THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.25514 OF 2011 ORDER: The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the proceedings of the first respondent, bearing No. B2/3134/2008 dated .06.2011 (received by the petitioners on 05.08.2011) vacating the stay granted on 20.11.2008, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners claim to have purchased different extents of lands from different persons who, inturn, purchased the lands from late Basheeruddin, the pattadar of the lands in Survey Nos.290 and 291 of an extent of Ac.1-22 guntas and Ac.1-10 guntas respectively. It is their case that the legal heirs of late Ghulam Mohiuddin sold land of an extent of Ac.0-30 guntas in favour of the third respondent by way of registered sale deed dated 10.07.1987, and an extent of Ac.0-09 guntas by way of a registered sale deed dated 15.05.1989, much after sale was effected in favour of the petitioners. They are aggrieved by the impugned order of the Revenue Divisional Officer in vacating the stay granted in their favour, and in directing the second respondent to effect mutation to the rightful persons by giving an opportunity to all parties; by verifying the legality of all the documents produced by all parties; and also keeping in view the residential structures over some part of the land in question. Sri M. Subba Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that there is an insignificant error in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the affidavit i.e., instead of referring to the third petitioner, it is referred to as the third respondent, which may need correction. Learned Counsel would submit that, since respondent Nos.3 to 6 themselves filed O.S.No.88 of 2010 before the Court of III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, and O.S.No.210 of 2010 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction, it is not open either to the first or the second respondent to determine questions of title. Learned Counsel would fairly state that there is an order of injunction granted, in I.A.No.1139 of 2010 in O.S.No.88 of 2010 dated 26.11.2010, against the petitioners. The impugned order of the first respondent dated June, 2011 merely records that the stay granted earlier is vacated. The second respondent was only directed to effect mutation to the rightful persons by giving an opportunity to all parties; by verifying the legality of all the documents produced by all parties; and also keeping in view the residential structures over some part of the land in question. It does not, as contended by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners, require or direct the second respondent to determine questions of title. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would, however, express apprehension that the second respondent would pass orders without giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. Since the petitioners are entitled to raise all contentions as they are entitled to in law by way of their objections before the second respondent, I consider it appropriate to direct the second respondent, in case the petitioners submit their objections within two weeks from today, to consider the same in accordance with law and, thereafter, pass orders. Needless to state that before any orders are finally passed, respondent Nos.3 to 6 in this Writ Petition shall also be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J September 12, 2011 Note: Issue C.C. by 16.09.2011 B/O.MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.25514 OF 2011 September 12, 2011 MD