ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 30235 and 32928 of 2022 and respondent No. 6 in W.P. No. 30452 of 2022 and respondent No. 8 in W.P. No. 44081 of 2022, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of official respondents in all the writ petitions and Mr. E. Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in W.P. No. 32928 of 2022 and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in W.P. No. 30235 of 2022 and petitioners in W.P. Nos. 30452 and 44081 of 2022. 2. Lis involved in all the aforesaid writ petitions and the parties are one and the same with regard to dispute in respect of the land admeasuring Acs. 2.25 guntas in Survey No. 902, situated at Eduluru Village of Kattangur Mandal, Nalgonda District. 3. The respective petitioners have filed the respective writ petitions seeking the following reliefs: (i) W.P. No. 30235 of 2022: to declare the action of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in non-considering online application vide I.D. LM-2200029786 submitted by the petitioner and non-issuing e-pattadar passbook in his favour in respect of land admeasuring Acs. 2.25 guntas in Survey No. 902, situated at Eduluru Revenue Village Shivar, Kattanguru Manadal, Nalgonda District, as illegal and arbitrary, and for a consequential direction to respondent Nos. 3 to 5, to issue e-Pattadar passbook to the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid land. (ii) W.P. No. 32928 of 2022: to declare the action of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 in proceeding to issue Pattadar passbook in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in respect of the petitioner’s agriculture land, admeasuring Acs. 2.25 guntas in Survey No. 902 of Edulu Village, Kattangur Madnal, Nalgonda District, during pendency of civil suits, as illegal and for a consequential direction to respondents Nos. 2 to 4 not to issue pattadar passbooks/ certificate etc. in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in respect of the above said land. (iii) W.P. No. 30452 of 2022: to declare the letter dated 19.07.2022 addressed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kattangur Police Station to the Tahsildar, Kattangur, in respect of the subject land and to set aside the same. in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in respect of the above said land. (iii) W.P. No. 30452 of 2022: to declare the letter dated 19.07.2022 addressed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kattangur Police Station to the Tahsildar, Kattangur, in respect of the subject land and to set aside the same. (iv) W.P. No. 44081 of 2022: to call for the records in File No. A/379/21 and A/390/21 from the office of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Nalgonda (respondent No. 4) in respect of the subject land and quash the report dated 18.11.2021 issued by respondent No. 5-Deputy Inspector of Survey, Office of Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda. W.P. Nos. 30235 AND 32928 OF 2022 4. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs. 2.25 guntas in Survey No. 902, situated at Edulu Village of Kattangur Mandal, Nalgonda District. Originally, his father, Mr. Venkaiah and his brothers had purchased the agriculture land to an extent of Acs. 10.24 guntas in Survey No. 902 of Edulu Village Shivar from one Mr. Narla Papaiah and Mr. Narla Narsaiah in the year 1972 for a valid consideration. Since the date of said purchase, they had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the said lands by way of cultivation. Their names were also mutated in revenue records and pattadar passbooks were issued in their favour: (i) Thereafter, partition took place among the father of the petitioner and his brothers, and an extent of Acs. 2.25 guntas in Survey No. 902 fell to the share of the father of the petitioner. After the death of father of the petitioner, the name of the petitioner was mutated in revenue records being legal heir and issued pattadar passbook and title deed bearing No. 833181 with Khata No. 1542 in his favour. (ii) While so, one Mr. Narla Meenaiah is also having land to an extent of Acs. 5.12 guntas in the very same survey number. Out of the said extent, he sold out an extent of Acs. 2.10 guntas to one Mr. Allam Anjaneyulu S/o Peda Veeraiah under a registered sale deed bearing document No. 1550 of 1985, dated 26.04.1985 of SRO, Nalgonda. Pursuant to the said sale, the name of Mr. Allam Anjaneyulu was recorded in revenue records and pattadar passbook and title deed were issued in his favour. 2.10 guntas to one Mr. Allam Anjaneyulu S/o Peda Veeraiah under a registered sale deed bearing document No. 1550 of 1985, dated 26.04.1985 of SRO, Nalgonda. Pursuant to the said sale, the name of Mr. Allam Anjaneyulu was recorded in revenue records and pattadar passbook and title deed were issued in his favour. The said Anjaneyulu also sold the said land to one Mr. Allam Venkatamma through a registered sale deed bearing document No. 2689 of 1995. (iii) The said Narla Meenaiah also sold out an extent of Acs. 3.00 guntas in Survey No. 902 to one Mr. Allam Lingaiah S/o Peda Veeraiah under registered sale deed bearing document No. 1551 of 1985, dated 26.04.1985 and his name was also recorded in revenue records. The said Allam Lingaiah also sold the said extent of land to one Mr. Ganta Mallaiah under a registered sale deed. Thereafter, the said Ganta Mallaiah also sold out an extent of Ac. 1.00 guntas to one Mr. Allam Ventatamma, an extent of Ac. 1.00 guntas to one Mr. Ambati Veeraiah and remaining extent of Ac. 1.00 to one Mr. Ambati Yadaiah. The said purchasers are in continuous possession of their respective extents by way of cultivation. (iv) In view of the above, the said Meenaiah sold out the land to an extent of Acs. 5.10 guntas in Survey No. 902 out of Acs. 5.12 guntas and only an extent of Ac. 0.02 guntas is left over in his name. Except an extent of Ac. 0.02 guntas, the said Meenaiah did not have any other land. Taking advantage of the entry of Ac. 0.02 guntas, the said Meenaiah colluded with revenue records and forged the numerical number and entered an extent of Acs. 2.12 guntas in his name, with an intention to grab the land of the petitioner. Accordingly, the said Meenaiah colluded with one Mr. Dasari Narsaiah, who is none other than the husband of respondent No. 5 and father of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in W.P. No. 32928 of 2022 and executed a registered sale deed bearing document No. 2479 of 2007 dated 03.10.2007 in favour of Mr. Dasari Narsaiah. Under the guise of said sale deed, the said Dasari Narsaiah approached the Tahsildar and filed a mutation petition on 12.10.2007 and the same was rejected vide proceedings dated 20.10.2007. 6 and 7 in W.P. No. 32928 of 2022 and executed a registered sale deed bearing document No. 2479 of 2007 dated 03.10.2007 in favour of Mr. Dasari Narsaiah. Under the guise of said sale deed, the said Dasari Narsaiah approached the Tahsildar and filed a mutation petition on 12.10.2007 and the same was rejected vide proceedings dated 20.10.2007. (v) The petitioner herein has filed a writ petition vide W.P. No. 10213 of 2020 to declare the action of the Tahsildar, Kattangur Mandal for non-issuance of e-pattadar passbook in respect of the subject property. He has filed another writ petition vide W.P. No. 11214 of 2020, to declare the action of the Tahsildar for non-implementation of the proceedings No. 3/1349/2007, dated 30.04.2007 for regularization of the subject property in revenue records as illegal. Both the writ petitions are also pending. (vi) During pendency of the said writ petitions, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 30235 of 2022 to declare the action of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 therein in not considering online application of the petitioner and issuing e-pattadar passbook in respect of the subject property as illegal. He has also filed W.P. No. 32928 of 2022 to declare the action of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 therein in proceeding with issuance of pattadar passbook in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in respect of the subject property as illegal. Vide order dated 22.08.2022, this Court directed to maintain status quo as on that date with regard to the entries in revenue records in respect of the subject property. 5. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in W.P. No. 32928 of 2022 filed counter denying the claim of the petitioner by contending as follows: (i) The petitioner has no right, title or interest in the subject land and he has no manner of right to restrain official respondents from issuing pattadar passbooks in favour of respondent No. 7. (ii) Vide judgment dated 22.04.2002 in S.A. No. 56 of 2013, this Court categorically held that the pattadar passbook issued in the name of the petitioner is void and against the Rules made under the Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘ROR Act’). (iii) There was no partition effected between four (04) brothers as alleged by the petitioner. (iv) The said Narla Meenaiah, vendor of father respondent Nos. (iii) There was no partition effected between four (04) brothers as alleged by the petitioner. (iv) The said Narla Meenaiah, vendor of father respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and husband of respondent No. 5 was shown as pattadar and possessor of Acs. 2.12 guntas in Survey No. 902/ in all revenue records. The said extent was purchased by their father through sale deed bearing No. 2479 of 2007, dated 03.10.2007. Since then, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. (v) The petitioner played fraud on the Revenue Authorities and made all efforts to implement the proceedings No. B/1349/2007, dated 30.04.2007. (vi) Their Vendor, Narla Meenaiah and husband and father of respondent Nos. 5 to 7, respectively, challenged the said proceedings by way of an appeal under Section 5 (5) of the ROR Act and the Revenue Divisional Officer vide orders dated 30.06.2020 in Case No. B/3473/2007 directed both the parties to approach the Tahsildar after disposal of S.A. No. 56 of 2013. (vii) Aggrieved by the said orders, dated 30.06.2020, the petitioner filed a revision vide F2/3993/2020 under Section-9 of the ROR Act. After constitution of Special Tribunals, the said revision was transferred to the Special Tribunal, Nalgona and renumbered it as F2/Spl.Tribunal/0296/2021. (viii) Vide orders dated 01.02.2021, the Special Tribunal dismissed the revision by confirming the order dated 30.06.2020 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. (ix) Pursuant to the orders dated 18.03.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 20 of 2021, respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and two sisters filed a review petition before the Special Tribunal to reopen the case and give an opportunity. The Special Tribunal vide order dated 23.06.2021 dismissed the review petition by upholding the earlier order dated 01.02.2021 passed by it. (x) The petitioner has not challenged the orders dated 01.02.2021 and 23.06.2021 passed by the Special Tribunal. (xi) Suppressing all the said orders, the petitioner filed the present writ petitions. (xii) Thereafter, the Revenue Authorities issued latest pattadar passbook-cum-title deed bearing No. T28120032020, dated 26.07.2022 in favour of respondent No. 6 in respect of Acs. 1.0450 and Ac. 0.150 guntas in Survey Nos. 902/ /1/2 and 902/ /2/2, respectively, making a total extent of Acs. 1.06 guntas. Similalry, the application for issuance of pattadar passbook-cum-title deed was processed and allotted pattdar-cum-title deed bearing No. T28120032021 for an extent of Acs. 1.0450 and Ac. 0.150 guntas in Survey Nos. 902/ /1/2 and 902/ /2/2, respectively, making a total extent of Acs. 1.06 guntas. Similalry, the application for issuance of pattadar passbook-cum-title deed was processed and allotted pattdar-cum-title deed bearing No. T28120032021 for an extent of Acs. 1.06 guntas in favour of respondent No. 7. However, in view of interim orders dated 22.08.2022 in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in W.P. No. 32928 of 2022, the pass book is not issued and the said extent is still continuing in the name of Mr. Narla Meenaiah. (xiii) The petitioner filed frivolous cases with an intention to grab their property. 6. Perusal of record would reveal that the petitioner has filed a suit vide O.S. No. 89 of 2007 against the husband of respondent No. 5 and father of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and one Mr. Nagula Bixam, for perpetual injunction. Vide judgment and decree, dated 28.07.2010, learned Junior Civil Judge, Nakrekal, dismissed the said suit. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal vide A.S. No. 57 of 2010. Vide judgment and decree, dated 11.09.2012, learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Sessions Judge for trial of SC/STs (POA) Act cases, Nalgonda, allowed the said appeal. Challenging the said judgment and decree, dated 11.09.2012, the husband of respondent No. 5 and father of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and the said Nagulapati Bixam preferred second appeal vide S.A. No. 56 of 2013, and this Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.04.2022 allowed the said second appeal. 7. It is relevant to note that in the said judgment in S.A. No. 56 of 2013, dated 22.04.2022, this Court held that the suit was filed only for perpetual injunction and the petitioner herein being plaintiff has to establish his possession over the suit schedule property. The trial Court in well-reasoned order clearly held that the plaintiff failed to prove the title and possession over the suit schedule property. The application for mutation of his name was given by his senior paternal uncle and not by him at any point of time and more over against the orders dated 30.04.2007, an appeal was preferred and it is still pending for consideration. The said documents are collusive. Exs.A14 to A16 are not proved by adducing evidence and they cannot be looked into. The said documents are collusive. Exs.A14 to A16 are not proved by adducing evidence and they cannot be looked into. Defendant No. 1, who was examined as DW-1, by marking the relevant documents proved his title and possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit. The plaintiff has to succeed his case with his own strength but not on the weaknesses of the opponent. The plaintiff failed to establish his possession over the suit schedule property. Therefore, he is not entitled for injunction. With the said findings, this Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2012 in A.S. No. 57 of 2010 and confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2010 in O.S. No. 89 of 2007. According to learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 to 7, no SLP was preferred against the said judgment dated 22.04.2022 passed by this Court in S.A. No. 56 of 2013 and the same was attained finality. 8. Perusal of record would also reveal that Mr. Narla Meenaiah and Mr. Dasari Naraiah filed an appeal vide Appeal No. B/3473 of 2007, under Section-5 (5) of the ROR Act against Mr. Nagulapati Peda Pitchaiah (elder paternal uncle of the petitioner herein) and the Tahsildar, Kattangur Mandal. Vide order dated 30.06.2020, learned Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda, referring to pendency of the second appeal vide S.A. No. 56 of 2013 before this Court, held that the parties are at liberty to approach the Tahsildar, Kattangur, after disposal of the said S.A. No. 56 of 2013. With the said observations, he has dismissed the said appeal. 9. Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein filed a revision vide ROR Case F2/Spl.Tribunal/0296/2021 under Section-9 of the ROR Act, and the same was transferred to the Special Tribunal in terms of ROR Act, 2020. Vide order dated 01.02.2021, the Special Tribunal, Nalgonda dismissed the said revision confirming the order dated 30.06.2020 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos. 5 to 7 herein and others filed a review petition before the Special Tribunal. Vide order dated 23.06.2021, the Special Tribunal dismissed the said review petition confirming its order dated 01.02.2021. 10. Perusal of record would also reveal that pursuant to the judgment dated 22.04.2022 in S.A. No. 56 of 2013, both respondent Nos. 5 to 7 herein and others filed a review petition before the Special Tribunal. Vide order dated 23.06.2021, the Special Tribunal dismissed the said review petition confirming its order dated 01.02.2021. 10. Perusal of record would also reveal that pursuant to the judgment dated 22.04.2022 in S.A. No. 56 of 2013, both respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have filed online applications with respondent No. 2 with a request to mutate their names and issue e-pattadar pass book. The application submitted by respondent No. 6 was considered and issued e-pattadar pass book in respect of the land admeasuring Acs. 1.0450 and Ac. 0.150 guntas in Survey Nos. 902/IMAGE/1/2 and 902/IMAGE/2/2, respectively, making a total extent of Acs. 1.06 guntas, situated at Eduluru Village, Kattangur Mandal, Nalgonda District. The application submitted by respondent No. 7 is pending. According to learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 7, due to status quo order dated 22.08.2022 granted by this Court in W.P. No. 32928 of 2022, respondent No. 2 kept the said online application submitted by respondent No. 7 seeking mutation of his name and issuance of e-pattadar passbook. 11. There is no challenge to the order dated 23.06.2021 passed by the Special Tribunal in F2/Spl.Tribunal/0296/2021 (Old Case No. F2/3993/2020). Therefore, the same was attained finality. 12. Perusal of record would also reveal that the petitioner herein has filed a suit vide O.S. No. 169 of 2021 against respondent Nos. 5 to 7 seeking declaration of title, declare the registered sale deed bearing document No. 2479 of 2007, dated 03.10.2007 as null and void and for a consequential injunction. The said suit is pending and there are no interim orders. The said suit vide O.S. No. 186 of 2020 filed by respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and 2 others against the petitioner and 3 others seeking declaration of title and injunction is also pending. There are no interim orders in the aforesaid two suits. Vide proceedings dated 30.04.2007, the Tahsildar, Kattangur, directed to delete the name of Mr. Narla Meenaiah S/o Venkaiah from the revenue record in respect of the land admeasuring Acs. 2.25 guntas in Survey No. 902 of Edulur Revenue Village and include the name of Mr. Nagulapati Pedda Pichaiah S/o Venkat Ramaiah (elder paternal uncle of the petitioner herein) as pattadar in pahani for the year 2003-04. Narla Meenaiah S/o Venkaiah from the revenue record in respect of the land admeasuring Acs. 2.25 guntas in Survey No. 902 of Edulur Revenue Village and include the name of Mr. Nagulapati Pedda Pichaiah S/o Venkat Ramaiah (elder paternal uncle of the petitioner herein) as pattadar in pahani for the year 2003-04. Vide Letter No. A/444/2011, dated 20.05.2012 addressed by the Tahsildar to the District Collector, Nalgonda, it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner herein is the brother’s son of nagulapati Pedda Pichaiah, and that the petitioner has submitted an application stating that the land admeasuring Acs. 2.25 guntas in Survey No. 902 fell to his share in the partition which was held by Nagulapati Pedda Pichaiah. After conducting necessary enquiry and after recording the statement of Nagulapati Pedda Pichaiah, the then Tahsildar, passed orders dated 30.04.2007 for recording the patta in the name of the petitioner herein under partition. The said order was implemented. 13. In the proceedings, dated 30.04.2007 of the Tahsildar, it is stated that as per revenue record, the land admeasuring Acs. 5.11 guntas in Survey No. 902 of Edulur Revenue Village belongs to Nagulapati Pedda Pichaiah and he is the pattadar. He has sold the land to an extent of Acs. 2.26 guntas to one Mr. Nimmanagoti Sathaiah S/o Sivaiah under a registered sale deed bearing document No. 1726 of 1991. The same was entered in pahani for the year 1990-91. The name of Nimmanagoti Sathaiah was recorded in pahani for the year 1991-92. The name of Nagulapati Pedda Pichaiah was deleted from revenue record in respect of the land Acs. 2.26 guntas. Therefore, left out land in favour of Nagulapati Pedda Pichaiah was Acs. 2.25 guntas. 14. It is further stated that Mr. Narla Meenaiah got Ac. 0.02 guntas of land in Survey No. 902 as per pahani for the year 1989-90 and 1990-91. In the pahani for the year 1991-92, the same was mentioned as Acs. 2.12 guntas without any basis. An enquiry was conducted, wherein Mr. Narla Meenaiah appeared and stated that he has already sold the land in Survey No. 902 to third parties. Therefore, he requested theTahsildar to delete his name and include the name of Mr. Nagulapati Pedda Pichaiah. 15. The aforesaid facts would reveal that the petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs. Narla Meenaiah appeared and stated that he has already sold the land in Survey No. 902 to third parties. Therefore, he requested theTahsildar to delete his name and include the name of Mr. Nagulapati Pedda Pichaiah. 15. The aforesaid facts would reveal that the petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs. 2.26 guntas in Survey No. 902 of Edulur Revenue Village under partition, but he failed to file the said partition deed and failed to prove the same. 16. As discussed above, in the judgment dated 22.04.2022 in S.A. No. 56 of 2013, this Court gave a categorical finding. However, the aforesaid suits filed by the petitioner vide O.S. No. 169 of 2021 and filed by respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and others vide O.S. No. 186 of 2020 for declaration are pending. Therefore, the petitioner has to wait for decision in O.S. No. 169 of 2021. He cannot seek issuance of e-pattadar pass book in respect of the subject property and that he cannot stall the request made by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to mutate their names in respect of the subject property. 17. As discussed above, online application submitted by respondent No. 6 was already considered and his name was mutated and e-pattadar passbook was issued in respect of the extent mentioned above. The online application submitted by respondent No. 7 is pending due to the status quo order dated 22.08.2022 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 32928 of 2022. 18. It is relevant to note that due to the said inter se disputes between the parties, cases and counter cases are filed against each other. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet. Some of them were ended in acquittal. It is also relevant to note that respondent Nos. 6 and 7 filed a writ petition vide W.P. No. 14622 of 2021, and this Court vide order dated 05.07.2021 directed respondent Nos. 2 and 3 therein not to interfere with the agricultural operations being carried out by the petitioners therein in respect of Acs. 2.12 guntas in Survey No. 902 of Eduluru Village, Kattangur Mandal, Nalgonda District. They have filed a Contempt Case vide C.C. No. 1266 of 2022. 2 and 3 therein not to interfere with the agricultural operations being carried out by the petitioners therein in respect of Acs. 2.12 guntas in Survey No. 902 of Eduluru Village, Kattangur Mandal, Nalgonda District. They have filed a Contempt Case vide C.C. No. 1266 of 2022. Vide order dated 01.09.2023, this Court allowed the said C.C. Feeling aggrieved by the same, a Contempt Appeal was filed vide C.A. No. 9 of 2023, and vide order dated 15.09.2023, a Division Bench of this Court granted stay of sentence imposed against contemnor therein. All the said facts would reveal that there are serious disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 with regard to the subject property. Therefore, both the writ petitions fail and the same are liable to be dismissed. 19. As discussed supra, the suit vide O.S. No. 89 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for perpetual injunction was dismissed and the appeal filed by him vide A.S. No. 57 of 2010 was allowed and S.A. No. 56 of 2013 filed by the husband of respondent No. 5 and father of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and the said Nagulapati Bixam was allowed setting aside the judgment in A.S. No. 57 of 2010 confirming the judgment in O.S. No. 89 of 2007. This Court gave a specific finding as stated supra. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a suit vide O.S. No. 169 of 2021 seeking declaration is pending. He has to wait for judgment in the said suit. W.P. Nos. 30452 & 44081 OF 2022 20. As discussed above, the aforesaid suits, O.S. No. 169 of 2021 and O.S. No. 186 of 2020 filed by the parties are pending. Both the suits are for declaration of title. If there is dispute with regard to identification of the property and physical features of the suit schedule property, they have to file an application under Order-XXVI, Rule-9 of CPC to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, to conduct survey with the help of Government Surveyor or Mandal Surveyor and also to note down physical features, and it is for the trial Court to consider the same. During pendency of the said suits, the parties cannot seek independent survey, it amounts to collection of evidence in the absence of other party which is impermissible. 21. During pendency of the said suits, the parties cannot seek independent survey, it amounts to collection of evidence in the absence of other party which is impermissible. 21. Similarly, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kattangur Police Station cannot address a letter dated 19.07.2022 to the Tahsildar, Kattangur, seeking details of subject land by conducting survey. As discussed above, during pendency of aforesaid suits, conducting survey is impermissible. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion and having regarding to the pendency of suits filed by both the parties seeking comprehensive reliefs and the same are pending for adjudication in respect of the subject property, it is not advisable to conduct survey and fix boundaries as sought in W.P. No. 44081 of 2022. Similarly, during pendency the aforesaid suits, the Investigating Officer cannot seek the information in respect of the subject property from the Tahsildar for conducting investigation in Crime Nos. 85 and 92 of 2022 registered on the reports made by both the parties. The aforesaid findings of this Court in the judgment dated 22.04.022 in S.A. No. 56 of 2013 are also relevant. The Investigating Officer has to confine his investigation only with regard to the offences under IPC. Thus, in the light of the same, the letter dated 19.07.2022 addressed by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kattangur Police Station to the Tahsildar, Kattangur, is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. 23. Likewise, the Survey report dated 18.11.2021 of the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Office of RDO, Nalgonda is also liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. Both the writ petitions are allowed. 24. W.P. Nos. 30235 and 32928 of 2022 are accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach respondent No. 2 after disposal of the suit O.S. No. 169 of 2021 filed by him seeking declaration of title etc. W.P. Nos. 30452 and 44081 of 2022 are allowed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 25. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petitions shall stand closed.