ORDER : K. LAKSHMAN, J. Heard Mr. Srinivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. CASE OF THE PETITIONERS i) The petitioners herein are the owners and possessors of various extents of land forming part of Survey Nos.194, 195 and 198, situated at Mallemadugu Village, Khammam Urban Mandal and District. They have purchased the said lands under sada bainamas from the original pattadars and the same were subsequently validated/regularized as per the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short, ‘ROR Act, 1971’) and the Rules made thereunder. Their names were also recorded as pattadars in all revenue records. They are in possession of the said lands since long time. ii) The respondent authorities have initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short, ‘Act, 1905’) by issuing notice as required under Section - 7 of the Act, 1905 claiming that the subject lands which are in occupation of the petitioners herein are ceiling surplus lands under the provisions of the Telangana Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short, ‘Act, 1973’). Thus, respondent authorities requested the petitioners to submit explanation as to why they should not be evicted from the subject land. The petitioners herein have submitted explanation to the said notice stating that the nature of subject lands are patta lands and they have purchased the same under sada bainamas and the same were regularized in their favour. iii) Even then, respondent No.4 initiated the proceedings under the Act, 1905 and passed eviction orders dated 29.10.2021 vide proceedings No.B/3599/2017. Challenging the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal in C3/902/2024. Vide common order dated 03.05.2024, respondent No.3 confirmed the said eviction order. iv) Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.13754 of 2024 contending that the petitioners are in long standing possession, therefore, by initiating summary proceedings, respondent No.4 cannot pass an order dated 29.10.2021 under Section - 6 of the Act, 1905. 3. Vide common order dated 03.05.2024, respondent No.3 confirmed the said eviction order. iv) Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.13754 of 2024 contending that the petitioners are in long standing possession, therefore, by initiating summary proceedings, respondent No.4 cannot pass an order dated 29.10.2021 under Section - 6 of the Act, 1905. 3. Considering the inter se disputes between the parties which are serious in nature, vide order dated 17.12.2024, this Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition (W.P. No.13754 of 2024) setting aside the order dated 03.05.2024 in appeal No.C3/902/2024 of respondent No.3 leaving it open to the petitioners and pattadars to agitate their claims before competent Civil Court and after obtaining a decree in the said suits, they are entitled to make an appropriate application seeking correction of revenue records or carrying out amendments as per the provisions of the ROR Act, 2020. Pending finalization of the said suits, the respondent authorities were directed not to change the nature/classification of the property in revenue records and also directed not to mutate revenue records in any manner pending adjudication of rights of the parties over the subject lands. At the same time, the petitioners were also directed not to alienate or create any third party interest over the subject lands and also restrained them for conversion of the said lands for any other purposes. 4. In the said order, it is also observed by this Court that as it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that as on that date, there is a standing crop which is ready to harvest, the petitioners were permitted to harvest the said crop on the panchanama being drawn by respondent No.4. It was made clear that after harvesting the said crop, the petitioners should not claim any rights over the subject property till the suits have been decided by the competent civil Court in accordance with law. The alleged assignees were also permitted to implead themselves in the pending suits and contest the matter in accordance with law. The civil Court was directed to dispose of the said suits as expeditiously as possible. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an Intra-Court Appeal under Section - 15 of the Letters Patent vide W.A. No.111 of 2025. The civil Court was directed to dispose of the said suits as expeditiously as possible. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an Intra-Court Appeal under Section - 15 of the Letters Patent vide W.A. No.111 of 2025. Vide judgment dated 29.01.2025, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ appeal with the following directions: “i. The paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of the impugned order stand modified by reserving liberty to the parties to file appropriate civil suits/applications, if not already filed. ii. In the event in such civil suits any interim applications are already filed, the trial Court shall make an endeavour to decide the same within thirty days from the date of production of copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.” 6. It is relevant to note that the Division Bench of this Court passed the aforesaid judgment considering the consensus arrived at between learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 7. Thereafter, the petitioners filed I.A. No.2 of 2025 in W.A.No.111 of 2025 seeking clarification/modification of order dated 29.01.2025 in W.A.No.111 of 2025. Vide order dated 19.06.2025, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said interlocutory application observing thus: “ In our opinion, the order dated 29.01.2025 is clear. Yet, in the interest of justice, it is further clarified that while passing the consent order aforesaid on 29.01.2025, we made it clear that paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of the order of the learned Single Judge stood modified. The modification means that paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of the order of the learned Single Judge is substituted by our order and any directions contained in the order of the learned Single Judge automatically stood modified and pales into insignificance.” 8. Since panchanama was conducted on 15.05.2025, the petitioners filed a contempt case vide C.C. No.1357 of 2025 alleging willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 29.01.2025 in W.A. No.111 of 2025 and that the panchanama dated 15.05.2025 runs contrary to the said order. Vide order dated 30.06.2025, the Division Bench closed the said contempt with the following observations: “In the panchanama, dated 15.05.2025, the statement of fact is recorded that both the parties have harvested the crop in the land. To this extent, no interference is required. Vide order dated 30.06.2025, the Division Bench closed the said contempt with the following observations: “In the panchanama, dated 15.05.2025, the statement of fact is recorded that both the parties have harvested the crop in the land. To this extent, no interference is required. However, the later portion, wherein in the panchanama it was recorded that “thereafter not to raise any crops and directed the respondents not allot this land till the disposal of cases in civil Courts…….” is concerned is based on the order of learned Single Judge which stood modified by the Division Bench in W.A. No.111 of 2025. This quoted portion lost its significance and will not be binding.” 9. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present writ petition questioning the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in erecting barbed wire fencing and board in front of the gate preventing the access to the subject lands and directing the petitioners not to enter and carry agricultural operations, even though this Court set aside the eviction proceedings in W.P. No.13754 of 2024 as modified by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.111 of 2025, as illegal, the petitioners contended that they are in possession of the subject lands and the said fact was confirmed by this Court and the Division Bench in the aforesaid orders. Therefore, the erection of barbed wire fencing and board in front of gate preventing their access to the subject lands by respondents is illegal. 10. CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS i) Originally, the nature of the subject lands are classified in revenue records as Kariz Khata and they are vested with the Government as per khasra pahani/sethwar from 1984-85 onwards. ii) The petitioners got mutated their names in revenue records in the year 2018-19 stating that the said lands are not Government land and they are patta lands. iii) On earlier occasion, questioning the proceedings issued by respondent No.4 vide Rc.No.B/3599/2017, dated 29.10.2021 under Section - 6 of the Act, 1905, the petitioners filed Appeal Nos.1 to 10 of 2021 before respondent No.3, who dismissed the said appeals confirming the orders passed by respondent No.4. iv) Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners filed writ petitions vide W.P.Nos.564, 569, 574, 581, 586, 602, 605, 670 and 677 of 2022. Vide common order, dated 02.01.2024, this Court remanded the matters back to respondent No.3 for reconsideration. iv) Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners filed writ petitions vide W.P.Nos.564, 569, 574, 581, 586, 602, 605, 670 and 677 of 2022. Vide common order, dated 02.01.2024, this Court remanded the matters back to respondent No.3 for reconsideration. v) Taking advantage of stray entries in revenue records, the petitioners are claiming occupation/possession of subject lands. However, as on the date, the Government is in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. vi) When the Government started disputing the nature of the subject lands, its classification and enjoyment of the petitioners, they have instituted a suit vide O.S.No.63 of 2024 and the pattadars have also filed another suit vide O.S.No.49 of 2024. Both the suits are pending. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT 11. Vide order 29.10.2021, respondent No.4 passed eviction order against the petitioners. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed appeals under Section - 10 of the Act, 1905, vide Appeal Nos.2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 5, 1 and 7, respectively before respondent No.3. Vide order dated 29.12.2021, respondent No.3 confirmed the order of eviction. Challenging the said order dated 29.12.2021, the petitioners herein have filed writ petitions vide W.P. Nos.564, 569, 574, 581, 586, 602, 605, 670 and 677 of 2022. Vide common order dated 02.01.2024, this Court allowed the said writ petitions setting aside the order dated 29.12.2021 of respondent No.3. The matter was remanded back to respondent No.3 with a direction to re-consider the appeals and pass orders by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and all concerned/interested persons within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. 12. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners herein filed a suit vide O.S. No.63 of 2024 against the respondents herein and (12) others seeking declaration and perpetual injunction. They have also filed an Interlocutory Application (IA) No.2 of 2024 seeking temporary injunction. The said IA and suit are pending before learned V Additional District Judge, Khammam at present. There are no interim orders. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no Presiding Officer in the said Court and In-charge Court is IV Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Khammam. Now, I.A. is posted to 24.09.2025. Despite making efforts, the trial Court is not deciding the said temporary injunction application. The petitioners are in possession of the subject lands. There are no interim orders. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no Presiding Officer in the said Court and In-charge Court is IV Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Khammam. Now, I.A. is posted to 24.09.2025. Despite making efforts, the trial Court is not deciding the said temporary injunction application. The petitioners are in possession of the subject lands. They are carrying out agricultural operations. Due to the illegal acts of the respondents herein in preventing them from carrying out agricultural operations and erecting fencing, the petitioners are being put to irreparable loss and injury. 13. Perusal of record would also reveal that pattadars have also filed a suit in O.S. No.49 of 2024 against the petitioners and the respondents herein seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession. The said suit is also pending. There are no interim orders. 14. Thus, according to the petitioners, the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in preventing them from carrying out agricultural operations in the subject lands and fencing with barbed wire is illegal, contrary to the aforesaid orders dated 17.12.2024 passed by this Court in W.P. No.13754 of 2024 and the judgment dated 29.01.2025 in W.A. No.111 of 2025 and the modified order therein dated 19.06.2025 in I.A. No.2 of 2025 in WA No.111 of 2025 and also the order dated 30.06.2025 in C.C. No.1357 of 2025. In proof of the same, the petitioners have filed photographs. 15. It is also the specific contention of the petitioners that vide order dated 04.06.2024 in W.P. No.13754 of 2024, this Court directed the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 4 to maintain status quo with regard to the subject property in all respects. Thereafter, on the complaint dated 29.06.2024 lodged by respondent No.4, the Police of Khanapur Haveli Police Station, Khammam District, registered a case in Crime No.355 of 2024 against father of petitioner No.5 and others for the offences under Sections - 447 and 427 of IPC. Respondent No.4 was not allowing the petitioners to cultivate the subject property. On consideration of the same, this Court modified the order dated 04.06.2025 in W.P. No.13754 of 2024 and directed respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject lands and not to interfere with their possession. In view of the said protection, they have not pursued I.A. No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.63 of 2024 seriously. On consideration of the same, this Court modified the order dated 04.06.2025 in W.P. No.13754 of 2024 and directed respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject lands and not to interfere with their possession. In view of the said protection, they have not pursued I.A. No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.63 of 2024 seriously. Considering the said fact, the trial Court also did not grant temporary injunction. However, after disposal of the aforesaid writ petition vide order dated 17.12.2024, the petitioners are making hectic efforts to get orders in the aforesaid I.A. No.2 of 2024. Since the Presiding Officer is on leave, In-charge Court is not taking up the said I.A. and dispose it of in accordance with law. Taking advantage of the same, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the subject lands. 16. In the light of the above submissions, it is apt to note that vide order dated 17.12.2024 in W.P. No.13754 of 2024, this Court while setting aside the order dated 03.05.2024 of respondent No.3, left it open to the petitioners and pattadars to agitate their claims before competent Civil Court. After obtaining decree in the said suits, they are entitled to make appropriate applications seeking correction of revenue records or carrying out amendments as per the provisions of ROR Act, 2020. Pending finalization of the said suits, the respondent authorities were directed not to change the nature/classification of the property in revenue records and also directed not to mutate revenue records in any manner pending adjudication of rights of the parties over the subject lands. At the same time, the petitioners were also directed not to alienate or create any third party interest over the subject lands and also restrained them for conversion of the said lands for any other purposes. Since there is a standing crop which is ready to harvest, the petitioners were permitted to harvest the said crop on the panchanama being drawn by respondent No.4. It was made clear that after harvesting the said crop, the petitioners should not claim any rights over the subject property till the suits have been decided by the competent civil Court in accordance with law. The alleged assignees were also permitted to implead themselves in the pending suits and contest the matter in accordance with law. It was made clear that after harvesting the said crop, the petitioners should not claim any rights over the subject property till the suits have been decided by the competent civil Court in accordance with law. The alleged assignees were also permitted to implead themselves in the pending suits and contest the matter in accordance with law. The civil Court was directed to dispose of the said suits as expeditiously as possible. 17. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred writ appeal vide W.A. No.111 of 2025. Vide order dated 29.01.2025, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ appeal modifying paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of the order dated17.12.2024 in W.P. No.13754 of 2024 in the manner extracted above. 18. Vide order dated 19.06.2025 in I.A. No.2 of 2025 in W.A.No.111 of 2025, the Division Bench also clarified/modified its earlier order in the manner extracted above. Even vide order dated 30.06.2025, the Division closed the said C.C. No.1357 of 2025 observing in the manner extracted above. 19. It is apt to note that in the panchanama dated 15.05.2025, it is mentioned as follows: “In this regard, Giridhavar-II, Khammam (Urban) as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana dated 17.12.2024 in Writ Petition No.13754 of 2024 and Writ Appeal No.111/2025 dated 29-01-2025, directed the petitioners and respondents to harvest the crops in this land and thereafter, not to raise any crops and directed the respondents not allot this land till the disposal of cases in civil court if any and both parties in respect of Ac.11-08 Gts in Survey No.194, Ac. 06- 08 Gts in survey No.195, Ac. 10-28 Gts in Survey No.198, total extent Ac.28-04 Gts. In the above said lands, all crops were harvested by the petitioners and at present there are no crops in the said land. In this regard, we all three panchas read the contents above, understood and same and after coming to know truth, with our full conscience, above panchanama is conducted in our presence on 15-05-2025.” 20. In the light of the above, the petitioners cannot contend that the Division Bench permitted them to cultivate the subject lands. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend vide judgment 29.01.2025 in W.A. No.111 of 2025, the Division Bench reserved liberty to the ‘parties’ to file appropriate civil suits/applications, if not already filed. In the light of the above, the petitioners cannot contend that the Division Bench permitted them to cultivate the subject lands. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend vide judgment 29.01.2025 in W.A. No.111 of 2025, the Division Bench reserved liberty to the ‘parties’ to file appropriate civil suits/applications, if not already filed. Thus, the Division Bench protected the interest of the petitioners. The said contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is contrary to the aforesaid orders. In fact, the petitioners have to pursue the aforesaid I.A. No.2 of 2024 in O.S. No.63 of 2024 and on obtaining order of temporary injunction, they have to cultivate the subject lands as held by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2024 in W.P. No.13754 of 2024. Instead of doing so, interpreting the aforesaid order in the manner stated above on their own, the petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents to permit them to carry out agricultural operations by declaring the actions of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in preventing them from carrying out agricultural operations and fencing the subject property as illegal. Therefore, viewed from any angle, there is no ambiguity in the order dated 17.12.2024 in W.P. No.13754 of 2024, judgment dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.111 of 2025 and the modified order dated 19.06.2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.A. No.111 of 2025 and also the order dated 30.06.2025 in C.C. No.1357 of 2025. The petitioners are misinterpreting the same to suit their convenience. Therefore, they are not entitled for any relief, much less the relief sought in the present writ petition. Thus, this writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. 21. Though the petitioners claim that they purchased the subject lands under Sada Bainama and the same were regularized in terms of Section - 5A of the ROR Act, 1971, they have not filed copies of the same. According to the petitioners, they have filed the said documents in the suit pending before the trial Court. In the light of the said submission, it is for the trial Court to consider the said documents and decide I.A. No.2 of 2024 filed by them in O.S. No.63 of 2024. In the absence of the same and without filing copies of the said documents, the petitioners cannot seek any protection to them. 22. In the light of the said submission, it is for the trial Court to consider the said documents and decide I.A. No.2 of 2024 filed by them in O.S. No.63 of 2024. In the absence of the same and without filing copies of the said documents, the petitioners cannot seek any protection to them. 22. It is apt to note that if the trial Court is not disposed of the said I.A. No.2 of 2024 in O.S. No.63 of 2024, they can as well avail their remedy under law. 23. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to pursue I.A. No.2 of 2024 in O.S. No.63 of 2024 before the trial Court and on obtaining interim order, they are at liberty to carry out agricultural operations in the subject property. If the trial Court is not disposing of the said I.A. No.2 of 2024 in O.S. No.63 of 2024, liberty is granted to them to take steps in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.