##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT

HYDERABAD

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

WRIT PETITION No.7985 of 2020

Dated:05.05.2026

Between:

S.Srinivas and Others.

…Petitioners

And

The State of Telangana, rep. by its

Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,

Hyderabad and others.

…Respondents

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring

continuation of the proceedings in Revision Case No.2385/2017 on file of

respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently, to declare that

respondent No.2 is not entitled to adjudicate Revision Case No.J/115/2015,

when no person claims to have filed the same.

2. Heard Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, M.Mehdi

Hussain, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Revenue.

3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ petition are that the

grandfather of petitioners viz., Sunkari Bhoomaiah had purchased land

admeasuring Acs.3.26 guntas in Sy.No.415/1 situated at Safilguda, Malkajgiri

2

LNA, J

WPNo.7985 of 2020

Village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, from one Sukudev Prasad

through registered sale deed bearing document No.2274/191, dated.24.12.1971,

who purchased the same in the year 1966 under registered sale deed

No.3120/1966 from one Mir Khan Ali and seven others; that Sunkari

Bhoomaiah and his son-father of the petitioners had run stone Crushing Unit in

the subject property; and that after the death of Sunkari Bhoomaiah, the

petitioners and others succeeded to the said property and have been in

continuous possession and enjoyment of the same.

3.1. It is further averred that while so, respondent No.3 claiming to be the heir

of predecessor-in-title, i.e., legal heir of Mir Khan Ali and others made an

application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, seeking Occupancy Rights

Certificate (ORC), by suppressing and concealing the aforesaid facts, and

respondent No.3, without issuing any notice to the affected persons including

the petitioners, granted the same in favour of respondent No.3, vide orders

dated 18.05.2013; that aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred an Appeal

before the Joint Collector vide No.F1/5388/2013 and the same was allowed on

30.12.2014 by setting aside the ORC and the matter was remanded back to

Revenue Divisional Officer for de-novo enquiry; that pursuant thereto, the

Revenue Divisional Officer disposed of the Case No.J/111/2015, vide orders

dated 02.03.2016 stating that as the subject property is not agricultural land, he

has no jurisdiction to issue the ORC and accordingly, rejected the claim of

3

LNA, J

WPNo.7985 of 2020

respondent No.3; that challenging the same, respondent No.3 and five others

filed W.P.No.2629/2017, however, the same was dismissed, vide orders, dated

25.02.2017, leaving it open to respondent No.3 and others to avail alternative

remedy against the order impugned therein. That respondent No.3 filed

Revision before Joint Collector, vide Case No.2385/2017 and the petitioners

having received notices are contesting the said case. While so, respondent No.3

filed an application to implead him as respondent No.4 in the Revision filed by

himself stating that he never filed Revision before the Joint Collector. Hence,

the present Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the continuation of

proceedings in Revision Case No2385/2017 before respondent No.2 as illegal

and without jurisdiction.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that as respondent No.3 himself

files an implead application in the Revision stating that the same is not filed by

him, but by some other persons by forging his signature, the Revision cannot be

proceeded further and the same is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted

that respondent No.2 without considering the said fact, proceeded further and

granted suspension of the order passed b y Revenue Divisional Officer based on

the application filed by the implead petitioner i.e respondent No.3 herein.

Learned counsel finally submitted that in the