Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 390 (TS)

B. N. Rao v. Prl. Secretary, Revenue

2023-06-05

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2023
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 5, and Mr D.Jaipal Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 6 and 7. 2. This writ petition is filed to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings bearing No.75/2015 issued by the 3rd respondent dated 29.09.2016 in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.2.8 gts in Survey No.236/A of Kannapur Haveli, Khammam as illegal, improper, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and consequently set aside the same by directing the 5th respondent to continue the name of the petitioner against the land to an extent of Ac.2.8 gts in Survey No.236/A of Kannapur Haveli, Khammam. 3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows: a) The father of the Petitioner i.e., Bajjuri Narayana purchased the land to an extent of Ac.2-08Gts., in Sy.No.236/A of Kannapur Haveli, Khammam Town and District under registered document No. 1942/1979 from Shaik Mir Mohinudin, who purchased the said land from its original pattadar under registered document No.378 of 1966 dated 05.02.1966 and later the vendor of the petitioner’s father name was mutated in the Revenue records as such Shaik Mir Mohinudin is the pattadar of the subject land. b) The children of the original pattadar Shaik Mir Mohinudin filed O.S.No.22 of 1980 questioning the Sale Deed executed by their father in favour of the petitioners’ father herein. The said suit was dismissed on 11.02.2002. Against the said judgment they preferred A.S.No.1102 of 2002 before this Court and the same was withdrawn as the matter settled out of the Court on 27.02.2007. c) After the dismissal of A.S.No.1102 of 2002 the petitioners herein approached the 5th Respondent for mutation of the subject land on their name and also to conduct the survey and fix the boundary. However, the 5th Respondent did not act upon the petitioner’s application. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No.28066 of 2009 which was disposed on 04.02.2010 directing the 5th Respondent therein to conduct the survey and fix the boundaries as well as to take the steps to mutate the name of the Petitioner against the subject land. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No.28066 of 2009 which was disposed on 04.02.2010 directing the 5th Respondent therein to conduct the survey and fix the boundaries as well as to take the steps to mutate the name of the Petitioner against the subject land. d) However, the 5th Respondent did not act upon the orders, and, issued a Memo denying the ownership of the petitioners as well as possession over the subject land. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioner filed contempt case No.1744 of 2011 against the 5th Respondent. The 5th respondent herein informed the Court that the application filed by the Petitioner is not under the format as prescribed under ROR Act. While referring the same, the contempt case was closed directing the Petitioner to make an application as per the format prescribed for mutation of their names against the subject land. e) After filing of the application by the Petitioner, the 5th Respondent issued a Memo rejecting the petitioners’ request on the ground that survey cannot be conducted unless pattadar passbooks and ROR proceedings are produced. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein filed an appeal No.A3/4722/2012 under ROR Act 1971 and the same was considered. After conducting detailed enquiry and report dated 12.12.2012 from the Tahsildar an order was passed directing the 5th Respondent to consider judgment and decree passed by the competent Civil Court for implementation and mutating the names of the Petitioner against the subject land. Subsequently, the Petitioners’ name was recorded in revenue records against the subject land. f) Respondents 6 and 7 herein claiming that they are the owners of the land in Sy.No.236/E tried to interfere into the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners herein. Subsequently, the Petitioners filed an O.S.No.585 of 2013 before the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam and obtained an Ad-interim Injunction against Respondents 6 and 7. Aggrieved by the same, Respondents 6 and 7 herein filed a Revision Petition before the 3rdRespondent questioning the orders of the 4thRespondent in A.P. ROR Appeal No.A3/47/22/2012 dt. 12.12.2012 in ROR RP No.75/2015. g) However, Respondents 6 and 7 are not claiming any right in the land in Sy.No.236/A, but restricting their claim in the land in Sy.No.236/E. However, the 3rd Respondent accepted the revision petition and issued the notice on the appeal order passed by the 4th Respondent. 12.12.2012 in ROR RP No.75/2015. g) However, Respondents 6 and 7 are not claiming any right in the land in Sy.No.236/A, but restricting their claim in the land in Sy.No.236/E. However, the 3rd Respondent accepted the revision petition and issued the notice on the appeal order passed by the 4th Respondent. Aggrieved by the notice issued by the 3rd Respondent, the Petitioners filed W.P No.18235 of 2016 and the same was disposed of by this Court on 16.06.2016 directing the petitioner to raise all the grounds before the 3rd Respondent and further directed the 3rd Respondent to dispose of the Revision Petition within 3 months. h) The Petitioners herein filed detailed counter in the appeal denying the claim of Respondents 6 and 7 as their right is restricted in the land in Sy.No.236/E, but not in Sy.No.236/A and there is no right to question the 4th Respondent order in favour of the Petitioner as the subject land of the appeal is in Sy.No.236/A but not in 236/E. Respondents 6 and 7 further claims the land in Sy.No.236/A which is acquired by the Government. Whereas, the 3rd Respondent without calling any remarks from the 4th and 5th Respondents passed the impugned order dated 29.09.2016 by disposing of the Revision Petition filed by Respondents 6 and 7. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Respondents 6 and 7 filed vacate stay petition vide I.A. NO. 1 of 2020 along with the counter affidavit and the relevant paras 16 and 18 are as follows: 16) Respondents 6 and 7 are the absolute owner and possessor of the land (plot) admeasuring 1109.5q, yards comprising Plot No. 21, 22, 23 & 28 of land at Khanapur Haveli, Khammam, having purchased the same from its rightful owners and possessors, Cherukuri Seshagiri Rao & other heirs of Cherukuri Veeraiah, under the registered document No. 498/2001 dated 05.01.1996. Likewise land in Plot Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27 admeasuring 1106.66 were purchased under Regd. Doc. no. 497/2001, the 7th Respondent also purchased land in Plot No. 30 admeasuring 337 sq. yards in Sy. No 236/E, under the regd. document No. 10882/1998 from its owners and possessors Cherukuri Seshagiri Rao & other heirs of Cherukuri Veeraiah. Land in Plot No 31 admeasuring 359.55 Sq. yards was purchased in the name of the 6th Respondent’s daughter Y. Sireesha and land in Plot No.29 admeasuring 276 Sq. yards in Sy. No 236/E, under the regd. document No. 10882/1998 from its owners and possessors Cherukuri Seshagiri Rao & other heirs of Cherukuri Veeraiah. Land in Plot No 31 admeasuring 359.55 Sq. yards was purchased in the name of the 6th Respondent’s daughter Y. Sireesha and land in Plot No.29 admeasuring 276 Sq. yards was also purchased by the 6th Respondent from B. Laxma Reddy, who acquired it from Cherukuri Veeraiah’s heirs.18) Under the guise of the interim orders, the petitioners are making attempts to encroach over the land of Respondents 6 and 7. The impugned order is with regard to the entries/corrections in the revenue records and the petitioners have obtained orders against the land. The interim order dt. 25-10-2016 passed in W.P.M.P. No 44401 of 2016 be vacated and accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The interim orders granted by this Court on 25.10.2016 is in force as on date. The said interim order reads as under: “Notice before admission. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (TG) takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 and seeks time to get instructions and file counter. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to take out personal notice to respondents 6 and 7 by RPAD and file proof of service into Registry. Having regard to the pendency of the civil cases between the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed orders in favour of the petitioners, status quo as on today shall maintained in respect of the land in Survey No.236/A of Khanapur Haveli, Khammam, with regard to entries and possession.” 6. Order dated 29.09.2016 in ROR Revision Petition No.75 of 2015 and in particular, the relevant portion reads as under: “Having regards the facts, arguments by the counsels of petitioners and respondents and considering the material available on record, the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 are claiming certain lands in Survey No.236 of Khanapuram Haveli Village through registered documents and certain lands in the same Survey number acquired by the Government for establishment of District Collector Officer and Zilla Parishath Office. On perusing the material the Mandal Surveyor, Khmmam Urban has conducted the survey on the plea of respondents 1 and 2 and basing on that report the learned RDO had directed Tahsildar to incorporate the names of respondents in accordance with ROR Act. On perusing the material the Mandal Surveyor, Khmmam Urban has conducted the survey on the plea of respondents 1 and 2 and basing on that report the learned RDO had directed Tahsildar to incorporate the names of respondents in accordance with ROR Act. Without giving opportunity to the affected parties, the RDO ought not to have given the order by ROR rules as well as principles of natural justice. Moreover there are crucial matters raised by the Revision petitioner concerning of the land in question such as land acquisition by the Government etc. Moreover there seems to be civil suits pending the Civil Court over title too. The orders of the then Revenue Divisional Officer are bad in law and does not confirm to the principles of justice. Hence, it is struck down. If any entries have been made in the Revenue records based on the Revenue Divisional Officer order, it needs to be deleted. Tahsildar, Khammam Urban also needs to carefully ascertain if any government land is involved in this dispute as there is the issue of land acquisition raised in this matter. The respondents ought to have established their title in the civil court before approaching the revenue authorities for incorporation in revenue records, when there is dispute of title. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is disposed of with the above directions.” 7. Order dated 12.12.2012 in ROR Appeal No.A3/4722/2012, in particular, the relevant portion reads as under: “Upon going through the entire material placed before this Court, it is an admitted fact that appellants are the absolute owners and possessors of the land in Sy.No.236/A to an extent of Ac.2.08 gts having succeeded the same after demise of their father late Bajjuri Narayana who got the property through registered agreement bearing No.942/1979 dated 27.06.1979 and the Tahasildar, Khammam Urban has failed to observe that the orders of the civil courts and appellate court declared the father of the appellants was the absolute owner of the schedule land. The respondent failed to note that as per Section 5(5) of the ROR Act, on receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right, the Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahasildar shall determine as to the manner in which the record of rights may be amended in consequence there for and shall carry out the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination. On perusal of the documents and judgment of the civil Court, it is evident that the appellants are the absolute owners of the schedule property and inspite of clear evidence, the respondent failed to update the pahanies. As per the directions of this Court Mandal Surveyor has surveyed the land and fixed the boundaries to the schedule property and submitted survey report, dated 05.11.2012 along with sketch. In view of the above circumstances, the respondent i.e. Tahasildar, Khammam Urban is hereby directed to update the name of the appellants in the pahanies in respect of land in Survey No.236/A to an extent of Ac.2.08 gts of Khanapuram Haveli under the provisions of Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Boo Act, 1971. With the above observations the appeal is disposed off.” 8. The order dated 16.06.2016 passed in W.P.No.18235 of 2016 by the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh, reads as under: “This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in entertaining the ROR Revision Petition No.75/2015 filed by the respondents 6 and 7 against the order of the 4th respondent dated 12.12.2012 made in proceedings No.A3/4722/2012 issued in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.2-08 in Sy.No.236/A of Khanapur Haveli, Khammam in favour of the petitioners, and the consequential notice issued by the 3rd respondent dated 20.04.2016, as illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the unofficial respondents have no locus standi to file the Revision and the same is also time barred. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents submits that the Revision is entertained in pursuance to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.33714 of 2015 dated 12.10.2015 where in it is stated as under “The petitioners, however, are at liberty to approach the 3rd respondent with a request under Section 9 of the Act, who shall examine the correctness or otherwise of the order of the 4th respondent in accordance with law” In the present case, since it is only notice issued by the 3rd respondent in pursuance to the Revision filed by the unofficial respondents, the petitioners can raise all their objections which are raised herein before the 3rd respondent. In view of the same, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to raise all their objections before the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent shall consider the same and pass orders within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, after issuing notice to the affected parties. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. The order dated 12.10.2015 passed in W.P.No.3371 of 2015 by the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh, reads as under: “The petitioner claims to have submitted an application on 22.03.2007 to the Tahsildar, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District, respondent No.3 herein with a request to cause survey of the land admeasuring Ac.2.08 guntas in Survey No.236/A of Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District and to fix the boundaries thereof. The grievance of the petitioner is that no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and the Rules made thereunder prescribe the procedure for survey of lands and fixation of boundaries. On submission of an application and payment of prescribed fee, the authority concerned has to undertake the survey and fixation of boundaries. The petitioner states that he has made an application way back in the year 2007 and so far, no action has been taken thereon. By any standard, the inaction for such a long time cannot be countenanced. If the application filed by the petitioner was defective, in any manner, respondent No.3 ought to have informed the same. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.3 to conduct survey of the land admeasuring Ac.2.08 guntas in Survey No.236/A of Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.3 shall issue notice to the affected parties and he may require the petitioner to comply with the deficiencies, if any, in the application. There shall be no order as to costs. PERUSED THE RECORD 10. Respondent No.3 shall issue notice to the affected parties and he may require the petitioner to comply with the deficiencies, if any, in the application. There shall be no order as to costs. PERUSED THE RECORD 10. The main contentions put forth by learned counsel for the petitioners are as follows: a) The claim of the petitioner pertains to land in Survey No.236/A to an extent of Ac.2.08 gts of Kannapur Haveli, Khammam, whereas the claim of the unofficial respondents 6 and 7 pertains to land in Survey No.236/E, Kannapur Haveli, Khammam. b) The sale deed pertaining to the unofficial respondents only indicate land in Survey No.236/E of Kannapur Haveli, Khammam and not land in Survey No.236/A. c) The 6th respondent herein i.e. Y.Prabhakar Reddy received notice issued by the AD(SLR) and the 6th respondent even gave answer to him in reply to the said notice prior to the conduct of survey of the said land by the concerned Mandal Surveyor and it is solely on the basis of the said report. The RDO, Khamman has passed orders in favour of the writ petitioners in ROR Appeal No.A3/4722/2012, dated 12.12.2012. Therefore, no further notice is required for the unofficial respondents not it can be said that the unofficial respondents were not put on notice and that the unofficial respondents have no lous at all to file the present writ petition. 11. The main contentions put forth by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents are as follows: a) The writ petitioners have no right. The children of the original pattadar Shaik Mir Moinuddin filed O.S.No.22 of 1980 questioning the sale deed executed by their father in favour of the petitioners and that the said suit was dismissed on 11.02.2002. b) The appeal i.e. A.S.No.1102 of 2002 is preferred before the High Court against the original suit and the same was withdrawn. c) The Tahsildar, Khammam Urban does not appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam in ROR Appeal No.A3/4722/2012 nor filed any counter or submitted any objections. d) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam ought to have secured the presence of the Tahsildar for proper adjudication of ROR appeal No. A3/4722/2012, on merits. c) The Tahsildar, Khammam Urban does not appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam in ROR Appeal No.A3/4722/2012 nor filed any counter or submitted any objections. d) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam ought to have secured the presence of the Tahsildar for proper adjudication of ROR appeal No. A3/4722/2012, on merits. e) The total extent of land i.e. Ac.2.23 guntas in Survey No.236/A had been acquired by the Government and there is no land left out in Survey No.236/A and therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners’ own land is Survey No.236/A is incorrect and false. f) Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents placed reliance on the judgment reported in 2007 (6) ALD 348 in Chinnam Pandurangam vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, a Full Bench, in particular, para 7 of the said judgment reads as under: "7. The above analysis of the relevant statutory provisions shows that proviso to Section 5 (1) and Section 5(3) represent statutory embodiment of the most important facet of the rules of natural justice i.e. audi alterem partem. These provisions contemplate issue of notice to the persons likely to be affected by the action/decision of the Mandal Revenue Officer to carry out or not to carry out amendment in the Record of Rights. Section 5 (3) provides for issue of written notice to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment. A copy of the amendment and the notice is also required to be published in the prescribed manner. Section 5 (3) provides for issue of written notice to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment. A copy of the amendment and the notice is also required to be published in the prescribed manner. If the Legislature thought that publication of a general notice in Form-VIII will be sufficient compliance of the rules of natural justice, then there was no occasion to incorporate a specific requirement of issuing written notice to the persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and also to other person whom the recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by the amendment.” and contends that proviso to Section 5(1) and Section 5(3) represent statutory embodiment of the most important facet of the rules of natural justice i.e. audi alterem partem, but however, the same had not followed and no notice had been issued to respondents 6 and 7 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam prior to passing of orders in ROR Appeal No.A3/4722/2012 dated 12.12.2012 in favour of the writ petitioner and therefore, the writ petition has to be dismissed. 12. The main contentions of learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 are as follows: a) The suit filed by the petitioners’ vendor has been dismissed. b) There is no illegality in the order impugned dated 29.09.2016 passed in ROR Revision Petition No.75 of 2015. Since then, an order was passed on merits after giving notice and opportunity to the writ petitioners and also to the unofficial respondents 6 and 7, but they had even filed their counter affidavits before the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Khammam in ROR RC No.75 of 2015. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 13. Since then, an order was passed on merits after giving notice and opportunity to the writ petitioners and also to the unofficial respondents 6 and 7, but they had even filed their counter affidavits before the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Khammam in ROR RC No.75 of 2015. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 13. A bare perusal of the contents of the order dated 12.12.2012 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam in ROR Appeal No.A3/4722/2012 clearly indicates a very clear finding in favour of the writ petitioners, holding the petitioners herein as absolute owners and possessors of the land in Survey No.236/A to an extent of Ac.2.08 gts having succeeded the same after demise of their father late Bajjuri Narayana, who got the property through registered agreement bearing No.942/1979, dated 27.06.1979 and further that the order of the Civil Court and appellate Court declared the father of the petitioners/appellants as the absolute owner of the schedule land. 14. It is also pertinent to note here that as per the directions of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, the Mandal Surveyor has surveyed the land and fixed the boundaries to the schedule property and submitted survey report dated 05.11.2012 along with sketch. 15. A bare perusal of the order impugned dated 29.09.2016 of the 3rd respondent in ROR Revision petition No.75 of 2015 at para 12, clearly indicates that AD (S and LR) issued notice to Revision Petitioner No.1 i.e. Y.Prabhakar Reddy i.e. the 6th respondent herein and further that the 6th respondent even gave answer to him, prior to conduct of the survey of the subject land by the concerned Mandal Surveyor. 16. A bare perusal of the contents of the ROR Revision Petition No.75 of 2015 filed by the 6th and 7th respondents clearly indicates that the claim of the 6th and 7th respondents pertained to Survey No.236/E situated at Khammam Haveli, Khammam and in fact paras 1 and 2 of the impugned order dated 29.09.2016 in ROR Revision Petition No.75 of 2015 which had narration of the facts in the said petition read as under: “1. The Revision Petitioner No.1 purchased the lands admeasuring 1101.66sq. yards and 1109 sq. yards in Sy.No.236/E situated at Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam from Cherukuri Seshagiri Rao and other heirs of Ch.Veeraiah vide REg. Document No.497/2001. 2. The Revision Petitioner No.2 had purchased the land admeasuring 337 sq. The Revision Petitioner No.1 purchased the lands admeasuring 1101.66sq. yards and 1109 sq. yards in Sy.No.236/E situated at Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam from Cherukuri Seshagiri Rao and other heirs of Ch.Veeraiah vide REg. Document No.497/2001. 2. The Revision Petitioner No.2 had purchased the land admeasuring 337 sq. yards in Survey No.236/E of Khanapuram Haveli from Cherukuri Seshagiri Rao and other heirs of Ch.Veeraiah vide REg.Document No.10882/1988..” 17. A bare perusal of sale deeds of respondents 6 and 7 also indicates that the lands of respondents 6 and 7 falls in Survey No.236/E and not 236/A of Kannapur Haveli, Khammam and the same is specifically averred at GROUND THREE in the ROR Revision Petition No. 75 of 2015 in the Court of the Joint Collector cum additional District Magistrate at Khammam. 18. This Court opines that the claim of the petitioner pertains to Survey No.236/A alone and not Survey No.236/E and if respondents 6 and 7 are aggrieved against the order of Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, in RP.No.A3/4722/2012, dated 12.12.2012 and the mutation proceedings of the petitioner against the land in Survey No.236/A, the 6th and 7th respondents have to approach the civil Court to establish the title over the land in Survey No.236/A, but curiously vide the impugned proceedings dated 29.09.2016, the petitioners had been directed to establish their title in the civil Court and the said observation is totally unwarranted and contrary to the provisions of Section 9(2) of ROR Act, 1971. This Court also takes note of the fact as borne on record that the rd respondent proceeded and passed the impugned order dated 29.09.2016 in ROR Revision Petition No.75 of 2015 without calling for any report from the 4th and 5th respondents. 19. This Court also takes note of the fact as borne on record that the rd respondent proceeded and passed the impugned order dated 29.09.2016 in ROR Revision Petition No.75 of 2015 without calling for any report from the 4th and 5th respondents. 19. Taking into consideration all the above referred facts and circumstances and the earlier orders of this Court dated 16.06.2016 passed in W.P.No.18235 of 2016 and order dated 12.10.2015 passed in W.P.No.33714 of 2015 and orders dated 04.02.2010 passed in W.P.No.28066 of 2009 and further taking into consideration the fact as borne on record that the respondents 6 and 7 had not been issued any notice prior to passing of the order of Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam in RC.No.A3/4722/2012, dated 12.12.2012, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the writ petitioners or respondents 6 and 7 deems it fit and proper to set aside the order impugned in ROR Revision petition No.75 of 2015, dated 29.09.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent in respect of land to an extent of Ac.2.08 gts in Survey No.236/A of Kannapur Haveli, Khammam and is accordingly set aside and further this Court remits ROR Appeal No.A3/4722/2012 back to the 4th respondent i.e. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam to reconsider the same afresh on merits, after giving notice to the writ petitioners and respondent No.6 and pass appropriate reasoned orders in accordance to law after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing both to the petitioner and respondents No.6 and 7 in conformity with principles of natural justice within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and communicate the decision to both the petitioners and also to respondent Nos.6 and 7. 20. After the order has been dictated as above, at that stage it has been represented by both the counsel for the petitioner and by the counsel for the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 that for expeditious disposal of the ROR appeal No.A3/4722/2012, dated 12.12.2012, before the 4th respondent, their respective clients i.e. petitioners and respondents 6 and 7 would co-operate for a speedy disposal and a request is made to this Court to fix the date for their appearance with their respective clients, before the 4th respondent. 6 and 7 that for expeditious disposal of the ROR appeal No.A3/4722/2012, dated 12.12.2012, before the 4th respondent, their respective clients i.e. petitioners and respondents 6 and 7 would co-operate for a speedy disposal and a request is made to this Court to fix the date for their appearance with their respective clients, before the 4th respondent. Taking into consideration the request of the counsel for the petitioner and respondent Nos.6 and 7, this Court fixes 5th July, 2023 as the appropriate date for both the petitioner and the respondent Nos.6 and 7 to appear with their respective clients and ensure early disposal of ROR appeal No.A3/4722/2012, dated 12.12.2012 on merits. 21. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.