COMMON JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon(cid:146)ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

This order will dispose of W.A.Nos.458 and 469 of

2022.

2. We have heard Mr. D.V.Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. N.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.458 of 2022 and for respondents No.1 to 35 in W.A.No.469 of 2022; and Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the official respondents.

3. Both the writ appeals arise out of the common order dated 28.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.No.35463 of 2012 and batch.

4. While W.A.No.458 of 2022 arises out of W.P.No.33752 of 2017, W.A.No.469 of 2022 arises out of W.P.No.33531 of

2017.

5. Learned Single Judge vide the order dated 28.06.2021 disposed of the writ petitions in the following manner:

As seen from the record, two conflicting orders came to be passed by the revisional authority (cid:150) one dismissing certain batch of revisions by upholding the orders of the appellate authority, and the subsequent order allowing certain batch of revisions by setting aside the very same orders of the appellate authority.

Admittedly, the revisional authority passed the common orders on 24.09.2012 dismissing the revisions and confirming the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer in Appeal Nos. F3/3635/2011-F3/36/ROR/2011 and batch. Subsequently, another revisional authority has allowed the remaining revisions setting aside the very same orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer passed in F3/3642/2011-F3/43/ROR/2011 dated 15.05.2017 without realizing that his predecessor has dismissed the appeals filed by the parties vide order dated 24.09.2012.

Though the learned counsels appearing in the respective writ petitioners tried to support the respective orders passed by both the revisional authorities, as disputed questions of facts are involved in the present case and there is a need to go through the revenue records to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the rival contentions raised by the contesting parties, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits or demerits of the case. This Court is of the opinion that the revisional authority is the best suited to deal with the various contentions raised by the parties on the basis of the record. It would not be appropriate for this Court to go into these disputed questions of facts. Moreover, there are two conflicting orders in respect of the same common order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer.

Therefore, the impugned orders in file Nos.F3/3635/2011-F3/36/ROR/2011, F3/3636/ 2011- F3/37/ROR/2011, F3/3637/2011-F3/38/ROR/2011, F3/3638/2011-F3/39/ROR/2011, F3/3639/2011- F3/40/ROR/2011, F3/3640/2011-F3/41/ROR/ 2011, F3/3641/2011-F3/42/ROR/2011, F3/3642/2011(cid:150)F3/ 43/ROR/2011 to F3/3650/2011-F3/51/ROR/2011 and F3/1400/ 2011-F3-12/ROR/2011 are hereby set aside and the matters are remanded to the revisional authority to deal with all the cases together and pass a comprehensive order, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of directing the Joint Collector, Sanga Reddy District at Sangareddy, to transfer the revisions along with the connected record to the Special Tribunal, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Special Tribunal shall dispose of the revisions in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter. It is needless to observe that the Special Tribunal, before passing any orders in the appeal, shall put all the interested parties on notice. A copy of the orders that may be passed by the Special Tribunal shall be communicated to the parties.

6. Thus, learned Single Judge directed the Joint Collector, Sangareddy District, to transfer the revision petitions along with the connecte