IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.146 of 2026 Dated: 09.02.2026 Between:

Pinni Srinivas and 2 others.

…Appellants and The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 4 others.

…Respondents JUDGMENT:

Learned counsel Sri D.Y.N.L.N.Charyulu appears for the appellants.

Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appears for respondents No.1 to 3.

Learned counsel Sri Palreddy Vinay Kumar Reddy appears for respondent No.5.

2. The appellants approached the learned writ court by filing W.P.No.40082 of 2025 with the following prayer:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ, or writs, order or orders, direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the orders of the 2^nd Respondent in proceedings No.E4/1954/2025 dated 06-12-2025 consequential a letter to the Respondents 3 and 4 sent by the Respondent No.2 through letter No.E4/1954/2025 dated 10-12-2025 instructing the Respondent No.2 to keep the land to an extent of Ac.1-04¾ Guntas in Sy.No.738 in which land belonging to Petitioner No.1 to an extent of Ac.0-07 Guntas and the land belonging to Petitioners 2 and 3 to an extent of Ac.0-06½ Guntas each situated at Pillalamarri Village and also directing Respondent No.3 to hold all constructions in respect of the above said land without giving an opportunity by making Petitioners party is illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the orders in proceedings No.E4/1954/2025 dated 06-12-2025 and consequential letter No.E4/1954/2025 dated 10-12-2025 in respect of petitioner No.1 land to an extent of Ac.0-07 Guntas in Sy.No.738/AA2/1/2 and the land belonging to Petitioner 2 to an extent of Ac.0-06½ Guntas in Sy.No.738/AA2/1/2 and the land belonging to Petitioner 3 to an extent of Ac.0-06½ Guntas in Sy.No.738/AA2/1/2 situated at Pillalamarri Village and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under circumstances of this case.”

3. The writ petition has been disposed of on 20.01.2026 after hearing the appellant, State and respondent No.5 in the following manner:

“8. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusing the material available on record, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent authorities to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and all the concerned parties by putting them on notice and after conducting due enquiry pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter communicate copy of the said order to the petitioners. The parties to the writ petition shall maintain status quo in all respects till the respondent authority pass final orders. There shall be no orders as to costs.”

4. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal, inter alia, stating that the appellants have been affected by the order impugned in the writ petition dated 06.12.2025 passed without notice to them. Because of the status quo order now being granted by the learned writ court, the ongoing constructions by the appellants have been affected.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is an injunction order in favour of the appellants in O.S.No.133 of 2025 vis-à- vis third parties. Respondent No.5 is an illegal claimant as possessor of the land. Therefore, the direction passed by the learned writ court to maintain status quo while directing the official respondents to pass appropriate orders after notice and hearing the parties is, in fact, affecting the vested rights of the appellants.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that respondent No.5 was not made a party before the lear