ORDER : Heard Sri K Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri N.S.Arjun Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 8 to 11 and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. In this writ petition, petitioners are seeking the following relief: “……..to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in ST/OA/174/2021/C/1624/2020 in so far as passing of status quo until parties approach competent civil court for the agricultural land in Sy No 152 admeasuring Ac 4 27 guntas situated at Kodair Village Itikyal Mandal Jogulamba Gadwal District is without jurisdiction authority of law illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in so far as status quo order is concerned and pass…” 3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioners fairly submitted that petitioners have no grievance with reference to observations made by the Special Tribunal in rejecting appeal preferred by the appellants before the Tribunal but they are aggrieved to the extent of directing to maintain status quo by both parties. 4. Learned counsel for respondents 8 to 11 submits that as fraud was played behind the back of unofficial respondents and illegally revenue records were got altered in favour of petitioners, while dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay, the Special Tribunal gave limited protection in order to ensure that no further damage is caused to unofficial respondents, directed to maintain status quo. 5. I see no merit in the contention of learned counsel for respondents 8 to 11. Leaving apart the merits of the matter, the Tribunal having found that appeal was not maintainable on the ground of inordinate delay against entries made in the revenue records, advising the parties aggrieved to avail the civil law remedy, it has over stretched itself beyond the powers and jurisdiction vested in it under Act 9 of 2020 in directing maintenance of status quo between the parties. Once an appeal is decided by the Tribunal, it has no jurisdiction to control the proceedings between the parties and Tribunal cannot act like a Court of law to grant some kind of protection and order maintenance of status quo. Once an appeal is decided by the Tribunal, it has no jurisdiction to control the proceedings between the parties and Tribunal cannot act like a Court of law to grant some kind of protection and order maintenance of status quo. Therefore, direction of the Tribunal ordering maintenance of status quo between parties is ex-facie illegal and without jurisdiction and competence. The order of the Tribunal to the extent of directing parties to maintain status quo is set aside. It is needless to observe that this order does not come in the way of unofficial respondents working out their remedies in accordance with law. 6. Subject to above, the writ petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.