THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. Nos. 21488 and 21629 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Both the writ petitions are filed seeking Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No.B2/2682/2009 dated 22.8.2009 on the file of 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is common, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by common order. W.P. No. 21629 of 2009: Under the impugned order dated 22.8.2009, the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Hyderabad allowed the application filed by respondents 4 and 5 (respondents 5 and 6 in W.P. No. 21488 of 2009) seeking correction of the entries made in Column Nos. 20 and 22 of TSLR in respect of S.No.32 of Asifnagar village and Mandal, Hyderabad District. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.7-00 in S.No.32 of Saber Nagar, Asifnagar village and Mandal, Hyderabad, which was purchased by him for a valuable consideration from one Habeeb Idrus. Further, he had filed O.S. 79 of 1998 on the file of learned II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 19.6.1986, against Shareefa Zubaida, who was the wife of his vendor. However, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and the same was recorded by the Court. Thus he became the owner and possessor of the subject land by virtue of the compromise decree dated 2.5.1998. While that being so, the wife of the vendor of the petitioner Smt. Sharifa Subeda filed a collusive application before 3rd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad suppressing the fact of sale and sought for granting O.R.C. for the land belonging to the petitioner, admeasuring Ac.7-00, in her favour. Thereafter, respondents 4 and 5 filed an implead petition before respondent No.3. In the said application, Sharifa Subeda colluded with them and withdrawn her claim, thus favouring respondents 3 and 4. Therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal in File No. B2/6563/03 before 2nd respondent, and 2nd respondent was pleased to grant interim orders suspending the orders of respondent No.3. During the pendency of the said appeal before 2nd respondent, all the parties entered into a compromise to settle the matter out of the Court and respondents 4 and 5, in terms of the compromise pending in O.S. No. 79 of 1998, agreed and undertaken to release 1000 Sq. yards of land and to pay Rs.80.00 lakhs to the petitioner. They had executed a Memorandum of Understanding 21.4.2005 in this regard and in fact this was entered and executed though the land value was below Rs.1000/- per Sq. yard. On the strength of the said Memorandum of Understanding, the petitioner filed a Memo to withdraw the appeal before 2nd responden. Respondent No.2 allowed the appeal duly canceling the O.R.Cs., issued in favour of respondents 4 and 5 and remanded the matter to respondent No.3, for fresh disposal. However, respondents 4 and 5 turned down their compromise on account of escalation of price and filed W.P. No. 9070 of 2006 on the file of this Court, suppressing all the facts, and this Court allowed the said writ petition on 6.4.2009, taking into consideration the letter filed by the petitioner to withdraw the appeal before 2nd respondent, and set aside the orders of respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed W.A. No. 661 of 2009 and a Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 26.8.2009, disposed of the said appeal permitting the petitioner to file review petition before the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 9070 of 2006. The said review petition is still pending. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the impugned order dated 22.8.2009 was passed. Therefore, this writ petition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is an interested person and, as required under the law, he should have been put on notice, but, no notice of any kind was served on him. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contended that in view of the above noticed facts of compromise between the parties including withdrawal of the appeal by the petitioner, he cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate the same thing and, if really the petitioner is aggrieved, he has to work out the remedies in the pending review petition. From the above facts, it is clear that O.R.C. was granted in favour of respondents 4 and 5. May be, the petitioner was not a party, but having filed an appeal before the appellate authority, he withdrew the same by compromising the matter and later filed writ petition and the writ petition was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, he has filed an appeal and the appeal was disposed of permitting the petitioner to file review petition in the writ petition. In these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled for any notice. The petitioner, having filed an appeal against the O.R.C. granted in favour of respondents 4 and 5, withdrew the same with eyes wide open. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was entitled for any notice while passing the impugned order for correction of the entries in the revenue records as per the O.R.C. granted by the R.D.O. concerned. The whole basis for passing of the impugned order is the O.R.C. issued in favour of respondents 4 and 5. Therefore, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner, strictly speaking, is not entitled for any notice and no principles of natural justice are said to have been violated while passing the impugned order. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. However, this will not preclude the petitioner from working out the remedies as available under the law. W.P. No. 21448 of 2009: In this writ petition, the issue is with regard to Ac.5- 05 guntas in S.No.32 situated at Asif Nagar village and Mandal. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in this writ petition strenuously contended that Balaji Singh i.e. the father of petitioners 2 and 3 is no more and no notice of any kind was issued to the said Balaji Singh though Balaji Singh was made as a party to the proceedings before 2nd respondent. In fact, he died even prior to filing of the said application before 2nd respondent, but no notices were served on the legal heirs. The brother of Balaji Singh, namely, Bhagwan Singh filed a memo before 2nd respondent, stating that Balaji Singh is no more and his legal heirs are there and without hearing the legal heirs, the case shall not be proceeded with. A peculiar stand seems to have been adopted by Bhagwan Singh. What prevented the legal heirs and why Bhagwan Singh did not inform the legal heirs at that point of time is not known. Be that as it may, under the impugned order, correction of revenue entries was directed as per the O.R.C. granted in favour of respondents 5 and 6. So far as the O.R.C. granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad Division is concerned, it is seen, as noticed in the earlier writ petition, that Balaji Singh compromised the matter by way of filing an affidavit before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the said compromise was recorded and the O.R.C. was granted in favour of respondents 5 and 6. Thereafter, respondents 5 and 6 filed an application seeking correction of the entries in the revenue records on the basis of the O.R.C. issued in their favour. Thus, Balaji Singh was a party to the proceedings in the O.R.C. and he participated in full and no interest of Balaji Singh is subsisting as of today. If the petitioners have any grievance as to the very grant of O.R.C. in favour of respondents 5 and 6, it is always open for them to work out the remedies as available to them under the law. In so far as the impugned order is concerned, whether the petitioners were put on notice, would make no difference. Under those circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. However, it is made clear that the petitioners are entitled to work out the remedies, as available to them under the law. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 16-12-2009. Note: Issue copies in 10 days. (BO) MVB.