ORDER : 1. 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 insofar as passing of status quo until parties approach Competent Civil Court for the agricultural land in Sy. No. 152 admeasuring Acs. 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 insofar 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 by directing to maintain status quo in order to ensure that no further damage is caused to unofficial respondents. 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 to avail the civil law remedy, over stretched 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, post decision, it has no jurisdiction to control the proceedings between the parties. It is a Tribunal with limited jurisdiction. Once an appeal is decided by the Tribunal, post decision, it has no jurisdiction to control the proceedings between the parties. It is a Tribunal with limited jurisdiction. It cannot act like a Court of law to regulate the relationship of parties, be in the form of ordering maintenance of status quo, other than deciding the issue placed before the Tribunal for consideration. Therefore, direction of the Tribunal ordering maintenance of status quo between parties post decision that too for unspecified period, is ex-facie illegal. 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. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.