IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HUDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO.14038 of 2005 Between: 1.V.Tulasiram s/o Narayana Swamy aged about 70 years, agriculturist, r/o Gaganpahad (V), RR District. 2.V.T.Prakash s/o V.Tulasiram aged about 42 years, agriculturist, r/o Gaganpahad(V), RR District. 3.V.Bharathi w/o V.Tulasiram, aged about 65 years, r/o Gaganpahad(V), RR District. 4.V.Jagath Kumar s/o Narayana Swamy aged about 50 years, agriculturist, r/o Gaganpahad(V), RR District. 5.N.Narsing Rao s/o N.Rangaiah aged about 50 years, agriculturist, r/o Sultanpalli Village, RR District. 6.K.Sarala w/o Gnaneswar aged about 35 years, r/o Yapral, RR District. … PETITIONERS And : 1.The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2.District Collector, RR District, Hyderabad. 3.Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, RR District, Hyderabad. 4.Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad Mandal, RR District 5.Elugani Narasimha s/o Sri Anjaiah, aged about 35 years, Sultanpalli village, Shamshabad (M), RR Districti 6.Etukapalli Anjaiah S/o Babaiah, 50 years, 7.Kalle Lakshmamma w/o K.Geeraiah, 55 years, 8.Kothaplli Venkataiah s/o Ramaswamy, 50 years, 9.Serila Sai Reddy s/o Gandi Reddy, 50 years, 10.Elakacherla Muthyam Reddy s/o Venkatarami Reddy, 60 years 11.Kumari Ramulu s/o Parmaiah, 40 years, 12.Kasula Chandrasekhar s/o Chandraiah, 40 years, 13.Kumari Jangaiah s/o Anthaiah, 50 years, 14.Kavili Sattaiah s/o Pochaiah, 50 years, 15.Kavili Yadaiah, s/o Annaiah, 45 years, 16.Nomula Lingaiah s/o Balaiah, 55 years, 17.Mangali Ramulu s/o Narayana, 50 years, 18.Kumari Anjamma, w/o Chennaiah, 80 years, 19.Madiga Yadaiah s/o Ramaiah, 52 years, 20.Madiga Venkatamma w/o Kistaiah, 50 years, 21.Madiga Narasimha s/o Balaiah, 60 years 22.Mala Yadaiah s/o Isthari 60 yeas, 23.Neerati Venkataiah s/o Balaiah, 80 years, 24.Neerati Narasamma w/o Pochaiah, 70 years, 25.Madiga Chandraiah s/o Jangaiah, 80 years, 26.Therupalli Malsamma w/o Pentaiah, 70 years, 27.Mohd. Choti Bee w/o M.D. Khaja, 70 years, 28.Thalla Chandraiah s/o Balaiay, 80 years, 29.Bhyagari Venkataiah s/o Ramaiah, 60 years, 30.Mala Yadaiah s/o Gopaiah, 55 years, 31.Mala Chandraiah s/o Venkanna, 80 years, 32.Kalle Gallemma w/o Pochaiah, 45 years, 33.Kalle Laxmaiah s/o Goraiah, 34.Kamari Ramachandraiah s/o K.Veeraiah, 65 years, 35.Elagani Krishna s/o Ramaiah, 40 years, 36.Elagani Jananamma s/o Chandraiah, 60 years, 37.Elagani Anjaiah s/o Ellaiah, 75 years, 38.Elagani Narayana s/o Balaiah, 60 years, 39.Elagani Susheela w/o Venkataiah, 55 years, 40.Elagani Anjaiah s/o Balaiah, 52 years, 41.Bandlagudem Ellaiah s/o Venkataswamy, 45 years, 42.Kosge Samaiah s/o Buchaiah, 80 years, 43.Bandlagudem Narasimha s/o Ramaiah, 80 years, 44.Potula Satyamma, s/o Laxmareddy, 55 years, 45.Potula Chandrareddy s/o Durga Reddy, 80 years, 46.Potula Jangareddy s/o Durga Reddy, 80 years 47.Potula Padmamma w/o Satyanarayana, 60 years, 48.Elkacherla Narasimha Reddy s/o Bal Reddy, 50 years, 49.Elkacherla Vittal Reddy s/o Bal Reddy, 55 years, 50.Elkacherla Agi Reddy s/o Bal Reddy, 48 years, 51.Elkacherla Kondal Reddy s/o Bal Reddy, 40 years, 52.Elkacherla Raghupathi Reddy s/o Narayana Reddy, 48 years (All are Agriculture Labourers and r/o Slultanpalli village, Shamshabad Mandal, RR District) … RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Prohibitionor any other appropriate Writ restraining the 1st respondent from proceeding further with the enquiry pursuant to the notice in the File No. F1/7417/1990 dated 21.06.2005 and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the lands in Sy.No. 122 to 126, 143 to 150, 152/a, 152/B, 153 and 154 of Sultanpalli village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Vedula Venkataramana Counsel for the Respondent: GP for Revenue CRL.R.C.NO. 1651 OF 2005 Between: 1.V.Tulasiram s/o Narayana Swamy aged about 70 years, agriculturist, r/o Gaganpahad (V), RR District. 2.V.T.Prakash s/o V.Tulasiram aged about 42 years, agriculturist, r/o Gaganpahad(V), RR District. 3.V.Bharathi w/o V.Tulasiram, aged about 65 years, r/o Gaganpahad(V), RR District. 4.V.Jagath Kumar s/o Narayana Swamy aged about 50 years, agriculturist, r/o Gaganpahad(V), RR District. 5.K.Sarala w/o Gnaneswar aged about 35 years, r/o Yapral, RR District. … PETITIONERS And: 1.Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, RR District 2.Inspector of Police, Shamshabad PS, RR District 3. Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad Mandal, RR District 4. District Collector, RR District, Hyderabad. 5. State of Andhra Pradesh through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, Hyderabad. … RESPONDENTS CC.SR.NO.6052 of 2005 Between: 1.V.Tulasiram s/o Narayana Swamy aged about 70 years, agriculturist, r/o Gaganpahad (V), RR District. … PETITIONER And: 1. Mr. Mahender Reddy, Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, RR District 2. Mr. Madhu, Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad Mandal, RR District 3. Mr. Rizvi, Joint Collector-1, RR District. 4. Mr. V.P.Johari, IAS, Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Government of AP, Secretariat, Hyderabad. … RESPONDENTS CC.NO. 557 of 2006 Between: 1. Government of AP rep by Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. District Collector, RR District, Hyderabad 3. Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, RR District 4. M.R.O., Shamshabad (M), RR District … PETITIONERS And: 1.V.Tulasiram s/o Narayana Swamy aged about 70 years, agriculturist, r/o Gaganpahad (V), RR District. 2.V.T.Prakash s/o V.Tulasiram aged about 42 years, agriculturist, r/o Gaganpahad(V), RR District. 3.V.Bharathi w/o V.Tulasiram, aged about 65 years, r/o Gaganpahad(V), RR District. 4.V.Jagath Kumar s/o Narayana Swamy aged about 50 years, agriculturist, r/o Gaganpahad(V), RR District. 5.N.Narsing Rao s/o N.Rangaiah aged about 50 years, agriculturist, r/o Sultanpalli Village, RR District. 6.K.Sarala w/o Gnaneswar aged about 35 years, r/o Yapral, RR District. … RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 14038 of 2005; Crl.R.C.No. 1651 of 2005; C.C.Sr.No. 6052 of 2005 and C.C.No.557 of 2006 COMMON ORDER: W.P.No. 14038 of 2005: - V. Tulasiram and five others have filed this writ petition. Originally, the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Secretary, Revenue Department; The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad; the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, were impleaded as respondents. Subsequently by the order of this Court dated 10-09- 2007 in W.P.M.P.No. 19400 of 2006 non-official respondent Nos. 5 to 52 were impleaded. A writ of Prohibition restraining the 1st respondent from proceeding further with the enquiry pursuant to the notice in file No. F1/7417/1990 dated 21-06-2005 (issued by the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District); and a consequent direction to the official respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment over the lands in survey Nos. 122 to 126, 143 to 150, 152/A, 152/B, 153 and 154 of Sultanaplli village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, is sought. The case of the petitioners in brief: (a) The petitioners under registered sale deeds in 1982 had purchased from the original pattadars – Syed Shabuddin and Syed Karar Hyder Hussain and thus own all the lands in the Survey Numbers aforementioned. They are in possession and enjoyment of the lands since then and are recorded as owners in possession as per the relevant entries in the revenue records. The petitioners were also issued pattedar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the lands. (b) The 3rd respondent asserted the lands to be Jagir lands and thus vested in the State under the provisions of the Andrha Pradesh (T.A.) Abolition of Jagir Regulation 1358 Fasli (for short ‘Regulation 1358-F’). He issued a memo dated 21-06- 1993 to the said effect. The petitioners filed W.P.No. 12631 of 1993 questioning the memo. By the judgment dated 24-03- 2000, the writ petition was allowed. The 3rd respondent appealed in W.A.No. 732 of 2000. W.A.No. 732 of 2000 was dismissed by the judgment dated 11-11-2002. The Division Bench however directed that the factual findings recorded by the learned single Judge (in W.P.No. 12631 of 1993) would not in any way influence or bind the Civil Court or any statutory forum or authority which may be called upon to decide the basic issue whether the subject lands constitute ‘jagir’ within the meaning of that term as defined in Section 2 (f) of the Regulation 1358-F and that such issue should be resolved solely on the evidence that may be led before such Court, forum or authority, as the case may be. (c) The 1st respondent thereafter filed a petition before the Commissioner and Director of Settlement and Jagir Administrator, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for an enquiry to declare the lands as vested with the government, since the appropriate authority to decide whether the lands are jagir or otherwise is the Jagir Administrator under Regulation 24(i) of the Regulation 1358-F. By the order dated 31-03-2005, the claim of the 1st respondent was dismissed by the Commissioner and Director of Settlement and the Jagir Administrator. The 1st respondent did not challenge this order and this order has thus become final. (d) Learning that the State through the 3rd respondent is out to interfere with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of the lands and 3rd respondent was proceeding to assign the lands to third parties, the petitioners filed W.P.No.11064 of 2005. This writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 10-05-2005 directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners except by following the due process of law. The petitioners were also granted liberty to seek appropriate remedy for establishing their title over the lands. (e) While so, the petitioners received the impugned notice dated 21-06-2005 issued in purported exercise of the power under Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (T.A.) Land Revenue Act, 1317-Fasli (for short ‘the Land Revenue Act’) and Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short the ‘Pattadar Passbooks Act’). The impugned notice apart from the lands claimed by the petitioners included certain lands in other survey numbers as well, the relevance of which is not apparent to the petitioners. The Basis for seeking the Writ of Prohibition: The 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain a revision against the order dated 31-03-2005 of the Commissioner and Director of Settlement and the Jagir Administrator, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, passed under the provisions of the Regulation 1358-F. The impugned notice fails to indicate which proceedings are sought to be revised or reviewed by the 1st respondent; and Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act or Section 9 of the Pattadar Passbooks Act are inapplicable and do not authorize any enquiry into the matter. There is an inherent want of jurisdiction and the respondents have no authority under the provisions of theRegulation 1358-F; and the reference (in the impugned notice) to the provisions of Section 9 of the Pattadar Passbooks Act is equally misconceived -- hence the Writ of Prohibition. COUNTER: - The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit and on behalf of the other official respondents as well, stating: (a) Sultanpalli village is an ex-jagir village of late Mohd. Taher Ali Khan Amee – Rul – Mulk. Later by succession the Jagir devolved on Syed Shahabuddin Hussaini, Syed Karra Hyder Hussaini and Frakrunnissa Begum. (b) The Wasool Baqi Register of the village sets out the name of the Jagirdar as Kathedar in respect of the lands covered by certain survey numbers mentioned in the Wasool Baqi Register, but in the remarks column it is mentioned ‘pattadar is Jagirdar of the village, but actual cultivators are others’. It is further noted that as per the new rules, patta should be transferred in the name of cultivators. Circular No.12 dated 03- 11-1949 clearly stipulates that no jagirdar or hissadar or his relation can enter his name as pattedar, unless the land was personally cultivated by him and that any such entry shall be carefully investigated; that any (grant of) patta for a land, in contravention of Rule 4 of the Rules regarding grant of pattedar rights in non-Khasla village shall be cancelled; and record must show the name of the person who is in actual cultivation. Contrary to the Rules however, the name of the Jagirdar is continued in the revenue records, as pattedar. (c) Historically the Jagirdar was a mere administrator for the purpose of collecting the revenues and to manage the day-to- day affairs. Where the administration of the land revenue and its collection was not directly administered by the erstwhile Government it was administered through intermediaries. The lands directly administered by the Government were termed as Khalsa lands while those administered through intermediaries were termed as non-khalsa lands. The intermediaries included the Jagirdar (and Deshmuk), who used to collect revenue from the area or village within his authority or jurisdiction, retain his commission and remit the balance to the credit of the Government. The lands within the authority of a Jagirdar are Jagir lands and comprise patta lands of cultivators and communal lands. If there is personal cultivation by the Jagirdar, he could be registered as a pattedar. Thus Jagir lands do not per se and in all events belong either to the Jagirdar or to the State. (d) By a notification dated 14-09-1949 by the Military Governor, the Jagirs in Telangana area were abolished and the administration of Jagirs was transferred to the Government of Hyderabad with effect from 28-09-1949. A Provisional Commutation Award was passed by the Jagir Administrator in proceedings dated 07-08-1952 provisionally determining the commutation sum in respect of Sultanpalli village at Rs.60,000- 00. On 21-01-1957 the Final Commutation Award was passed and the payment was received by the beneficiaries, by 31-03- 1965. The payment of Commutation to the Jagirdars was intended to compensate for the loss of income on the abolition of Jagirs. The Jagir lands thus stood converted into Ryotwari settlement under the direct administration of the Government. (e) On the abolition of Jagirs all communal lands vested absolutely in the State. The lands involved in the present writ petition are kancha lands (grazing grass) and are thus vested in the Government. This is evident from the fact that the Tahasildar had auctioned the lands for grass during 1950-51. Aggrieved by the auction, the Jagirdar filed an appeal before the Additional Colelctor claiming that the Kancha lands were recorded as patta in his name. However, the entries in the Wasool Bakhi clearly indicate that the pattedar is the Jagirdar of the village but the actual cultivators are others. Under the Rules, the patta should be transferred in the names of the cultivators. On the basis of such remarks (in the Wasool Bakhi Register), necessary corrections in the final entries in the revenue records should have been made deleting of the name of Jagirdar from the pattedar column. This was however not done. The Additional Collector ingnoring the remarks recorded in the Wasool Bakhi Register erroneously, by an order dated 12-08-1950 (on the appeal filed by the Jagirdar) set aside the auction and held that Kancha lands were recorded as patta lands of the Jagirdar. (f) Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector, the then lessee one Mr. Prabhu Lingam filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board by the order dated 20-07-1951 observed that as the income of the entire Kancha lands was included in the ten years income statement for commuting, a de novo enquiry should be held by the Additional Collector and only lands under the personal cultivation of the Jagirdar should be allowed as patta in his name and the patta of other land should be cancelled as per the Standing Orders. Aggrieved, the Jagirdar preferred a revision before the Government. The Hon’ble Minister for Revenue by the order dated 18-11-1952 upheld the Board’s finding and dismissed the revision. Even the Jagirdar admitted this factual and legal position in his deposition before the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad West in C.C.No. 2941/CH/75, under the provisions of the Agricultural Land Ceilings Act. The Jagirdar however clandestinely sold the lands to various persons. (g) The cultivators of the lands in Sultanpalli village filed O.S.No. 123 of 1981 before the Munsif Magistrate, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District against the Jagirdar for a permanent injunction contending that the Jagirdar was interfering with their possession over land of an extent of Ac.190-02 guntas of the village, in Survey Nos. 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 143 to 150 and 150-A. In the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No. 38 of 2001 and therein obtained are interim injunction. This was made absolute on 24-02-1982. The Jagirdar preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No. 35 of 1982 to District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against the injunction. This appeal was dismissed by the order dated 27- 11-1982 of the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The Jagirdar however continued to sell the lands in question. Consequently there was a conflict between the cultivators and the purchasers. This led to initiating of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in 1983. The Revenue Divisional Officer by an order dated 17-03-1986 ruled in favour of the purchasers despite being informed of the orders of the Civil Court and the injunction orders granted. The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer was challenged before the Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District in Crl.R.P.No. 5 of 1986 by the cultivators. The Sessions Judge, by the order dated 27-08-1987 confirmed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. The order of the Board of Revenue dated 20-07-1951 was however not implemented i.e., by deleting the name of the Jagirdar under the pattedar column. (h) Pursuant to a debate in the Legislative Assembly, a House Committee was constituted in 1987 to enquire into the transfer of lands in Sulthanpalli village. The House Committee submitted its report on 29-08-1988 wherein it is concluded that as the final decision of the Board of Revenue was upheld by the Government in the revision preferred by the Jagirdar, the lands should be treated as Government lands. The House Committee report found a clear lapse on the part of the officers in failing to implement the orders of the Board of revenue. The report concluded that the lands in survey Nos. 122, 126, 143, 150, 152/A, 152/B, 153 and 154 of Sulthanpalli village belong to the Government and recommended that the Government should take appropriate action. (i) The petitioners filed W.P.No. 14257 of 1989 seeking invalidation of the report of the House Committee of the Legislative Assembly. This writ petition was however withdrawn on 04-12-1989. (j) The State Government by a memo dated 21-06-1993 directed the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District to adjudicate, as directed by the order of the Board of Revenue dated 20-07- 1951 and having due regard to the report of the House Committee, on the following points: (i) Whether the Jagir is entitled to ryotwari patta with reference to the land as per the Regulation Act, 1358- F; and (ii) Whether the ryots acquired occupancy rights in respect of lands in their possession. (k) The Joint Collector then issued a notice dated 01-08-1993 to the Jagirdar as well as the purchasers for an enquiry scheduled on 07-09-1993. The petitioners challenged the Joint Collector’s memo in W.P.No. 12631 of 1993. The High Court by the order dated 24-03-2000 allowed the writ petition and declared the memo as without jurisdiction. The Government preferred W.A.No. 732 of 2000. The Division Bench disposed of W.A.No. 732 of 2000 on 11-11-2002, declaring that the factual findings recorded by the learned Single Judge would not bind either the civil Court, the Statutory Forum or other Authority, which may be called upon to decide the issue whether the lands are Jagir and that issue should be decided on the evidence on record before such Court, Forum or Authority. (l) As the issue relating to the character and nature of the lands was left open and undetermined, the State Government directed the 2nd respondent by the proceedings dated 14-10- 2004 to file an application before the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements, Land Records and the Jagir Administrator, for a determination of the character and nature of Sultanpalli lands. The Mandal Revenue Officer filed an appropriate application before the Jagir Administrator on 03-11-2004. This was dismissed by the Jagir Administrator, by the order dated 31-03- 2005. The filing of W.P.No 11064 of 2005 by the writ petitioners, , the order of this Court dated 10-05-2005 in the said writ petition and the issuance of the impugned notice dated 21- 06-2005 are admitted. (m) The impugned notice (dated 21-06-2005) is valid. It is issued exercising powers under Rule 4 of the Rules regarding grant of pattadari rights in non-khalsa villages issued under sub-section (2) of Section 172 of the Land Revenue Act. These rules deal with recognition of pattadars in Jagir tracts. Rule 4 contemplates that the name of the Jagirdar, his hissadar or relation shall not be recorded in the concerned village records as pattedar of any jagir land except in respect of land personally cultivated by him. Any pattas existing in the concerned village records in contravention of these rules shall be cancelled and the name of the person who has actually held the land must be recorded. In this position of the rules, the name of the Jagirdar can be entered in the revenue records as pattedar only when he personally cultivates the lands. In view of the Jagirdar’s admission before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad in C.C.No.2941/Ch/75 (that he is not in possession of the lands); the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 20-07- 1951 declaring that land not in the actual cultivation of the Jagirdar should not be allowed to continue as patta and pattas of other lands should be cancelled, the Jagirdar or his successors have no right as the lands are already vested with the Government. Further, the Board of Revenue had categorically declared these lands as Kancha lands. Also Kancha lands being communal lands always vest with the Government and neither the Jagirdar nor the subsequent purchasers from the Jagirdar can claim any title over them. C.C.Sr.No. 6052 of 2005: This contempt case is filed by V. Tulsiram (1st petitioner in W.P.No. 14038 of 2005) to punish the respondents for committing contempt of the order of this Court dated 04-10-2005 in Crl.M.P.No. 2128 of 2005 in Crl.R.C.No. 1651 of 2005. According to the contempt petitioner, despite the interim order of this Court dated 04-10-2005 in Crl.R.C.No. 1651 of 2005 (staying the operation of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District dated 22- 09-2005 ordering attachment and appointing a receiver to the lands); though the petitioner appeared before the respondent on 29-10-2005 and sought release of his property from attachment, the respondent did not handover the possession and on the other hand some unknown persons were permitted to interfere with the boundary stones and the existing crop over the land. The contempt case was filed along with an application – C.A.No.1085 of 2005 – seeking leave to file the contempt case against the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District and the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh (arrayed as respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the contempt case – but who are not respondents in Crl.R.C.No.1651 of 2005). In paragraph No.4 of the affidavit filed in support of Contempt Application No. 1085 of 2005, the contempt petitioner pleads that at the behest of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the 1st respondent initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and it is these respondents (respondent Nos. 3 and 4) who are responsible for failing to restore possession of the lands to the petitioner. Crl.R.C.No.1651 of 2005: The petitioners in W.P.No.14038 of 2005 have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 22-09-2005 of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate-cum-Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District (the 3rd respondent in the writ petition). The order dated 22-09-2005 initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. this is an order of attachment of the lands and was passed under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C., appointing the Mandal Revenue Officer as the receiver. In view of the several proceedings referred to by the petitioners in the writ petition (W.P.No. 14038 of 2005), the petitioners assert to be the owners and to be in lawful possession of the