ORDER : M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. The background facts The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition challenging order dt.13.02.2007 in Case No.D5/3705/2006 passed by the Joint Collector-II, Ranga Reddy District (1st respondent) setting aside the order dt.16.02.2006 in File No.B/1249/05 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (3rd respondent) exercising suo moto Revisional powers under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’) in relation to land of extent Acs.4.20 gts. in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Petitioners also seek a direction that the condition imposed by the 3rd respondent in his order dt.16.02.2006 in Proceedings No.B/1249/05 that petitioners should file declaration under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and further stating that his order is subject to the provisions of the said Act as well as A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, be set aside. 2. Petitioners purchased the said land of Acs.4.20 gts. admeasuring Acs.4.20 gts. in Sy.No.80/A of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from I. Sudarshan Rao and 30 others including M/s.Goldstone Engineering Ltd under a regd.sale deed dt.18.10.2005. 3. It is the contention of petitioners that the said property is part of C.S.No.14 of 1958 pending on the file of the High Court; that a preliminary decree was passed on 28.06.1963; that their vendors had become absolute owners of Acs.125.00 in Sy.No.80/A of Hafeezpet Village by virtue of various orders passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in C.S.no.14 of 1958 in their favour as well as in favour of their predecessors; that possession had been delivered to their vendors by the bailiff of the District Court, Ranga Reddy on 19.04.1999 in E.P.No.8 of 1999; and out of the said extent, they alienated Acs.4.20 gts. to the petitioners under the above sale deed dt.18.10.2005. The order dt.16.2.2006 in proceedings No.No.B/1249/2005 of 3rd respondent 4. Petitioners made an application for mutation of their names in the Revenue Records before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and on 16.02.2006, in Proceedings No.B/1249/2005, he passed orders granting mutation in favour of the petitioners and directed to affect changes by amendment in the Record of Rights Register of Hafeezpet Village by changing the nomenclature of the land in Sy.No.80 of Acs.4.20 gts. from Government land (Gairan Sarkari) to Patta, subject to the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, and he also directed the petitioners to file declarations before the Special Officer and Competent Authority under Section 15(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Other events between 2005 & 2007 5. Initially, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division (2nd respondent) took up a suo moto appeal and suspended the orders dt.16.2.2006 in Proceedings No.B/1249/2005of the 3rd respondent. 6. Petitioners questioned the same in W.P.No.11637 and 12166 of 2006. The Writ Petitions were allowed on 07.07.2006 and the orders passed by the 2nd respondent on 31.05.2006 were set aside holding that there is no suo moto power conferred on the 2nd respondent to entertain any appeal against the proceedings or orders of the recording authority (3rd respondent). The orders passed by the 1st respondent on 13.02.2007 in exercise of suo moto Revisional powers 7. Thereafter, the 1st respondent exercised suo moto Revisional powers invoking Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, and suspended the orders passed by the 3rd respondent on 16.02.2006 initially; and then after hearing the petitioners passed orders on 13.02.2007 in Case No.D5/3705/2006 setting aside the order passed by the 3rd respondent. 8. In his order, the 1st respondent rejected the plea of petitioners that the subject land does not come within the ambit of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 on the ground that it falls within the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration. He held that Rule 9 of the Rules framed under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 lays down that sanction of mutation/change of entry in Revenue Records should not be in contravention of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976; that the said Act provides for a ceiling on the land holding of a person in Urban areas and the surplus holding has to be determined with reference to the notified date of 28.01.1976; and on that date, the lands claimed by petitioners are recorded in the Revenue Records as Government lands. 9. 9. He held that this land forms part of the lands in respect of which a preliminary decree was passed in C.S.No.14 of 1958 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh; that petitioners were tracing their title from decree holders in C.S.No.14 of 1958 and it should be determined first as to who were the land holders on 28.01.1976; that this has not been done and it is therefore not clear as to whether this land would form part of ceiling surplus or retainable area land holding of the land holders as on 28.01.1976; and so, effecting mutation of these lands before the determination of surplus holding under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 would be in violation of Rule 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989. 10. He observed that the appropriate course of action is to refer the petitioners to the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling to first determine the landholders as on the date 28.01.1976, determine the ceiling aspect with reference to the land holders as on the crucial date, and only if the land forms part of the retainable area, mutation would be possible, provided the lands are put to agricultural use and all other conditions prescribed in the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the Rules framed thereunder are satisfied. 11. He held that the 3rd respondent had effected mutation without reference to the Urban Land Ceiling angle and his order is violative of Rule 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989. 12. He also observed that the said Act applies in respect of agricultural lands, but in the instant case, they have been shown all along to be Government lands in the Revenue Records and the very applicability of the said Act is in doubt. 13. He also stated that the total extent of Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village is Acs.484.31 gts., that mutation is sought by petitioners only in respect of Acs.4.20 gts., that no sub-division was carried out in respect of this portion, and so, the land for which mutation is sought has not been localized or identified properly. According to him, effecting mutation of indeterminate and undefined parcel of land in respect of which no sub-division is made, is not in order. The present Writ Petition : 14. According to him, effecting mutation of indeterminate and undefined parcel of land in respect of which no sub-division is made, is not in order. The present Writ Petition : 14. Petitioners challenge the said order dt.13.2.2007 of the 1st respondent in proceedings No.D5/3705/2006 in this writ Petition. 15. They contend that the 1st respondent, while exercising power under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 cannot go into the question of filing declarations under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 since he is not an authority under the said Act and it is for the competent authority under the Act to conclude as to whether the petitioners are surplus land holders under the said Act by issuing a notification under Section 10(3) of the said Act. 16. It is contended that the claim of the State of Andhra Pradesh to the land in Hafeezpet Village was rejected in C.S.No.14 of 1958 on several occasions in the past, and therefore the question of filing any declaration under the said Act by the petitioners does not arise. 17. It is further contended that the application of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 would not arise after the repeal of the said Act by the adoption of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 vide G.O.Ms.No.603, Revenue (UC-1) Department dt.22.04.2008 by the State of Andhra Pradesh because possession of the land was not with the State Government before the said date, and such possession had been handed over to the vendor of petitioners on 19.04.1999 in E.P.No.8 of 1999 by the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District (Ex.P14) and at this point of time the said issue of application of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 has become redundant. 18. It is also contended that the 1st respondent/Revisional Authority is not concerned about the location and boundaries of the land; that neither pattadar pass book nor title deeds contained boundaries of the land for which they are issued; that the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act was only to update the record and not pass on the title and localization/demarcation to the Application; and therefore, the other reason spelt out in the impugned order would be unsustainable. 19. 19. They contend that since the nature of the lands being agricultural in nature, the order of mutation passed by 3rd respondent authority is in strict compliance with the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and Rules made thereunder; that the said orders are nothing but implementation of a decree passed by a competent Court; and in such circumstances, the 1st respondent authority neither has any authority nor jurisdiction to set aside the orders passed by exercising suo moto powers. The interim order dt.17.04.2007 granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.10073 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.7839 of 2007 : 20. On 17.04.2007, the Writ Petition was admitted and in W.P.M.P.No.10073 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.7839 of 2007, this Court suspended the operation of the order dt.13.02.2007 in Case No.B5/3705/2006 passed by the 1st respondent on condition that petitioners should not change the land use nor create any third-party right or enter into any sort of agreement with the third-party. I.A.No.1 of 2021 in Writ Petition No.7839 of 2007 21. The petitioners subsequently filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 to receive copy of final decree dt.17.12.2012 in Application No.142 of 2011 passed in C.S.No.14 of 1958 in respect of Acs.4.20 gts. in Sy.No.80/A of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of petitioners. 22. Since the said decree had been issued by this Court in favour of the petitioners in relation to the subject land, the said I.A.No.1 of 2021 is allowed and the said document is received by the Court for consideration by it. The stand of the respondents 23. The respondents filed a counter affidavit in November, 2017 and an additional counter affidavit in March,2021. 24. To avoid repetition, we shall refer to the plea therein as under. The consideration by the Court 25. Sri V. Srinivas, advocate appearing for Sri A.Narasimha Rao, counsel for the petitioners and Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents were heard at length on 10.03.2021 and 31.03.2021 and orders were reserved. The Civil Suit No.14 of 1958 26. Before we consider the submissions of the parties, we may point out that the land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village is of total extent Acs.484.30 gts and it is part of extent of Ac.1210.00 mentioned in Item No.37 of Schedule IV in C.S.No.14 of 1958. 27. The Civil Suit No.14 of 1958 26. Before we consider the submissions of the parties, we may point out that the land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village is of total extent Acs.484.30 gts and it is part of extent of Ac.1210.00 mentioned in Item No.37 of Schedule IV in C.S.No.14 of 1958. 27. One Smt. Dildarunnissa Begum had filed O.S.41/1955-56 on file of the Court of additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for partition of the Matruka properties of Nawab Khursheed Jah, a Paigah, who had died in 1902. 28. The said suit was withdrawn and taken on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and renumbered as C.S.No.14 of 1958. Hafeezpet patta lands comprising a compact area comprising Ac.1210 acres were mentioned at item No.37 of Schedule IV to the plaint. 29. The State of Andhra Pradesh was impleaded as defendant No.53 in CS No.14 of 1958 and the Jagir Administrator of the Government of Hyderabad was impleaded as defendant No.43 in the said suit. 30. A preliminary decree was passed on 28.06.1963 holding that this item is available for partition if they are released by the Government. 31. The State of Andhra Pradesh filed Application No.44/1982 seeking amendment of the preliminary decree dt.28.6.1963 and sought deletion of item Nos.35 to 38 and 40 of Schedule-IV of the preliminary decree (including Hafeezpet village) contending that the said decree was not in consonance with the judgment and the said properties were not divisible and they belonged to it. 32. On 18-12-1982, Application No.44/1982 was dismissed by this Court holding that the decree was in consonance with the judgment. 33. O.S.A.No.1 of 1985 was filed by the State Government against the order dt.18-12-1982 in Application No.44/1982. 34. On 24-12-1999, O.S.A.No.1 of 1985 filed by the State Government was dismissed by this Court. 35. The State challenged the order in O.S.A.No.1 of 1985 before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No.7052 of 2000, but it was withdrawn on 05-05-2000 by informing the Supreme Court that the State would file a regular appeal against the preliminary decree dt.28-06-1963 in C.S.No.14 of 1958 along with application for condonation of delay. 36. O.S.A. (SR) No.3526 of 2000 was filed by the State against the preliminary decree dt.28-06-1963 along with application for condonation of delay of more than 38 years. 36. O.S.A. (SR) No.3526 of 2000 was filed by the State against the preliminary decree dt.28-06-1963 along with application for condonation of delay of more than 38 years. It was specifically contended by the State that the properties are Inam lands, that they belong to the Government and were not partible. The said O.S.A.(SR) was dismissed on 07-02-2001 by a Division Bench of this Court. 37. S.L.P. (C) Nos.10622-10623 of 2001 was filed against the order dt.07-02-2001 in O.S.A. (SR) No.3526 of 2000. They were dismissed on 16-07-2001. 38. Thus, the challenge of the State of Andhra Pradesh to the preliminary decree dated 28.06.1963 in CS No.14 of 1958 miserably failed. 39. So we are not adjudicating in this Writ Petition the title to land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village which the petitioners are claiming through the parties in C.S.No.14 of 1958, vis-à-vis the State of Telangana, the successor of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Such adjudication adverse to the State of Andhra Pradesh, it’s predecessor, having already occurred as above, such adjudication binds the State of Telangana too and we are merely taking note of it and applying it. 40. We may also record that the claim of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the predecessor of the State of Telangana to the land in Hafeezpet Village has been rejected at least 6 times in proceedings arising out of C.S.No.14 of 1958 as mentioned below in the table, for the 7th time most recently on 15.12.2020 in W.P.No.19303 of 2016 and W.P.4311 of 2020 and later again for the 8th time on 30.03.2021 in W.P.Nos.20707 of 2018, W.P.No.9709 of 2020 and W.P.No.12548 of 2020: S.NO. DATE PARTICULARS 1 1955 One Mrs. Dildarunnisa Begum, has filed suit for partition of Matruka Properties of Nawab Kursheed Jah Paigah. The State of Andhra Pradesh, the predecessor of the State of Telangana, was Defendant No.53 and it’s Jagir Administrator was Defendant no.43 and they have contested the suit taking a plea by claiming title over the properties mentioned in the plaint schedules including Schedule IV. 2 28-06-1963 The High Court of Andhra Pradesh rejected the plea of the State and passed a preliminary decree. 3 05.07.1974 The order of the High Court in Appln. No.19 & 114 of 1973, directing the Government to deliver the suit schedule item 37 lands to the Receiver-cum-Commissioners. 2 28-06-1963 The High Court of Andhra Pradesh rejected the plea of the State and passed a preliminary decree. 3 05.07.1974 The order of the High Court in Appln. No.19 & 114 of 1973, directing the Government to deliver the suit schedule item 37 lands to the Receiver-cum-Commissioners. FIRST TIME LITIGATION TO SUPREME COURT 4 18-12-1982 The State of Andhra Pradesh filed Appln.No.44 of 1982 for amendment of the decree to delete the suit schedule item Nos.37 (lands in SNo.77, 78, 80 of Hafeezpet village) of Schedule-IV from the suit schedule by contending that the lands are Inam Lands and are not available for partition. The contention of the State was rejected and the application was dismissed. 5 24-12-1999 Against the orders passed in Appln.No.44 of 1982, appeal in OSA No.1 of 1985 was filed before the Division Bench and the said appeal was dismissed. 6 2000 The State Government carried the matter to the Supreme Court challenging the orders passed in O.S.A.No.1 of 1985, and later on, it withdrew the SLP with a permission to challenge the preliminary decree. SECOND TIME LITIGATION TO SUPREME COURT 7 17-02-2001 The State Government then filed appeal in O.S.A.Sr.Nos.3526 & 3527 of 2000, challenging the preliminary decree by contending that the lands are Inam lands. The said appeal was dismissed. (pages 127 - 143 of the paper book filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.20707 of 2018) 8 16-07-2001 Aggrieved by the above orders dt.17-02-2001, the State Government had filed SLP.Nos.10622 and 10623 of 2001 and the same were dismissed. Thus the preliminary decree was confirmed by the Supreme Court. (Page 144 of paper book filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.20707 of 2018) THIRD TIME LITIGATION TO SUPREME COURT 9 24-08-2001 Thereafter when there are alienations by the sharers by way of assignment deeds, with regard to the suit schedule item No.37 (which contains Hafeezpet village), the State filed O.S.A.Nos.19 to 26 of 2001, challenging the orders of recognition of assignment deeds and the orders of impleadment of the purchasers as defendants in the suit. The grounds taken were that the lands are Inam lands and the lands were not released by the Government. But rejecting the said contention, the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeals. The grounds taken were that the lands are Inam lands and the lands were not released by the Government. But rejecting the said contention, the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeals. 10 08-04-2002 Aggrieved by the above said orders of the Division Bench dt.24-08-2001, the State filed SLP.Nos.4463 to 4470 before the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed. 11 2003 After dismissal of the above SLP, the State had filed Review Petitions before the High Court in O.S.A.Nos.19 to 26 to Review the orders, but the same were dismissed by holding that the lands are paigah patta lands. Thus it is confirmed that the lands are released and the lands are available for partition belong to decree holders. 12 05-11-2004 After exhausting the legal battle, the State had constituted a High Level Committee, and finally, after obtaining the opinions of the said committee, CCLA and the Advocate General, the State had issued Memo directing the District Collector to grant mutations in respect of the suit schedule lands. (Pages 146 – 147 paper book filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.20707 of 2018) FOURTH TIME LITIGATION TO SUPREME COURT 13 26-04-1999 As per the orders passed in W.P.No.10605 of 1997 the lands in Hasmathpet (also in item 37 of plaint in the CS) were identified and declared as lands belonging to Paigah Kursheed Jahi and are available for partition. 14 11-03-2004 Aggrieved by the orders in the above W.P., the Government filed W.A.No.2222/2003 and the same was dismissed. 15 05-01-2005 The orders in the above W.A. were challenged in SLP.NO.11996/2004, before the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed. (Page 167 of the paper book filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.20707 of 2018) FIFTH TIME LITIGATION TO SUPREME COURT 16 2007 After dismissal of SLP, the State had filed Review WPMP Nos.11425 & 11426 of 2006 in W.P.No.10605/97 and the said Review petitions were also dismissed. 17 08-02-2008 Aggrieved by the orders in Review Petitions 11425 & 11426 of 2006, the State filed SLP CC 1574 of 2008 and the same was dismissed. Thus the lands covered by the suit schedule lands in C.S.No.14 of 1958 are declared as patta lands. 17 08-02-2008 Aggrieved by the orders in Review Petitions 11425 & 11426 of 2006, the State filed SLP CC 1574 of 2008 and the same was dismissed. Thus the lands covered by the suit schedule lands in C.S.No.14 of 1958 are declared as patta lands. (Page 177 of the paper book filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.20707 of 2018) 18 18-05-2009 Memo No.59734/JA.1/2005 was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (JA) Department, stating that the lands covered under Schedule –IV & IV-A of suit schedule properties of C.S.No.14/1958 have been released by the Government and it further directed the District Collector to mutate the names of the Final Decree Holders in the Revenue Records. (Pages 178-179 of the paper book filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.20707 of 2018) 19 21-05-2010 In compliance of the above Government Memo, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy vide Ltr.No:LC1/356/2010 directed the concerned Tahsildars to implement the Government Memo by taking necessary action for cancellation of assignment if any as per Court orders and orders of the Government on the lands covered by C.S.No:14/58 subject to final decree passed duly following the rules that are in force. (Page 180 of the paper book filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.20707 of 2018) SIXTH TIME AGAINST FINAL DECREE IN SY.NO.78 & 80 OF HAFEEZPET LANDS 20 31-03-2010 Final decree was passed in respect of the subject lands in Sy.No.78 of Hafeezpet village in Appln.No.239 & 517 of 2009. 21 30-04-2013 The final decree was challenged by the State by filing O.S.A.Sr.No.3875 of 2012 & batch and the same were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court. 22 15-09-2010 Application No.420 of 2010 was filed for passing of final decree in respect of the lands to an extent of Ac.116-00 guntas in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village. The same was dismissed by a learned Single judge by holding that the lands are not available for partition in view of Inam/Jagir Abolition Regulations. 23 01-02-2011 The orders of the learned single Judge were appealed in O.S.A.No.18 of 2010. By setting aside the orders of the learned single Judge, the final decree was passed in O.S.A.No.18/2010 by a Division Bench. 23 01-02-2011 The orders of the learned single Judge were appealed in O.S.A.No.18 of 2010. By setting aside the orders of the learned single Judge, the final decree was passed in O.S.A.No.18/2010 by a Division Bench. 24 2011 Aggrieved by the above final decree, the State had filed SLP.22420 of 2011 before the Supreme Court on the ground that the lands are Inam Althmagha lands as per the Inam Enquiry, and the lands are not released by the Government as held in the decree, and hence the lands are not available for partition. Hence, the final decree cannot be passed. 25 26-11-13 The SLP was dismissed. Thus the final decree had become final and the decree holders in the suit in C.S.No.14 of 1958 have became title holders against the Government in respect of all the items relating to the suit in C.S.No.14 of 1958. 41. None of these facts are disputed by the Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondents. 42. The claim by the State of Telangana of the right, title or interest as regards lands in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village in the additional counter affidavit filed by it in this Writ Petition, in our opinion, amounts to a collateral attack on the adverse finding about it’s predecessor State of Andhra Pradesh’s title in C.S.No.14 of 1958. 43. Can the State of Telangana make such collateral attack and overcome the adverse finding given by the A.P. High Court about it’s predecessor’s title in C.S.No.14 of 1958 ? 44. In Rafique Bibi v. Sayed Waliuddin, (2004) 1 SCC 287 , at page 291, the Supreme Court held: “8.….A decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be denuded of its efficacy by any collateral attack or in incidental proceedings.” 45. In Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties, (2020) 6 SCC 557 , the Supreme Court reiterated: “21. ….When the court has the power to inquire into the facts, apply the law, render binding judgment, and enforce it, the court has jurisdiction. Judgment within a jurisdiction has to be immune from collateral attack on the ground of nullity. It has co-relation with the constitutional and statutory power of tribunal or court to hear and determine. It means the power or capacity fundamentally to entertain, hear, and determine.” (emphasis supplied) 46. Judgment within a jurisdiction has to be immune from collateral attack on the ground of nullity. It has co-relation with the constitutional and statutory power of tribunal or court to hear and determine. It means the power or capacity fundamentally to entertain, hear, and determine.” (emphasis supplied) 46. Also, a decision of the A.P. High Court regarding the lack of title of the State Government cannot be questioned, because it is a Court of record. 47. As held in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1 , the High Court is a Superior Court Of Record and under Article 215 shall have all powers of such a Court Of Record including the power to punish contempt of itself. One distinguishing characteristic of such Superior Courts is that they are entitled to consider questions of their jurisdiction raised before them. In the case of a Superior Court Of Record, it is for the court to consider whether any matter falls within its jurisdiction or not. Unlike a court of limited jurisdiction, the Superior Court is entitled to determine for itself questions about its own jurisdiction. The Supreme Court referred to a passage from Halsbury’s Laws of England where it is observed that “prima facie, no matter is deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of a superior court unless it is expressly shown to be so, while nothing is within the jurisdiction of an inferior court unless it is expressly shown on the face of the proceedings that the particular matter is within the cognizance of the particular court”. If the decision of a Superior Court on a question of its jurisdiction is erroneous, it can, of course, be corrected by appeal or revision as may be permissible under the law; but until the adjudication by a Superior Court on such a point is set aside by adopting the appropriate course, it would not be open to be corrected by the exercise of the Writ jurisdiction of this Court. 48. In view of the same, in our considered opinion, it is not open to the State of Telangana, which is the successor of the State of Andhra Pradesh, to re-agitate the question of title to lands in Hafeezpet village and claim such title. 48. In view of the same, in our considered opinion, it is not open to the State of Telangana, which is the successor of the State of Andhra Pradesh, to re-agitate the question of title to lands in Hafeezpet village and claim such title. It is also not open to the State of Telangana to collaterally attack the preliminary decree which is being relied upon by the petitioners against it, when its attempts to directly challenge it have failed in this Court as well as in the Supreme Court. Contention No.(a) 49. Firstly, the learned Additional Advocate General referred to the plea in para-5 of the additional counter affidavit filed by the Additional Collector (FAC), Ranga Reddy District that in the pahani for the year 1952-53, land in Sy.No.80 admeasuring Ac.484.31 gts. situated at Hafeezpet village is shown as Government land classified as “Kancha Sarkari”. The State has also filed several pahanis for the periods from 1955-56 to 2010-11 in support of its plea that the State is shown as enjoyer and pattadar of land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village. Consideration by the Court of Contention No.(a) : 50. It is settled law that mutation of land in revenue records is not evidence of title. In H.Lakshmaiah Reddy Vs. Venkatesh Reddy, (2015) 14 SCC 784 , the Supreme Court held: “8…….The mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and those entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue. The observations of this Court in Balwant Singh case, (1997) 7 SCC 137 are relevant and are extracted below: (SCC p. 142, paras 21-22) “21. We have considered the rival submissions and we are of the view that Mr Sanyal is right in his contention that the courts were not correct in assuming that as a result of Mutation No. 1311 dated 19-7-1954, Durga Devi lost her title from that date and possession also was given to the persons in whose favour mutation was effected. In Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223 , Pattanaik, J., speaking for the Bench has clearly held as follows: (SCC p. 227, para 7) ‘7. … Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. … Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment.’”(emphasis supplied) 51. Thus, assuming that there is an entry in the Pahani of 1952-53 or other pahanis that the land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village is “Kancha Sarkari”, it cannot be held that the State is owner of the said land. Contention No.(b) : 52. Next it is contended that the subject land is a Jagir, that Jagir systems had been abolished with effect from 15.09.1949; and thereafter, the right in a Jagir or Paigah stood extinguished and the property vests in the State Government; and the shareholders in the Jagir/Paigah land are only entitled to payment of commutation which was already awarded by the Jagir Administrator on 15.09.1962. Consideration by the Court of Contention No.(b) : 53. We have already referred to the fact that the State had raised a plea in OSA (SR) no.3526 of 2000, filed by it against the preliminary decree dt.28-6-1963 in CS no.14 of 1958, that the lands were inam lands, that they were not partible and to set aside the preliminary decree on the said basis and the said OSA was dismissed on 7.2.2001 and the said order was also confirmed in SLP.(C).No.10622-10623/2001 on 16.7.2001. 54. The then State of A.P. had also filed Review Applications No.1408-15 of 2001 in OSA.No.19-26 of 2001 in CS No.14 of 1958 raising this very plea and the same was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court on 31.10.2003. (this order was filed pg.218-275 of papers filed by petitioner in W.P.No.12548 of 2020 and batch, already decided by this Court on 30.03.2021) 55. (this order was filed pg.218-275 of papers filed by petitioner in W.P.No.12548 of 2020 and batch, already decided by this Court on 30.03.2021) 55. We may also point out that the land in Survey No.80 and 78 of Hafeezpet Village were allotted to Defendant Nos.157 and 206 in equal halves vide report dt.13.07.1984 of the Advocate-Receiver appointed by this Court in C.S.No.14 of 1958; Defendant No.206 had executed assignment deeds in favour of I. Sudarshan Rao and others and had also given consent for passing of final decree by way of settlement; in Application No.420 of 2010 on 23.06.2010, though a learned Single Judge declined to pass final decree in respect of Ac.115.00 in Sy.No.80/A of Hafeezpet Village, the said order was reversed by a Division Bench in O.S.A.No.18 of 2010 on 01.02.2011 and the Division Bench passed final decree in Application No.420 of 2010 in favour of vendors of the petitioner. In the order dt.01.02.2011 of the Division Bench in O.S.A.No.18 of 2010, it held as under : “In a final decree appeal, the correctness of the preliminary decree cannot be gone into when the appealing party has not filed an independent appeal against the preliminary decree. However, we are afraid that we are bound by the orders that were passed in the suit by co-ordinate Division Benches and the Apex Court and hence we refrain from making any comment about the correctness of the orders. We hold that the State had raised all contentions which include the tenure of the land being Jagir/Inam in the earlier round of litigation and failed. It has also failed in Review Petitions filed by it. The argument of the State that the release orders were not passed as contemplated by the preliminary decree, was also rejected by the co-ordinate Benches. Hence, we hold that the contentions that are canvassed by the State before the learned single Judge and reiterated before us, are devoid of any merit and they stood rejected earlier in the various orders referred by us in the foregoing paragraphs. Finality of a proceeding is the foundational bedrock in a civil litigation and parties cannot be allowed to take defences in piecemeal or by installments from time to time. Thus, viewed from any angle, we are unable to accept the findings of the learned single Judge. Finality of a proceeding is the foundational bedrock in a civil litigation and parties cannot be allowed to take defences in piecemeal or by installments from time to time. Thus, viewed from any angle, we are unable to accept the findings of the learned single Judge. We further hold that the learned single Judge has outstepped the jurisdiction in formulating the points for consideration/issues at a final decree stage. Suffice it to say that the order under appeal is unsustainable in law.” (emphasis supplied) 56. It is also not in dispute that SLP (Civil) No.22420 of 2011 filed by the Jagir Administrator, Government of Andhra Pradesh and another against Burugupally Sivaramakrishna and two others was dismissed on 26.11.2013. 57. In view of the above judgments to which the State Government was a party, it is clear that this point had been urged earlier by the State in applications filed in the very suit CS No.14 of 1958 and it had not had any success. So it is no longer open to it to again raise this plea and re-agitate the issue in these Writ Petitions. Contention No.(c) : 58. In para-6 of the counter, the Additional Collector contended that in the preliminary decree dated 28.06.1963 in CS No.14 of 1958, an extent of Acs.1333.00 gts. was mentioned without giving survey numbers and that Hafeezpet village is mentioned at item No.37 of Schedule – IV. Thus, the State wants to contend that the Schedule in the plaint is vague. Consideration of Contention No.(c) : 59. This point was available to the State when it sought amendment to the preliminary decree in Application No.44 of 1982, but it was not taken and the Application was dismissed on 18.12.1982 and was confirmed in OSA No.12 of 1985 on 24.12.1989. 60. Again it could have raised the said issue in OSA (SR) Nos.3526 and 3527 of 2000 challenging the preliminary decree, but the said appeal was also dismissed on 17.02.2001 and the same was confirmed in SLP Nos.10622 and 10623 of 2001 which were also dismissed on 16.07.2001. 61. 60. Again it could have raised the said issue in OSA (SR) Nos.3526 and 3527 of 2000 challenging the preliminary decree, but the said appeal was also dismissed on 17.02.2001 and the same was confirmed in SLP Nos.10622 and 10623 of 2001 which were also dismissed on 16.07.2001. 61. It cannot be contended that this is a new fact entitling the State, at this point of time, to question the preliminary decree collaterally in this Writ petition, because it was an existing fact from 1955 when the suit was instituted; and when its challenge directly to the preliminary decree failed in OSA (SR) Nos.3526 and 3527 of 2000 which were dismissed on 17.02.2001, such a plea is barred by principles of constructive res judicata. Contention (d) 62. In para-7 of the additional counter, the respondents contend that the compromise and the consequent final decree dt.17.12.2012 in C.S.No.14 of 1958 does not bind the State Government and that it is not open to a few parties to a suit for partition (even if they are in a majority) to compromise the matter between themselves and make self allotment of the properties that they want to take away. Consideration of contention (d) 63. We do not agree with this contention and hold that the State Government, which had lost its claim for title to land in Hafeezpet Village at the stage of preliminary decree itself in C.S.No.14 of 1958 when its OSA (SR) No.3526 and 3527 of 2000 was dismissed on 17.02.2001, which was also confirmed by the Supreme Court on 16.07.2001, cannot take such a plea. It cannot state that it can still claim the land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village on the pretext that the final decree dt.17.12.2012 does not bind it. Contention No.(e) : 64. In para-8, the Additional Collector states that there are no sub-divisions in Sy.No.80 as per Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and so the petitioners cannot claim land in Sy.No.80/A as it does not exist in the revenue records. Consideration by the Court of Contention No.(e): 65. Contention No.(e) : 64. In para-8, the Additional Collector states that there are no sub-divisions in Sy.No.80 as per Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and so the petitioners cannot claim land in Sy.No.80/A as it does not exist in the revenue records. Consideration by the Court of Contention No.(e): 65. In this regard we may point out that the Memorandum of compromise dt.27.11.2010 on the basis of which the final decree dt.17.12.2012 in Application No.14 of 1958 was passed, records that Basheerunnisa Begum and Rasheedunnisa Begum (defendant Nos.334 and 335) are legal representatives of Kazim Nawaz Jung (defendant No.157); that Kazim Nawaz Jung had acquired right, title and interest of all sharers along with M/s.Cyrus Investments Ltd. (defendant No.206); that a scheme for partition was prepared by the Advocate Receiver and the Revenue Divisional Officer in Application No.139/71; that defendants 206, 334 and 335 have mutually divided the entire land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village into equal halves as per orders dt.05.11.1970 passed in Application No.142 of 1970; and in the said internal division Sy.No.80/A was allotted to defendant No.206; and Sy.No.80/B, 80/C and 80/D were allotted to the defendant Nos.334 and 335; and the internal division had nothing to do with the revenue sub-divisions and the said division was confirmed by various orders of the High Court. 66. Under Section 8 (2) of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971, any person who is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights, can institute a civil suit against any person interested to deny his title or denying his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration. 67. Thus, the decision of the Civil Court on the issue of title is binding on the revenue authorities and they should amend the record of rights in tune with the Civil Court’s decision. 68. 67. Thus, the decision of the Civil Court on the issue of title is binding on the revenue authorities and they should amend the record of rights in tune with the Civil Court’s decision. 68. So, the Revenue department officials of the State Government have to give effect to the orders passed in CS No.14 of 1958 and create the subdivisions in Sy.No.80 as per the orders passed by this Court; and since its claim was dismissed even at the stage of preliminary decree, The State of Telangana cannot, on the pretext of there being no revenue sub-division, refuse to implement the orders passed by this Court. 69. We may point out that : (i) for Acs.2.00 in Survey No.80/A (forming part of Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village), orders were passed by the Revenue Authorities vide proceeding No.B/186/2009 dt.29.06.2009 directing mutation of one C. Kalyan, (ii) for Ac.0.27 gts. in Survey No.80/A orders were passed by the Revenue Authorities vide proceedings No.B/184/2009 dt.29.06.2009 in favour of G.B. Rajendra Prasad, and (iii) for Acs.5.00 in Survey No.80/A orders were passed by the Revenue Authorities vide proceedings No.B/187/2009 dt.29.06.2009, in favour of Singanamala Ramesh Babu’s name. This was subject matter of W.P.No.19303 of 2016 and W.P. No.4311 of 2020 where the Revenue Authorities had refused to implement the above orders. The said Writ Petitions were allowed on 15.12.2020 and a direction was given to the Revenue Authorities to implement the above proceedings in the Revenue Records including Pahanies and Record of Rights. The Additional Advocate General himself appeared in those cases and he is well aware of it. 70. In any event, on the pretext of lack of sub-division in the Revenue Records of Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village, the State cannot claim ownership of the said land and refuse to abide by the various orders passed in C.S.No.14 of 1958. Contention (f) and it’s consideration 71. 70. In any event, on the pretext of lack of sub-division in the Revenue Records of Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village, the State cannot claim ownership of the said land and refuse to abide by the various orders passed in C.S.No.14 of 1958. Contention (f) and it’s consideration 71. Regarding the contention of the State in the additional counter affidavit about the setting aside by the Supreme Court on 15.12.2020 of the interim orders passed in W.P.No.12548 of 2020 and W.P.No.20707 of 2018 and remitting the matters back to the High Court is concerned, we may state that on 30.03.2021, the said W.P.No.20707 of 2018 and W.P.No.12548 of 2020 along with W.P.No.9709 of 2020 were allowed with costs by an elaborate order negativing the claim of the State as well as the Telangana State Wakf Board in respect of land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village. In this batch of cases also the Additional Advocate General appeared and he is well aware of it. 72. Even the order dt.16.12.2020 in SLP (Civil) No.13956 of 2020 against the order dt.19.02.2020 in W.P.No.4408 of 2019 shows that the Supreme Court did not interfere with the direction given by the High Court to conduct survey, and the State cannot rely on it. Contention (g) 73. The respondents referred in the counter affidavit to order dt.16.08.2018 of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.11032, 11034 and 11037 of 2018 (which is reported in M/s. Trinity Infra Ventures Limited Vs. State of Telangana, 2018 (6) ALD 160 (DB)) and certain findings/observations made therein. It is sought to be contended that the observations made by the Supreme Court in the said case relating to the validity of the preliminary decree and subsequent proceedings in C.S.No.14 of 1958 are binding on this Court and this Court should follow them. Consideration by the Court of contention (g) 74. It is not in dispute that the above order in M/s. Trinity Infra Ventures Limited (7 supra) was challenged by the said party in the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos.24590-24592 of 2018, and the Supreme Court on 05.10.2018 admittedly passed the following order: “Heard the learned senior counsel for the parties. We are not inclined to interfere at this stage, as final decree is required to be passed. We are not inclined to interfere at this stage, as final decree is required to be passed. As agreed to, we make it clear that the observations made in the impugned order by the High Court shall not be used in any proceedings and shall not influence the High Court to pass final decree in accordance with law. The observations made are hereby diluted. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly, disposed of. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.” 75. Moreover, when the order of the High Court dt.16.08.2018 in W.P.Nos.11032, 11034 and 11037 of 2018 was prohibited to be used in any proceedings by the Supreme Court in the order dt.05.10.2018 in SLP (C) Nos.24590-24592 of 2018, the respondents cannot place any reliance on them. 76. We may also point out that the said order in M/s. Trinity Infra Ventures Limited (7 supra) related to land in Hasmathpet Village and not Hafeezpet Village. 77. Also there are already several final decrees passed in respect of Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village and also in regard to Sy.No.78 of Hafeezpet Village which are mentioned below. Therefore, the said order of the High Court in M/s. Trinity Infra Ventures Limited (7 supra) has no relevance as it relates to land in an altogether different Village, in respect of which it appears that no final decree has been passed yet. Contention (h) : 78. Petitioners have based their claim to the extent of Acs.4.20 gts. in Sy.No.80/A of Hafeezpet Village on a final decree passed on 17.12.2012 in Application No.142 of 2011 in C.S.No.14 of 1958, copy of which has been filed along with I.A.No.1 of 2021 which application is also allowed. Prior thereto, under a registered sale deed dt.18.10.2005, petitioners claim to have purchased this property from I. Sudarshan Rao and 29 others by referring to the events which took place in C.S.No.14 of 1958. 79. It is a matter of record that after the preliminary decree was passed on 28.06.1963, the Decree Holders/Sharers (Plaintiff and Defendants) in C.S.No.14 of 1958, who were entitled to 80% share in the sale of suit schedule properties, sold in 1964 – 67, their decretal rights to H.E.H. The Nizam (defendant No.156) and Kazim Nawaz Jung (Defendant No.157). 80. 79. It is a matter of record that after the preliminary decree was passed on 28.06.1963, the Decree Holders/Sharers (Plaintiff and Defendants) in C.S.No.14 of 1958, who were entitled to 80% share in the sale of suit schedule properties, sold in 1964 – 67, their decretal rights to H.E.H. The Nizam (defendant No.156) and Kazim Nawaz Jung (Defendant No.157). 80. Thereafter, H.E.H. The Nizam sold under a registered Sale Deed dt.23.02.1967 his undivided half share to M/s. Dinshaw Company which was subsequently renamed as M/s.Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. and the said company was impleaded as Defendant No.206 in the suit. Thus, Kazim Nawaz Jung and Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. became entitled to 80% of the suit schedule properties. 81. As per the scheme of partition prepared by the Advocate-Commissioner and the Revenue Divisional Officer in Application No.139/1971, Kazim Nawaz Jung and Cyrus Investments were allotted the entire extent of Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village. 82. After the death of Kazim Nawaz Jung, his widow, viz., Basheerunnisa Begum and daughter Rasheedunnisa Begum were added as defendant nos.334 and 335 in C.S.No.14 of 1958, and inherited the share of Kazim Nawaz Jung. 83. Thereafter, defendant nos.206, 334 and 335 mutually divided the entire land of Hafeezpet Village into equal halves and Sy.No.80/A was allotted to defendant No.206, and land in Sy.Nos.80/B, 80/C, and 80/D were allotted to defendant nos.334 and 335. In Sy.No.80/D, the share of defendant nos.334 and 335 was purchased by 12 parties and they were allotted Acs.47.00 in Sy.No.80/D. 84. In the sale deed dt.18.10.2005 (Ex.P16) all these events including the order in Application No.772 of 1997 (Ex.P10) for delivery of possession of Acs.125.00 and delivery of the same on 19.04.1999 in E.P.No.8 of 1999 by Bailiff attached to the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District to petitioners’ vendors ( Ex.P14), are referred to. 85. The respondents stated in the counter-affidavit that the sale deed dt.18.10.2005 relied upon by the petitioners does not bind them, and the petitioners are not in possession of the land. Consideration by the Court of contention (h) : 86. 85. The respondents stated in the counter-affidavit that the sale deed dt.18.10.2005 relied upon by the petitioners does not bind them, and the petitioners are not in possession of the land. Consideration by the Court of contention (h) : 86. When the State of Andhra Pradesh, the predecessor of the State of Telangana lost its claim to the lands which are subject matter of C.S.No.14 of 1958 when OSA.(SR).Nos.3526 and 3527 of 2000 filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh were dismissed on 17.02.2001 and the same was confirmed on 16.07.2001 by the Supreme Court in SLP.Nos.10622 and 10623 of 2001, the State of Telangana or its employees cannot still claim the title to the land in Hafeezpet Village; and when possession was granted by the bailiff of the Court of the Principal Judge, Ranga Reddy to the petitioners’ vendors on 19.04.1999 in E.P.No.8 of 1999, it cannot dispute the possession of petitioners’ vendors or after the sale deed was executed, the possession of the petitioners. 87. The State cannot, by failing to modify the pahanis after it’s loss in C.S.No.14 of 1958 to items 37-41 in that suit, cannot take advantage of it’s own wrong, and deny that petitioners are in possession of the subject land. Contention (i) : 88. It is next contended that no final decree had been passed in respect of Hafeezpet Village and so petitioners are not entitled to any relief. The respondents contend that there could not have been any sale deed without there being a final decree in C.S.No.14 of 1958. Consideration of Contention (i) : 89. This plea is factually incorrect. 90. In W.P.No.20707 of 2018 and batch, this Court has held that the order dt.26.02.2010 in Application No.132 of 2010 in respect of Acs.50.00 in Sy.No.80/D in Hafeezpet Village is in the nature of a final decree only. 91. It is a matter of record that in OSA.No.18 of 2010 on 01.02.2011, final decree was passed in respect of Acs.115.00 in Sy.No.80/A of Hafeezpet Village which was confirmed on 26.11.2013 in SLP.No.22420 of 2011 by the Supreme Court. The State was a party to the said order. 92. 91. It is a matter of record that in OSA.No.18 of 2010 on 01.02.2011, final decree was passed in respect of Acs.115.00 in Sy.No.80/A of Hafeezpet Village which was confirmed on 26.11.2013 in SLP.No.22420 of 2011 by the Supreme Court. The State was a party to the said order. 92. That apart, (i) in Application Nos.239 and 517 of 2009 final decree was passed on 31.03.2010 by this Court in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.57.33 Gts., in Sy.No.78 of Hafeezpet Village; (ii) in Application No.1109 of 2007, another final decree was passed on 24.12.2007 in respect of Acs.40.00 in Sy.No.78 of Hafeezpet Village. 93. The State is fully aware of the above final decrees passed in respect of land in Hafeezpet Village, but is deliberately misleading the Court by saying that there is no final decree. Its stand is not bona fide. 94. That apart, the petitioners have filed final decree dt.07.12.2012 in Application No.142 of 2011 in C.S.No.14 of 1958 regarding the land of Acs.4.20 gts. purchased by them under the sale deed dt.18.10.2005. 95. In our opinion, it is not permissible for the respondents to raise such a plea, i.e., without there being a final decree, there cannot be a sale. Such a plea, can if at all, be raised by other decree holders in C.S.No.14 of 1958 and the State which had already lost its claim to the land in Hafeezpet Village as mentioned above, cannot take such a plea. This is because on more than one occasion it has been held that the State has no claim to land in Hafeezpet Village and merely by staking claim repeatedly, it cannot hope to succeed in claiming it. 96. In fact, the title obtained by the petitioners from their vendors under the sale deed dt.18.10.2005 is fortified by the final decree granted on 07.12.2012 in Application No.142 of 2011 in C.S.No.14 of 1958. Contention (j) : 97. The respondents contend that the vendors of petitioners were bound to file declaration under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 and obtain orders from the Special Officer and Competent Authority. Consideration of Contention (j) : 98. Contention (j) : 97. The respondents contend that the vendors of petitioners were bound to file declaration under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 and obtain orders from the Special Officer and Competent Authority. Consideration of Contention (j) : 98. We are of the opinion that once the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 stood repealed by adoption by the State Legislature of the then State of Andhra Pradesh of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, and issued a notification G.O.Ms.No.603 Revenue (UC.I) Department dt.22.04.2008 adopting the said Act, this plea has no legs to stand. 99. After repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in the State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f 22.4.2008, the question of asking the petitioners to comply with the provisions of the said Act does not arise. 100. Petitioners have also filed proceedings No.A4/RTI/2212/08 dt.05.02.2010 issued by the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad stating that land bearing Sy.No.80/A of Hafeezpet Village is not attracted under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. 101. The respondents are therefore not right at this point of time to rely on the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 as a ground to refuse mutation to the petitioners. Contention (k) : 102. The respondents also contend that location and boundaries are necessary and that otherwise mutation cannot be granted without localization or identification. Consideration by the Court of contention (k) : 103. The sale deed dt.18.10.2005 clearly mentions the boundaries and the final decree dt.17.12.2012 in Application No.142 of 2011 in C.S.No.14 of 1958 granted by this Court contains a sketch also for identification and location of the land purchased by the petitioners. Therefore, at this point of time, this plea is untenable. Contention (l) : 104. The sale deed dt.18.10.2005 clearly mentions the boundaries and the final decree dt.17.12.2012 in Application No.142 of 2011 in C.S.No.14 of 1958 granted by this Court contains a sketch also for identification and location of the land purchased by the petitioners. Therefore, at this point of time, this plea is untenable. Contention (l) : 104. It is contended by the respondents that contrary to the order dt.07.04.2007 passed in this Writ Petition granting interim suspension of the order passed by the 1st respondent on 13.02.2007 on condition that petitioners shall not change the land use or create any third party right or enter into any sort of agreement with third parties, the petitioners entered into a compromise decree with third parties and filed an Application No.142 of 2011 in C.S.No.14 of 1958 and a Final Decree was obtained by them on 17.12.2012, to which the State is not a signatory, and the said final decree does not bind it. Consideration by the Court of contention (p) : 105. The interim order granted by this Court was a restraint imposed on the petitioners from creating any right, title or interest in favour of third parties, but the said order cannot operate and prevent the petitioners from entering into a compromise with their own vendors to consolidate their title to the subject property by obtaining a final decree on 17.12.2012 in Application No.142 of 2011 in C.S.No.14 of 1958. 106. The respondents are trying to misinterpret the interim order granted by this Court on 13.02.2007 to mislead the Court. This cannot be countenanced. Conclusion: 107. Having regard to the elaborate reasons mentioned above, we reject all the contentions of the respondents/State of Telangana that it is the owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District or that petitioners have no right, title or interest in the extent of Acs.4.20 gts., in Sy.No.80/A of Hafeezpet Village, and that they are not entitled to mutation of their names in the revenue record by the respondents. 108. 108. Since the title of the State of Telangana has been set up in the additional counter affidavit and was argued by the Additional Advocate General, though as pointed out it has been negatived atleast 8 times in the past, we deem it appropriate to implead the State of Telangana represented by it’s Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Boorgula Ramakrishana Rao Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad as 4th respondent in the Writ petition as we propose to impose costs on it for such vexatious and malafide stand. 109. Accordingly, the State of Telangana represented by it’s Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Boorgula Ramakrishana Rao Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad is impleaded suomotu as 4th respondent in the Writ Petition. 110. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed; and the order dt.13.02.2007 in Case No.D5/3705/2006 dt.13.02.2007 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside and the respondents are directed to mutate the names of the petitioners as owners and possessors of the above land within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The respondent no.4 shall also pay costs of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioners within four (4) weeks. I.A.No.1 of 2021 is allowed. 111. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.