THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.3 in passing the order in Case No.D1/38/2018, File No.D1/ROR/Revn/0038/2018 dated 30.09.2019 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri L.

Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolute owners and possessors of different extents of agricultural lands in different survey numbers situated at Mahabubnagar Village of Mahabubnagar Urban Mandal and the total extent of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.13-15 gts was recorded in the name of their father late Vemula Narasimha Rao as pattadar, who expired on 08.02.2008. Thereafter, the names of the petitioners were recorded as possessors in the pahanis issued by the Tahsildar, Mahabubnagar dated 27.09.2016 for the year 2008-09 for different extents of lands in different survey numbers. While so, the respondent No.6 being daughter of late V. Narasimha Rao filed applications on 15.07.2016 and 01.10.2016 claiming right as successor to her mother’s share in the subject properties and share as a co-parcener and the respondent No.5-Tahsildar, Mahabubnagar Urban Mandal vide proceedings No.B/4700/2016 dated 03.07.2017 and 08.08.2017 ordered for grant of succession of the land held by late Sri V. Narsimha Rao in favour of his legal heirs i.e., petitioners and respondent Nos.6,7 and 8. Questioning the said orders, the petitioners filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the same was dismissed vide proceedings No.B/ROR/4677/2017 dated 31.03.2018 and aggrieved by the same, they also filed a revision before the respondent No.3-Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar and the same was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 30.09.2019.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the once the partition was completed in the year 1992, there is no joint family property of late V. Narasimha Rao as Karta and pattas were also granted in the names of the petitioners with regard to the subject properties, but mutation was not effected in the revenue records changing the name of the pattadar late V. Narasimha Rao. He further submits that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to partition the lands of late V. Narasimha Rao and as such the impugned order is null and void and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 based on the counter submits that the respondent No.6 being legal heir and successor of late Vemula Narasimha Rao filed suit in O.S.No.111 of 2021 on the file of District Judge, Mahabubnagar for partition and the same is pending. He submits that after considering the objection of the respondent No.6 and after conducting due enquiry, the Tahsildar issued proceedings No.B/4700/2016 dated 03.07.2017 granting succession in her favour and also included her name along with the petitioners and others in respect of the property admeasuring to an extent of Ac.13-08 gts situated at Mahabubnagar Village vide proceedings No.B/4700/2016 dated 06.08.2017. The appeal and the revision filed by the petitioners were dismissed and in spite of that the petitioners filed this writ petition by suppressing the material facts with an intention to harass the respondent No.6. He further submits that there is no irregularity or illegality committed by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in effecting mutation of all the family members of late V. Narasimhar Rao in respect of the agriculture lands and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

6. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent No.6 has filed suit for partition in O.S.No.111 of 2021 on the file of the District Judge, Mahabubnagar and the same is pending. Moreover, the impugned order was passed by the respondent No.5 basing on the representation