balanagar and Kukatpally. The land in

question falls u,ithin the limits of Kukatpally Mandaf.

I
I

I
I
I
I
 7

According to the Tahsildar, respondents No.l to 6 had

purchased land to an extent of Acs.81 .OO in Survey

No.l0O7 of Kukatpally Village from one Mir Fazeelath

Hussain under an unregistered sale deed. An application

was hled before the Manda-l Revenue Officer for

regularisation of the said unregistered sale deed under

Section 5-A of the 197 1 Act. Mandal Revenue Officer,

Balanagar Mandai, issued order dated 18.12.1990
regularising the unregistered sale deed in favour of

respondents No. 1 to 6. However, Mir Fazeelath Hussain

himself suffered a decree in O.S.No. 122 of 1973 dated

22.11.1973. That apart, the vendor of respondents No.1

to 6 Mir Fazeelath Hussain had instituted a suit being

O.S.No.219 of 1980 on the file of the Munsiff Magistrate,

West and South at Hyderabad, against respondents No.l

to 6. Though the Tahsildar had raised question on the

unregistered sale deed as well as the regularisation thereof,

nonetheless, he admitted that Deputy Collector and

Tahsildar had granted mutation in respect of the subject

land in favour of respondents No. I to 6. While the Joint

\
 8

Collector had initiated suo motu revision under Section 9 of

the 197 1 Act, nonetheless, he closed the revision petition

vide order dated 25.05.2013 with liberty to the parties to

approach the appropriate forum for establishment of their

right and title over the land in question. Tahsildar

mentioned that there are multiple claims over the land in

Survey No.10O7 of Kukatpally Village. Therefore, it was not

possible for updation of electronic records and issuance of

pattadar pass books ald title deeds to respondents

No.1 to 6

6. It was at that stage tliat the related writ petition came

to be filed

7. Appellant got itself impleaded as respondent No.6 in

the writ proceedings and thereafter flled counter affidavit.

Basic contention of the appellant was that the subject land

is not an agricultural 1and, therefore provisions of the 197 I

Act would not be applicable. Unregistered sale deed dated

i
I 04.O4.7974 has never seen the light of the day. It is a non_

existent document. pahanies reflecting the names of

{
(
 9

respondents No.1 to 6 as in possession over the subject

land are bogus and fabricated documents. Respondents

No.l to 6 have no manner of right, title, claim, interest or

share over the land. This would be evident from the order
dated 31.01.2022 passed in W.A.No.l3l of 2O2O.

8. Let us now advert to the proceedings dated

O2.O4.2012 issued by the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar

of Balanagar Mandal. From a perusal of the same (page

No.456 of the paper book), it is seen that Pilli Balaiah and

family members had submitted a petition on O2.O2.2O1,2

stating that they had purchased the subject land from

pattadar Mir Fazeelath Hussain under an unregistered sale

deed dated 04.O4.I974 to an extent of Acs.81.O0 of land in

Survey No.1OO7 situated at Kukatpally Village of Balanagar

Mandal. They claimed to be in possession of the land from

the date of purchase and requested to incorporate their
narnes in the revenue records; and to issue pattadar pass

books as well as title deeds. It was claimed that Mandal

Revenue Officer under Section 5-A of the l9T I Act had

 t0

issued orders dated 18.12.1990 regularizing the above

unregistered sale deed dated 04.04.1974 in favour of pilli

Baiaiah and others. Afrer depositing the required stamp

duty ald registration fec, Mandal Revenue Officer had

issued certificate validating the unregistered sale deed.

Deputy Collector and Tah sildar mentioned that widow of
Mir Fazeelath Hussain hacl confirmed in her statement that

her husband had entered into an agreement of sale with

Pilli Balaiah for an extcnt of Acs.8l.OO in the year 1962
and that Pilli Balaiah and others u,ere in possession of the

land since 1962. As per entries in the pahanies, names of

Pilli Balaiah and Komarth u,ere found as actual cultivators.

8.1. Deputy Coliector and Tahsildar further noted that the

then Mandal Revenue Officer had conducted enquiry and

after satisfying himself, called for claims and objections
from persons having interest over the subject land. He did

not receive any objcctions. Accordingly, he issued Form

134 validating the unregrstered sale deed upon payment of

I
I
 II

stamp duty and registration fee. As per record, the parties

i.e., Pilli Balaiah and others had completed the process.

8.2. As per the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer

dated 02.08. 1997, claim of the applicants was considered

in the following manner:

sl. Narae of thc Individual Sy.No. Name of Extent Remarks

No. the vlllEge

1 Pilli Balaiah I007 Kukatpally Ac.l2-20

S o. Late Balaiah Gts.
2 Pilli Mallaiah 1007 Kukatpally Ac.12-20
S o. Late Balaiah Gts
3 PiIIi 1007 Kukatpally Ac.12-2O Late
Gts. P.Danaiah
S/o. L^ate
Balaiah as
they expired
the name of
the
daughter in
law was
entered,
4 PiUi Bikshapathi 1007 Kukatpally Ac.l2-2O
S o. Late Balaiah Gts.
5 Pilli Prameela 1007 Kukatpally Ac.l2-2O Late
W/o. Pilli PenLaiah Gts Pentaiah
S/o. Late
Balaiah as
they expired
the name of
the
daughter in
law was
entered.
6 Pilli Narsimha r007 Kukatpatly Ac.03-03 As pilli
S/o. Late P. Mallaiah Gts. Mallaiah
died his son
name is
entered
 t2

7 Pilli Mallesh 1007 Kukatpally Ac.03-O3 As piili

S/o. Late P. Mallaiah Li ts. Mallaiah
died his son
namc is
entered
8 Pilli Srisailam t007 Kukatpallv Ac.03 02 As pilli
S/o. Latc P.Mallarah Gts. Mallarah
dred his son
name ls
en tered
9 Pilli Remila 1007 Kukatpally Ac.03-02 As pilli
W/o. Late Shiva Raju Cts. Mallaiah
and his son
Shiva Raju
died the
name of
daughter ln
law is
entered
TOTAL Ac 74 3O
Gts.

8.3. Upon enquiry, it was found that respondents No.1 to

6 were in possession of land to an extent of Acs.74.30

guntas instead of Acs.81.00. Considering the request ol

respondents No. 1 to 6 as well as the report of the Mandal

Revenue Inspector and the sketch prepared by the Mandal

Surveyor, mutation was sanctioned in favour of

respondents No.l to 6 in respect of land to an extent of
Acs.74.30 guntas in Survev No. 1007 of Kukatpally Village.

Village Revenue Officer, Kukatpally Village, was directed to

incorporate the names of respondents No.l to 6 in the

revenue records in terms of the 1971 Act.
 IJ

9. Learned Single Judge vide the order dated

31.O3.2023 found force in the contention of respondents
No. I to 6. Learned Single Judge noted that appellant was

only intervening in the proceedings initiated by

respondents No. I to 6. Appellant could not place any

document showing any right over the subject land. In the
circumstances, learned Single Judge directed respondents

No.7 to l1 to take necessary steps for updating the names

of respondents No.1 to 6 in the revenue records

10. Mr. G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel for the

appellant submits that the subject land is not arl

agricultural land. It is part of urban land. Therefore,

provisions of the 1971 Act would not be applicable. This

has been held to be so by a Division Bench of this Court

vide the order dated 29.06.2020 in W.A.No.498 of 2Ol9

(M/s. Prime Properties v. M/s. Bhagyanagar Co-operative

Housing Society Limited). His further contention is that \

the 197 I Act stood repealed by Section 15 of the Telangana

 I-l

Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act,2O2O (briefly,

'the 2O2O Act' hereinafter), which came into force with

effect from 19.09.2O2O. Therefore, learned Single Judge

could not have issued direction to the State authorities to

carry out ail act under a repealed statute

I 1 . Supporting the order of the learned Single Judge,

Mr. P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel for

respondents No.1 to 6 submits that the same is perfectly in

order and calls for no interference. According to him the

issue lies within a very narrow compass. Having got his

(predecessor-in-title of respondents No.1 to 6) unregistered

sale deed registered under Section 5A(1) of the 1971 Act,

issuance of regularisation certificate under Section 5A(a) of

the said Act is a consequential step. As a matter of fact, a

statutory duty is cast upon respondent No.7 to issue such

a certificate post the re6Jr-rlarisation proceedings dated

02.04.2012. As he had failed to discharge his statutory

duty, the related writ petition came to be filed.
 15

11.1. Responding to the submission of Mr. G.Vidya Sagar,

learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that learned

Single Judge could not have issued a direction to

respondent No.7 to take steps for updating the revenue

records reflecting the names of respondents No. I to 6 in

respect of the subject land under the repealed statute, he

submits that rights accrued under a repealed enactment

would not stand extinguished upon repealment. In this

connection he has placed reliance on Section 6 of the

General Clauses Act, 1897. In any view of the matter, he

submits that it is a settled proposition that mutation of

narnes in revenue records does not confer title. He

therefore seeks dismissal of the writ appeal.

L2. Submissions made at the bar have received the due

consideration of the court.

13. Insofar the first contention of learned Senior Counsel

for the appellant is concerned, learned Single Judge has

observed that the Division Bench itself had clarifled that \
L
observations made in the judgment and order dated

I
 l6

29.06.2020 in W.A.No.498 of 2019 were for the purpose of

adjudication of the said appeal; those would not be

construed to be any finding on the merits and demerits of

the case; and the authorities/ courts would deal with the
cases on their own merit uninfluenced bv the

observations/ findings recorded herein. That apart, learned

Single Judge noted that the appellant itself had

approached the concerned authorities seeking mutation

under the 197 1 Act q,hrch was pending. Therefore,

appellant could not blow hot and cold at the same time.

Learned Single Judge further noted that appellant did not

chailenge legality and validity of the proceedings dated

02.O4.2O12. Therefore, in a collateral proceeding it cannot

seek obstruction to implementation of the proceedings

dated 02.O4.2012.

14. Section 5-A of the 197 I Act deals with regularisation

of certain alienations or other transfers of lands.

14.1. Sub-section (1) says that notwithstanding anything

contained in rhe 197 1 Act, the Transfer of property Act,
r
(
 17

1882, the Registration Act, 1908, or any other law for the

time being in force, where a person is an occupant by

virtue of an alienation or transfer made or effected

otherwise than by a registered document, the alienee or the

transleree may, within such period as may be prescribed,

apply to the Mandal Revenue Officer for a certificate

declaring that such a,lienation or transfer is valid.

14.2. In terms of sub-section (2), on receipt of such

application, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall, a_fter making

such enquiry as may be prescribed, require the alienee or

the transferee to deposit in the office of the Mandal

Revenue Ofhcer arr amount equal to the registration fees

and the stamp duty that would have been payable had the

alienation or transfer been effected by a registered

document in accordance with the provisions of the
Registration Act, 1908.

14.3. As per sub-section (4), the Mandal Revenue Officer on

deposit of an amount specified in sub-section (2), shall

issue a certihcate to the alienee or the transferee declaring
 l8

that the alienation or transfer is valid from the date of

issue of certificate and such certificate shall,

notwithstanding anything rn the Registration Act, 1908, be

evidence of such alienation or transfer as against the

alienor or transferor or any person claiming interest under

him.

15. Thus, u'hat sub-sectron (4) of Section 5-A of the 1971

Act provides for is that the Mandal Revenue Officer on

deposit of the necessary amount shall issue a certificate to

the a-lienee or the transferee declaring that such aiienation

or transfer is valid from the date of issue of the certificate.

The certificate so issued would be evidence of such

alienation or transfer as against the alienor or transferor or

any person claiming interest under him.

16. Looked at from the above perspective, sub-section (4)

is a natural corollary following sub-sections (1) and (2) of

Section 5-A of the 1971 Act. It is the statutory duty
enjoined uporr the Mandal Revenue Officer to issue a
certificate upon compliance of the conditions in sub_

(
 t9

sections (1) and (2) of Section 5-A of the 797 l Act. Thus,

once such a certificate is issued, the alienation or transfer

of property would be valid, even though it was not made by

way of a registered document.

17. Learned Single Judge noted the following 1n

paragraph l5 of the order dated 31.O3.2O23:

15. ln the instant case as already noted heieinabove,

the certificate as required under sub-section 4 of Section
5A of the Act, 197I, was already issued in favour of
Mr. Pilli Balaiah, the predecessor-in-title of the
petitioners herein in Form- 13B and a copy of the same is
already placed on record. Therefore, the relief sought for
by the petitioners for issuance of regularization
proceedings under sub-section 4 of Section 5A of the Act,
197 1 , is unnecessary. Hence, the only relief that remains
to be considered by this Court is for updating the name
of the petitioners in manual and online records as owner
and possessor of the subject land.

17.1. From the above, it is evident that the certificate as

contemplated under sub-section (4) of Section 5A of the

197 I Act had already been issued to the predecessor-in-

\_
 70

title of respondents No. I to 6. Therefore, stricto sensu the

relief claimed had become infructuous.

18. In the hearing we put a query to iearned Senior

Counsel lor the appellant as to whether appellant had

assailed the proceedings dated 02.O4.2012 to which

learned Senior Counsel submitted that no such challenge

was made. Thus, the proceedings dated 02.04.2012 lnad

attained finality. As discussed above, issuance of the

certificate under Section 5A(4) is only consequential.

19. Insofar the contentron that learned Single Judge

could not have issued the order dated 31.03.2023 to give

effect to the lrrovisions of the 197 1 Act since the said Act

already stood repealed follow,ing enactment of the 2020

Act, it is trite law that repeal of an enactment would not

extinguish the rights already acquired under the repealed

Act. Section 15 ofthe 2O2O Act which provides for repeal

I
of th.e 797 1 Act would have to be read in conjunction with
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 7g92. The position (
 2t

in law is that repeal of an enactment would not affect any

right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or
incurred under the enactment so repealed.

20. We, therefore, do not find any good ground to

entertain the appeal

21. However, before parting with the record, we may

mention that in Civil Appeal No.1Ol28 of 2018 (M/s. prime

Properties v. M/s. Bhagya Nagar Plot Owners Welfare

Association) which dealt with land and properties in Survey

No.1O07 of Kukatpally Village and Mandal, Medchal-

Malkajgrri District, Supreme Court on 01.10.2O18 had
passed the following order:

8) We have been informed of the various proceedings

between the parties, as mentioned hereinabove, including
suits, pending between ttre parties. This being the case, we
direct tlrat status quo with regard to possession, as of today,
shall continue until further orders are mad.e in these
proceedings at the behest of any of the parties.
I

I
I
I
 1.4

22. Thereafter, in Contempt Petition (C) No.a33 of 2O2O

in Civil Appeai No.10128 of 2018 (M/s. Bhagya Nagar Plot

Owners Welfare Association v. Pilli Mallaiah), Supreme

Court passed the following order on 19.08.2020:

Having heard lt:arned counsel in all the three

contempt petitions, we are of the view that the title suits
OS Nos.898, 899, 900, 90 I of 20Ol pending before the
hrst Additronal Senior Civil Judge be taken up and
decicted within a period of six months from today.

AII parties wrll maintain status quo as to

possession and no third party interest will be created rn
the meanu,hile.

List all the three contempt peLitions after the

judgment of the trial court is delivered.

23. From a perusal of the order of the learned Singie

Judge as well as the materials on record, it is evident that

there are civil suits pending between the parties relating to

title over the subject land. This has been talen note of by
the Supreme Court as well. As a matter of fact, Supreme

Court has directed maintenance of slafus qao and to list

the contempt petitions after judgment is delivered by tle
 l)

trial court in the pending civil sults. In the hearing it

transpired that the civil suits are still pending.

24 . We are therefore of the view that the status quo order

directed by the Supreme Court should be maintained by all

the parties in letter and spirit until such time the stalus
quo order passed by the Supreme Court remains in force.

25. Subject to the above, the writ appeal is dismissed

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs

Sd/- T. SRINIVAS
DEPUW REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY// '-;D
SECTION OFFICER
to'',
. -n" Deputy Collector/Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district'
Hvderabad.
2. if,;;ff;;" Divisional officer, BalanagarMandal, Ranga Reddy district'
Hvderabad.
3. if,;fi;icrllector, Ranga Reddv District' H'No'6210, Lakdikapul Rd''
Lakdikaoul. Hvderabad-500 004.
+. it'" ii]il"irirt 'seiretary, Revenue Department, State of Telangana'
Secretariat, HYderabad.
5. il;'ffi;t'; i'oiiEctornansiroar, Kukatpallv Mandal, Ranga Reddv diskict'
Hvderabad.
6. iji'"."bt-to sri Mohammed omer Farooq Advocate [O-P-UC-]
-c. i;i"siica2"t.nan
7. 6;; cc Adnan Mahmood Advocate IoPUgl
8. i;; For Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana lourl
9: Two CD CoPies
MBC
 HlGH COURT

HCJ
&
NTR,J

DATED: 2710412023

1tE S-t {; t-
a,

J
c,-) 1 2 t{AY 2[?3
il

JUDGMENT

WA.No.SO1 of 2023

D!SMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL

/ -'\ WITHOUT COSTS

( \tz)
\_,/
\\

\
.) e\*