HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

APPEAL SUITS No. 1893, 1896, 1897, 1898 of 2002, 144, 145,

178, 179, 597, 598 and 1038 OF 2003

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Heard learned Advocate General on behalf of

Appellants – State, Sri M. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, Sri Akkam Eshwar and Sri P. Raghavendra, learned counsel for respondents in A.S. No. 1893 of 2002, Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, Sri M. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, Sri P. Raghavendra, learned counsel for respondents in A.S.No. 1896 of 2002, Sri R. Vinod Reddy, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, Sri Akkam Eshwar, Sri P. Raghavendra, Sri Sudhakara Rao Ambati, learned counsel for respondents in A.S.No. 1897 of 2002, Sri R. Vinod Reddy, Sri P. Raghavendra, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for respondents in A.S.No. 1898 of 2002, Sri R. Vinod Reddy, Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, Sri P. Raghavendra, Sri Sudhakara Rao Ambati, learned counsel for respondents in A.S. No. 144 of 2003, Sri M. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, Sri P. Raghavendra, A. Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for respondents in A.S.No. 145 of 2003, Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, Sri P. Raghavendra, Sri M. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel

for respondents in A.S.No. 178 of 2003, Sri M. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Sri Sudhakara Rao Ambati, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy and Sri P. Raghavendra, learned counsel for respondents in A.S.No. 179 of 2023, Sri R. Vinod Reddy, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, Sri Akkam Eshwar, Sri P. Raghavendra, learned counsel for respondents in A.S. No. 597 of 2003, Sri Sudhakara Rao Ambati, Sri Raj Kumar Rudra, Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, Sri M. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned counsel for respondents in A.S.No. 598 of 2003, Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, Sri P. Raghavendra, learned counsel for respondents in A.S.No. 1038 of 2003.

2. This batch of Appeals is filed by the State of Telangana represented by District Collector arising out of common Judgment in OS No. 850 of 2000 and batch dated 26-04-2002 whereunder suits were decreed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Therefore, these appeals are taken up for hearing together.

3. For the sake convenience, parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as referred to in the suit.

4. It is the definite case of plaintiff in all the suits that he/she is owner and possessor of respective Acs.3.00 of land in Survey No. 59 of Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They sought for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining defendants and their officers from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of their respective extents and to grant mutation in their favour. Plaintiffs state that patta under Rule 9 (g) was granted under Laoni Rules, 1950 either to them or to their ancestors by the then Tahsildar, Hyderabad West through proceedings No. A9/10897/61, dated 13-12-1961 and auction was conducted in December, 1961 wherein they were the highest bidders, therefore, they were issued written permission on 13-12-1961. Consequently, plaintiffs and their ancestors are in physical possession and enjoyment of suit lands and that they submitted representations to the revenue authorities for mutation of their names as pattadars. When the representations did not evoke any response, plaintiffs filed Writ Petitions which were disposed of with a direction to the 2^nd defendant to consider their representations for sanction of mutation. Pursuant to the said direction, orders were passed by the 2^nd defendant on 09-12-1997 rejecting their request stating that lands are classified as ‘Kharij Khata’ and the written permission which was given does not amount to assignment. In the said order, the 2^nd defendant took the stand that plaintiffs are treated as encroachers/ shivaigimmender and also held that there was ban on assignment at relevant point of time, therefore, mutation cannot be ordered.

5. It is also the c