JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar)

Heard Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel representing Ms. Mubeena Fathima, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mrs.Lalitha Gayathri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 to 15.

2. The present Appeal is filed by the appellants/Writ Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 assailing the order dated 19.09.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in/and W.P.No.8901 of 2008 filed for quashing the order passed by the respondent No.1 bearing No.F2/7130/2006 dated 27.02.2008 in exercise of powers conferred upon the said authority under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘1971 Act’).

3. The subject property involved in the present case is the land admeasuring Ac.24.18 gts and Acs.20.25 gts respectively situated in Sy.Nos.29 and 33, totally admeasuring Acs.45.03 gts., of Bhongir village and Mandal, Nalgonda District (presently in Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District).

4. The facts leading to file the Writ Petition are that the respondent No.12/Writ petitioner No.1 was the absolute owner, pattadar and possessor of the subject lands. Respondent Nos.4 and 5, claiming to have purchased the subject land under a simple sale deed dated 16.02.1984, approached the respondent No.3- The Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) requesting for validation of the said simple sale under Section 5A of the 1971 Act, who in turn issued proceedings dated 21.09.1994 validating the simple sale deed and issued Certificate in Form-13B in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5, pursuant to which, their names were entered in the Revenue Records.

5. After about eight years, the Writ petitioner No.1 filed an Appeal in 2002 before the respondent No.2 challenging the regularization proceedings, and the said Appeal was allowed by order dated 31.01.2004 setting aside the Form-13B Certificate dated 21.09.1994 by remitting the matter back to respondent No.3 for conducting enquiry afresh. Pursuant to the said remand order, the respondent No.3 conducted enquiry and passed order dated 28.06.2005 recording a finding that earlier proceedings dated 21.09.1994 failed to follow the required procedure and cancelled the Form-13B Certificate directing restoration of the name of Writ petitioner No.1 in the Revenue Records.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed an Appeal under Section 5(5) of the 1971 Act before respondent No.2, who passed an interim order dated 03.10.2005 directing to maintain status quo in implementation of the order dated 28.06.2005 passed by the respondent No.3. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent Nos.4 and 5 invoked revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 before the respondent No.1 against the remand order dated 31.01.2004.

7. The respondent No.1 granted an interim order suspending the earlier orders passed by the respondent No.3 and allowed the revision by order dated 27.02.2008. Meanwhile, respondent Nos.4 and 5 withdrew the Appeal before the respondent No.2.

8. During the pendency of the proceedings, the appellants purchased the subject property from Writ petitioner No.1 under registered sale deed dated 21.11.2005, and they also filed an application in the Revision petition pending then before the respondent No.1 seeking permission to come on record claiming right through the registered sale deed dated 21.11.2005, which was rejected vide separate orders.

9. The appellants and Writ petitioner Nos.1 to 5 have filed W.P.No.8901 of 2008 challenging the revisional order 27.02.2008 passed by the respondent No.1.

10. During pendency of W.P.No.8901 of 2008, the Writ petitioner No.1 filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2022 seeking permission of the Court to engage a separate counsel along with I.A.No.3 of 2022 for withdrawal of the Writ Petition, contending that without his knowledge, the said Writ Petition w