THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1121 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners seek the relief of declaration that the letter dated 05.12.2009 issued by the office of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, 1st respondent herein is illegal and arbitrary. Through the said letter, the 1st respondent called for a detailed report from the Land Reforms Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, 2nd respondent herein as to the inaction for a period of 14 years in the matter of taking action in pursuance of the orders passed by the Tribunal itself, way back on 23.03.1995. The petitioners contend that their father by name Nizamuddin held various extents of land including those in Survey Nos.463 and 474 of Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, admeasuring Ac.4.03 cents and Ac.9.40 cents respectively. It is stated that the owner of their neighbouring land by name Gulam Ahmed filed C.C.C.A. wrongly showing the land in those two survey numbers and the same was declared as surplus. Possession thereof was also taken and it is stated to have been assigned to others. Narrating these and other facts, the petitioners approached the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Ranga Reddy District by filing L.R.A.No.2 of 1989. The appeal was allowed through order, dated 29.01.1991 and the matter was remanded to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent in turn passed an order dated 23.03.1995 directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to restore the possession of the land to the petitioners. The Revenue Divisional Officer in turn addressed letter, dated 19.02.2009 to the 1st respondent stating that four assignees, including impleaded respondents 5 and 6 herein, are in possession of the land. It is in this context that the 1st respondent addressed the impugned letter. The petitioners submit that despite the directions issued by the 1st respondent for restoration of the possession, no steps were taken and instead of taking immediate action, the 1st respondent has simply called for a report. On behalf of respondents 1 to 4, a detailed counter affidavit is filed. Mention is made to various proceedings referred to above. It is stated that in the enquiries made at a later stage, it emerged that the impleaded respondents herein made their own claims vis-à-vis the land, and that as of now, O.S.No.487 of 1995 is pending. The impleaded parties filed separate counter affidavit. According to them, the petitioners have misled the revenue authorities, the 2nd respondent and the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and obtained orders by playing fraud. They contend that the petitioners themselves filed O.S.No.396 of 1969 in the Court of V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against Mr.Gulam Ahmed and others for partition in respect of various items including the lands in Survey Nos.463 and 474 and when the suit was dismissed, C.C.C.A.No.204 of 1974 was filed before this Court. It is stated that on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court passed a preliminary decree, recognizing half share of each of the parties in all the items. They contend that O.S.No.487 of 1995 was also filed by the petitioners, in the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District is still pending and they figured as defendants in the suit. In addition to that, they contend that the assignment made in their favour was in recognition of their status as tenants and that there is no mistake as to the identity of the land. Heard Sri Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Sri A.Pulla Reddy and Sri B.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the impleaded parties. The petitioners initially approached the Land Reforms Tribunal, by taking the plea that their land in Survey Nos. 463 and 474 was wrongly included in the declaration filed by Mr. Gulam Ahmed and that by treating it as surplus land, possession thereof was taken. Neither Gulam Ahmed nor the assignees of the said land were made parties to the L.R.A. Simply by accepting the contention of the petitioners, the appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the order under appeal and remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent. After remand, the 2nd respondent did not choose to implead the affected parties. For all practical purposes, it just went by the version put forward by the petitioners. For the reasons best known to them, the petitioners did not make any mention as to pendency of O.S.No.487 of 1995 either before the appellate Tribunal or before the 2nd respondent or before this Court. A perusal of the plaint in that suit discloses that there is serious dispute among the sharers within the family and outsiders as to the rights over vast extent of the property including the land in those two survey numbers. The subsequent proceedings issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector are based upon the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in 1995. Apart from accepting the contention of the petitioners, the 2nd respondent directed that the land be restored to them, without even considering the claims of the persons, who are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The impleaded parties submit that they came to know about these proceedings for the first time when they were sought to be evicted on the basis of interim orders passed in this writ petition. Since it emerged that the 2nd respondent passed an order in favour of the petitioners without giving opportunity to the affected parties and implementation of the same would result in eviction of the impeladed parties from the land, this Court is of the view that even now, the impleaded parties can either seek review of the order passed by the 2nd respondent or pursue further remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that it shall be open to the impeladed parties, who are assignees of the land in Survey Nos. 463 and 474 of Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District or their legal representative, to canvass their rights vis-à-vis the order, dated 23.03.1995, passed by the 2nd respondent. In case, such proceedings are initiated within eight weeks from today, they shall be treated as having been presented within the period of limitation. Pending such exercise, no steps shall be taken for enforcement of the said orders. The interim order, dated 28.01.2010 is recalled. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 24.08.2010 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. (B/o) JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1121 of 2010 Date: 24.08.2010 JSU