ORDER : 1. Heard Sri M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Naraparaju Avaneesh, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 2. This writ petition is filed to issue a writ order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to RC No.E5/2356/2014, dated 23.09.2016 of the 2nd respondent as illegal and therefore liable to be set aside and declare that petitioner is the owner, pattedar and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.4.20 gts in Survey No.167/A, Chityal Village and Mandal, Jayashanker Bhupalpally District and the pattedar passbooks and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner by Tahsildar, Chityal are legal and valid. 3. The brief facts of the petitioner are as follows : The Petitioner in this Writ Petition is represented by his General Power of Attorney. The petitioner is the owner of land to an extent of Ac.4.20 Gts. situated in Survey No.167/A of Chital Village and Mandal. The daughters of the petitioner initially purchased an extent of Ac.2.10 Gts. in Survey No.167 by sada sale deed dated 15.02.2002 from the 4th Respondent for valuable consideration. Subsequently, the daughters of the petitioner have executed a simple sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 14-03-2004 for a valuable consideration. In the year 2012, the said simple deeds were impounded before the District Revenue Officer, Warangal (DRO) and the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property since the date of his purchase. After the petitioner purchased the property and after the documents are impounded by the RDO, the petitioner filed an application to the revenue officials for mutation of his name in the revenue records. Upon verification and enquiry into the matter, the Revenue officials entered the name of the petitioner in the records including Form 1-B register as owner, possessor and Pattadar of the subject property. The petitioner also obtained the pattadar passbook and title deeds from the 3rd Respondent vide Patta No.6 & Book No.101686. Subsequently, the Government verified the pattadar passbooks of the petitioner and conducted enquiry about the genuinity of the said passbooks and allotted the unique No.2105420270164 to the petitioner. The Respondent along with his father and brothers are having their property abutting to the petitioner’s property. Subsequent to the selling of property to an extent of Ac. Subsequently, the Government verified the pattadar passbooks of the petitioner and conducted enquiry about the genuinity of the said passbooks and allotted the unique No.2105420270164 to the petitioner. The Respondent along with his father and brothers are having their property abutting to the petitioner’s property. Subsequent to the selling of property to an extent of Ac. 4.20 Gts, in Survey No.167 (hereinafter referred to as “subject property”). Subsequently, the respondents have given sub division No. as 167/1 and are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner’s land, taking advantage of the absence of the petitioner, since he is residing out of country. The GPA holder of the petitioner and the persons belonging to the petitioner, with great difficulty resisted the illegal interference of the 4th Respondent and his henchmen. The petitioner also approached the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal by filing O.S.No.834 of 2014 for an injunction suit against the 4th Respondent restraining the 4th respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s property. Subsequently, the interim orders were passed restraining the 4th Respondent and their henchmen from interfering with the petitioner’s property. However, the said suit is pending for consideration before the said court. Later on, the 4th respondent with an ill-motive and to defraud the petitioner, made false claim in respect of the petitioner’s property, and approached the 3rd respondent, Chityal by filing a petition for cancellation of Pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the orders of 3rd Respondent, the 4th respondent filed Appeal No. F/1751/2011 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulugu contending that he is the absolute owner of the subject schedule property to an extent of Ac.4.20 gts in Survey No.167 at Chityal Village, Warangal District as he received the said land towards his share from his father Sri Kodela Sammaiah, who is the pattadar and possessor of the said property. It is submitted by the petitioner that the 4th Respondent alleged that the 4th Respondent is in possession of the said land and he never sold the same to the Petitioner and the petitioner falsely got mutated his name in patta columns by creating fabricated documents by colluding with revenue authorities who issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of petitioner without his notice and without following the procedure contemplated under ROR Act. 4. The main contentions put-forth by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the order passed by the 2nd respondent is illegal and improper. The order of the 2nd Respondent is without any cogent reasons. The 2nd Respondent on presumptions and assumptions passed the order without properly looking into the record and appreciating in the matter. The order passed is an order passed exparte without hearing the petitioner or his GPA holder Sri Jinna Bhupathi Reddy. The 2nd Respondent did not consider the matter in the proper prospective way. The pattedar pass books and title deeds were issued in favour of the petitioner, after conducting thorough enquiry and the documents produced by the petitioner. The petitioner obtained the latest pahaninakals from the year 2010 to 2016 on 28.10.2016 from the Office of the 3rd Respondent. The pahaninakals would clearly disclose that the name of the petitioner is entered as Pattadar and possessor of the property to an extent of schedule property. Therefore, the order of the 2nd Respondent is illegal and liable to be set aside. 5. The main contentions put forth by learned counsel for the 4th respondent are that the petitioner has obtained an interim order dated 08.12.2016 by suppressing the true facts before the High Court and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. The present writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that non-joinder of necessary party i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulugu, who is the Appellate Authority whose order was set aside by the 2nd Respondent. The allegations made against the 4th respondent are false and are denied. The facts of the case are that the 4th respondent’s father is the owner and possessor of entire land admeasuring Ac.11-3 Gts in Chityal Village and he purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 09.04.1979 and that the 4th respondent’s name was mutated as pattadar and possessor with respect to the above-mentioned land. That the revenue officials have issued Rythu pass book in the name of the 4th Respondent’s father. The entire land in Sy.No.167 stands in name of the 4th Respondent’s father and the 4th respondent’s name is recorded as a possessor to an extent of Ac.4-00 Gts. That the revenue officials have issued Rythu pass book in the name of the 4th Respondent’s father. The entire land in Sy.No.167 stands in name of the 4th Respondent’s father and the 4th respondent’s name is recorded as a possessor to an extent of Ac.4-00 Gts. The Writ petitioner filed O.S.No.834/2014 through GPA Holder (J. Bhoopathi Reddy) and he is continuing as a GPA of the writ petitioner as on today in the above-mentioned suit. Therefore, the fact that the GPA has colluded with the 4th Respondent and played fraud with the petitioner and has not submitted his case before the 2nd respondent is false and denied. That in the month of June, 2011 the petitioner filed suit vide O.S.No.513/2011 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal for injunction against the 4th Respondent, his father and his brother with false claim that he was the owner and possessor of the property and that the revenue authorities have issued pattadar pass books in his favour. Upon receipt of the summon in the said suit, the 4th Respondent came to know that the name of the petitioner is recorded as Pattadar and possessor in the revenue records with respect of suit property. Upon further enquiry done by the 4th respondent, he learnt that the petitioner in collusion with the then 3rd Respondent, Deputy Joint Collector, VRO of Chital Mandal have clandestinely mutated name of the petitioner in the concerned revenue records by impersonating and forging the signatures of the 4th Respondent’s. The 4th Respondent filed an application before 3rd Respondent, Chityal under R.T.I. Act for information with regard to the mutation of patta in the name of the petitioner. However, the 3rd Respondent through memo dated 30.06.2011 informed that the said OR file is not available. Subsequently, the 4th Respondent filed an appeal before R.D.O., Mulugu under ROR Act challenging the mutation of the suit land in the name of the writ petitioner vide Appeal No.F/1751/2011. During the pendency of above appeal, the 3rd Respondent has forwarded the mutation proceedings vide File No. B/2381/2008 to the R.D.O., Mulugu, but Form No.13-A was not enclosed to the file. As per the mutation proceedings, the petitioner filed an application before the 3rd Respondent to mutate his name in respect of the suit property, alleging that he purchased the said land from the 4th Respondent under sale deed dated 18.12.1970. As per the mutation proceedings, the petitioner filed an application before the 3rd Respondent to mutate his name in respect of the suit property, alleging that he purchased the said land from the 4th Respondent under sale deed dated 18.12.1970. During the enquiry proceedings, the R.D& Ors., Mulugu has sought enquiry report from 3rd Respondent, Chityal and the then 3rd Respondent has conducted field inspection and enquired the adjacent farmers. Upon his enquiry, it is revealed that the 4th Respondent is in the possession of the land. The 3rd Respondent, Chityal again caused enquiry about the physical possession of the property and as per enquiry, 4th Respondent is in possession of the property and was issued with a letter No.A/333/2014, dt.6-8-2014. The petitioner has no prima facie case and balance of convenience does not also lie in his favour. It is submitted that the petitioner also suppressed the filing of the O.S.No.513/2011 on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, and also about the filing of O.S.No.834/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Warangal for permanent injunction. However, the suit was dismissed. The petitioner also filed I.A. No.63/2013 for setting aside the dismissal order dt.14.11.2012 and the said I.A. was allowed and thereafter several adjournments were taken but at any point of time writ petitioner was not getting ready for arguments therefore, the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal again dismissed the suit for default on 28.09.2015. The 4th Respondent filed private complaint on 23.06.2015 against the petitioner and other under Sec. 167, 192, 416, 418, 464, 466, 470, 471, 109, 120-A of the IPC before the Judicial First-class Magistrate. The same was forwarded to the SHP P.S. Chityal, Warangal for investigation. However, the same is still pending as on today. It is submitted that while dismissing the appeal No. F/1761/2011, dated 20.05.2014, the RDO, who is the appellate authority has not considered the grounds of the 4th Respondent along with the report of the 3rd Respondent. The same was forwarded to the SHP P.S. Chityal, Warangal for investigation. However, the same is still pending as on today. It is submitted that while dismissing the appeal No. F/1761/2011, dated 20.05.2014, the RDO, who is the appellate authority has not considered the grounds of the 4th Respondent along with the report of the 3rd Respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the 4th Respondent filed revision before the 2nd Respondent, Warangal, who is the 2nd respondent in the above writ petition and after considering the grounds and report filed along with documents of the 3rd Respondent, 2ndrespondent herein allowed the revision and given a finding that “on perusal of the records it is observed that the sale deed dated 15.02.2002 is not regularized in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.45, Revenue (SSI) Department, dated 17.01.2006 as the said G.O. is applicable for the lands purchased on or before 31.12.2000 as seen from the file of the 3rd Respondent, Chital i.e., the 3rd respondent herein in file No.B/ROR/2008/2381, it is observed that the date of purchase was mentioned as 8.12.1970, but the sale deed is dated as 15.02.2002, which are contradictory. However, there was no 13-(A) and the challans of stamp duty are in the name of Gouda Vasantha. The document dt.08.12.1970 set to be executed by the Revision Petitioner is also not valid as the Revision petitioner was born on 16.05.1974. In view of the above observations, the 2nd respondent set aside the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulugu in file No.F/1751/2011, dt. 20.05.2014 and proceedings of the 3rd Respondent, Chityal in file No.B/ROR/2008/2381. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Perused the material available on record. 7. In the impugned order in Rc.No.E5/2356/2014, dated 23.09.2016 at page ‘2’ it is observed as under : “There is no representation from the respondent side as the respondent is abroad (U.S.A.) and from his G.P.A. holder, Sri Jinna Bhupathi Reddy.” 8. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Perused the material available on record. 7. In the impugned order in Rc.No.E5/2356/2014, dated 23.09.2016 at page ‘2’ it is observed as under : “There is no representation from the respondent side as the respondent is abroad (U.S.A.) and from his G.P.A. holder, Sri Jinna Bhupathi Reddy.” 8. A bare perusal of the proceedings in Rc.No.E5/2356/2014, dated 23.09.2016 clearly indicates that the petitioner herein who is the respondent in the revision filed under Section 9 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar passbooks Act, 1971 preferred by the respondent herein against the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulug in File No.F/1751/2011, dated 20.05.2014 by which the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulgu has dismissed the appeal for cancellation ofPPB/Td issued in favour of the petitioner herein for an extent of Ac.4.20 gts in Survey No.167 of Chityal Village and Mandal was not heard nor represented by his GPA holder Sri Jinna Bhupathi Reddy before the 2nd respondent. In view of the fact that it is specifically averred by the petitioner at para 7 of the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.40550 of 2016 as under:- “Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.4 filed revision bearing Rc.No.E5/2356/2014 before the Joint Collector, Warangal. It appears the Joint Collector issued notice to the then GPA holder of the petitioner Sri J. Bhupathi Reddy. Sri J. Bhupathi Reddy colluded with respondent No.4 and did not attend before the Joint Collector, inspite of the notice received by the Joint Collector. The Joint Collector passed orders dated 23.09.2016 allowing the revision and set aside the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Chityal in B/rOR/2008/2381, by order dated 23.09.2016.” 9. This Court opines that for ends of justice the matter has to be reconsidered by the competent authority. It is a fact that this Court vide its order dated 08.12.2016 granted status quo as on the date to be maintained in respect of the subject property with regard to the entries and possession for a period of ten weeks. However, it appears that the said orders have not been extended by this Court. 10. It is a fact that this Court vide its order dated 08.12.2016 granted status quo as on the date to be maintained in respect of the subject property with regard to the entries and possession for a period of ten weeks. However, it appears that the said orders have not been extended by this Court. 10. Section 16 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 reads as under : (1) On such repeal all the pending appeal and revision cases under the provisions of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 shall stand transferred to the Special Tribunals. (2) On disposal of appeal or revision by the Tribunal, the order of the Tribunal shall be final and shall be implemented under the provisions of this Act. 11. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted to this Court that they have no objection, if the matter is remanded to the concerned special Tribunal for passing of fresh orders by giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner herein in conformity with principles of natural justice. 12. Admittedly, as borne on record the documents relied upon by the petitioners in support of the petitioner’s case that is the pattadar passbooks, title deeds and the pahaninakals from the year 2010 to 2016 filed by the petitioner herein as material documents in support of the present writ petition it appears were not looked into nor considered or even referred to by the 2nd respondent in the order impugned dated 23.0.2016 of the 2nd respondent, since admittedly as borne on record neither the petitioner nor his GPA represented before the 2nd respondent in the hearing. 13. Without going into the merits of the case, in the ends of justice, this Court deem it fit and proper, that, only on the ground of providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to ensure passing of a detailed reasoned order on merits, to remit the matter to the Special Revenue Tribunal, Warangal District constituted under Section 16 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 and accordingly, the same is remitted to the concerned Special Revenue Tribunal, Warangal District. The said special Tribunal, Warangal District shall dispose off the revision filed by the 4th respondent against the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mulug in file No.F/1751/2011, dated 20.05.2014, which was dismissed for cancellation of the pattadar passbook and title deeds issued in favour of the petitioner to an extent of Ac.4.20 gts in Survey No.167 of Chityal Village and Mandal, in accordance with law, within a period of three months in conformity with the principles of natural justice by giving reasonable opportunity of being heard both to the petitioner and also the 4th respondent herein. The impugned order vide Rc.No.E5/2356/2014, dated 23.09.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent is accordingly quashed. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.