ORDER : HARINATH N., J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Lr.Roc.No.19024(31)/81/2022-ATR RGN- DOTCP, dated 13.09.2024, by which the respondent had kept in abeyance both utilised and unutilized TDR dated 19.08.2023 issued to the petitioner and also a direction is sought to set aside the said order. 2. Sri. O. Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner, along with his family members, had executed a registered gift deed dated 17.07.2023 in favour of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner’s family transferred rights over land admeasuring 2603.14 square meters/3113.32 square yards to facilitate the 3rd respondent's use of the same for road widening. 3. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent awarded Transferrable Development Right (TDR) in the name of the petitioner vide certificate No.1012/00356/TDR/GN/2023, dated 19.08.2023, for 10412.559 square meters of built-up area. It is also submitted that the petitioner has sold away 7386.48 square meters of built-up area, thereby utilising more than 75% of the TDR Certificate granted. 4. The learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to a grant of TDR Certificate as the father of the petitioner had purchased the property vide a registered sale deed dated 29.10.1979 vide document No.423/1980. It is submitted that the Civil Court had decreed the suit vide its judgment dated 11.03.2015 in OS.No.1 of 2005 by the V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. It is submitted that the title of the petitioner is undisputed and that a competent Civil Court has also decreed the suit based on the title deeds of the petitioner’s father. 5. It is submitted that the revenue authorities were persuaded to mutate the petitioner’s father's name in the revenue records during the lifetime of the petitioner’s father. It is also submitted that, after the demise of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner followed up with the revenue authorities regarding the mutation. It is also submitted that during the field inspection, the brother of the 4th respondent and his family came out to the site and objected to the conduct of the survey. It is submitted that the brother of the 4th respondent had relied on a fabricated document for claiming the property, and that the petitioner filed a case in Cr.No.421 of 2012 against him for fabricating the documents. It is submitted that the brother of the 4th respondent had relied on a fabricated document for claiming the property, and that the petitioner filed a case in Cr.No.421 of 2012 against him for fabricating the documents. It is submitted that the Tahsildar, Tirupati, had issued proceedings Roc.No.A/299/2019, dated 14.03.2022 and effected the mutation in the name of the petitioner and his family members. The Tahsildar, in his order dated 14.03.2022, also directed the sub-division of land, and the petitioner’s land was assigned survey No.1/1B. 6. It is submitted that the brother of the 4th respondent filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Tirupathi, against the order of the Tahsildar. The RDO vide his order dated 15.10.2022 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar. It is also submitted that the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Tirupathi, against the order of the RDO, Tirupathi. The Joint Collector not only modified the order of the RDO but also cancelled the sub-division of land and further directed the Tahsildar to earmark the boundaries of the land as per the sale deeds vide order dated 08.12.2023. It is submitted that the said order is contrary to the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.1 of 2005. It is also submitted that the petitioner filed WP.No.32649 of 2023, and this Court vide order dated 19.12.2023 stayed the order of the Joint Collector, Tirupathi. 7. It is submitted that the 4th respondent or his brother cannot claim title over the property which was sold by their grandfather, Sri.T.Venkatesam Reddy, to the father of the petitioner and one Sri.A.Govinda Reddy to an extent of Ac.. 3.33 cents. 8. It is submitted that, as on date, the 4th respondent has not so far submitted the title documents relied upon by him for claiming any right, title or interest over the property gifted by the petitioner and his other family members to the 3rd respondent. However, the 4th respondent and his brother submitted a representation to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Tirupathi on 04.12.2023 and sought issuance of TDR bond in his name by referring to the order of Tahsildar dated 14.03.2022, order of RDO dated15.10.2022, and the order of Joint Collector dated 08.12.2023. 9. It is submitted that the 4th respondent triggered the issuance of the impugned proceedings. 9. It is submitted that the 4th respondent triggered the issuance of the impugned proceedings. It is submitted that the 4th respondent cannot interfere with the issuance of the TDR Certificate to the petitioner. The action of the 2nd respondent is equally astonishing, as they had entertained a claim from an unconnected third party and denied the benefit of the TDR Certificate to the petitioner. 10. It is also submitted that the brother of the 4th respondent had filed OS.No.10 of 2011 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, against third parties without arraigning the petitioner as a defendant in the said suit. It is submitted that the petitioner’s father filed an implead petition before the V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, in OS.No.10 of 2011. It is submitted that after filing of the implead petition, OS.No.10 of 2011 was withdrawn. As such, the suit was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 07.06.2017. 11. The learned senior counsel submits that the 4th respondent and his brother have been repeatedly causing hindrances in claiming the petitioner’s property as his property and subsequent benefits over the property as due to him. The claim set up by the 4th respondent for the TDR Bond/Certificate is shallow. 12. Sri.K.S.Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent, submits that the identity and title of the property claimed by the petitioner are in serious dispute. It is also stated that this Court vide order dated 19.12.2023 had stayed the order of the Joint Collector, Tirupathi, cancelling the sub- division of Survey No.1/1B. It is submitted that Survey No.1/1B is in dispute. 13. It is submitted that the revenue authorities are the competent authorities to decide the existence of land in Survey No.1/1B and the correctness of the sub-division of land in Survey No.1. It is also submitted that this Court granted a stay of all further proceedings in WP.No.32649 of 2023 on 19.12.2023. However, the TDR bonds were issued hurriedly without referring to the dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. It is submitted that OS.No.10 of 2011ws filed against third parties who claimed ownership on the strength of sale deeds executed by some other third parties. As the defendants therein withdrew their claims, the suit was withdrawn. However, the TDR bonds were issued hurriedly without referring to the dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. It is submitted that OS.No.10 of 2011ws filed against third parties who claimed ownership on the strength of sale deeds executed by some other third parties. As the defendants therein withdrew their claims, the suit was withdrawn. It is submitted that withdrawal of the said suit has nothing to do with the claim of the respondent from the Court over land in Survey No.1. 14. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 17.05.2025, called upon the 4th respondent to furnish certain documents to substantiate the complaint regarding the issuance of a TDR certificate. It is also submitted that the 4th respondent has sought documents filed by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent and that the same is pending consideration with the 3rd respondent. It is submitted that, unless the title is decided, the TDR would have to be taken abeyance. 15. The 3 rd respondent has also filed a counter, and the learned standing counsel submits that there is a rival claim over the property, which was utilised by the 3rd respondent for widening the road for public purposes. The title dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent was brought to the notice of the 3rd respondent; as such, the TDR Certificate issued to the petitioner was kept in abeyance. 16. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned senior counsel for the 4th respondent and also heard the learned standing counsel for the respondent No.3. Perused the material on record. 17. The short point for consideration of the Court is whether the 2nd respondent is justified in issuing the impugned proceedings basing on a complaint received by the 4th respondent and whether the impugned proceedings deserve to be set aside as the claim of the 4th respondent ought not to be entertained without an order of the Court conferring title over the disputed land in favour of the 4th respondent or his family members. 18. The suit in OS.No.1 of 2005 filed by the father of the petitioner seeking a declaration of title to an extent of Ac.3.33 cents of Tirupathi Sub District in No.29, Tirupathi Village Accounts, in Survey No.1. The suit was decreed on merits vide order dated 11.03.2015 by the V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. 18. The suit in OS.No.1 of 2005 filed by the father of the petitioner seeking a declaration of title to an extent of Ac.3.33 cents of Tirupathi Sub District in No.29, Tirupathi Village Accounts, in Survey No.1. The suit was decreed on merits vide order dated 11.03.2015 by the V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. The petitioner followed up on the updation of revenue records with the concerned authorities, and the Tahsildar, vide order dated 14.03.2022, had issued proceedings mutating the names of the petitioner and his family members. 19. On an appeal against the said order, the RDO, Tirupathi, would refer to the execution of the sale deed bearing Document No.423/1980, dated 29.10.1979. This document was executed by T.Venkatesam Reddy and his son Ramachandra Reddy in favour of the petitioner’s father. This document is in dispute, according to the 4th respondent. The order of the RDO also refers to the stand of the 4th respondent that the said document bearing No. 423/1980 is a fabricated document, as the signatures on the sale deed appeared to be bogus. That apart, a discrepancy in the extents was also noted. It was also observed that a discrete enquiry on the entire issue covering the litigations/ criminal cases pending before various forums is to be considered, and as such, had set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar. 20. The Joint Collector vide order dated 08.12.2023 primarily relied on the stand of the 4th respondent that the sale deed No.423/1980 is fabricated and that the signatures of the executant are not identical across the document. The Joint Collector also cancelled the newly created sub-division 1/1B and further directed the Tahsildar, Tirupathi Urban, to get a separate sub-division created for the new layout and conduct a revenue enquiry and mutate the revenue records in favour of the impleaded parties and other plot owners whose title and possession of the newly subdivided land gets well established. 21. The title of the petitioner’s father over land in Survey No.1 to an extent of Ac.3.33 cents was determined in OS.No.1 of 2005. Insofar as the observation of the Joint Collector is concerned, the determination of a registered document as fabricated and forged would have to be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court. The determination of title to the property would include the determination of several facts and a finding on those facts. Insofar as the observation of the Joint Collector is concerned, the determination of a registered document as fabricated and forged would have to be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court. The determination of title to the property would include the determination of several facts and a finding on those facts. This is the job of the competent Civil Court; neither the 2nd respondent nor the 3rd respondent is either competent or equipped to determine the title of the 4th respondent over the property and entertain the objection of the 4th respondent for issuing the impugned proceedings. 22. The impugned proceedings are issued on the claim set up by the 4th respondent, asserting right and ownership of the land gifted by the petitioner and his family members to the 3rd respondent for the grant of a TDR Certificate. As of the date, the petitioner and his family members executed a registered gift deed in favour of the 3rd respondent, and the 3rd respondent has fully utilised the land by laying the road for public purposes. 23. The petitioner had also parted with more than 75% of the TDR certificate and has yet to utilise the extent of the remaining TDR Certificate. The impugned proceedings would refer to 166 unutilized TDR bonds, which are kept in abeyance on instructions of the Government vide Memo dated 22.03.2024. The impugned proceedings also refer to the correspondence of the 3rd respondent with the 2nd respondent seeking to keep the TDR bond issued to the petitioner in abeyance in view of the title dispute over the site in Survey No.1/1B. 24. For determining the title over the property, the party claiming title over the property ought to have approached the competent Civil Court seeking appropriate relief. Nothing is placed before this Court or, as seen from the record before any of the respondent authorities, which would indicate a prima facie claim over the property in favour of the 4th respondent. It is also not known on what documents the 4th respondent is relying upon to claim right and title over the subject property. On the other hand, the decree in OS.No.1 of 2005 would stare at the claim of the 4th respondent, and it is also not known as to what further steps were taken by the 4th respondent against the decree and judgment passed in OS.No.1 of 2005. 25. On the other hand, the decree in OS.No.1 of 2005 would stare at the claim of the 4th respondent, and it is also not known as to what further steps were taken by the 4th respondent against the decree and judgment passed in OS.No.1 of 2005. 25. On the facts of this case, the impugned proceedings deserve to be set aside, as they were issued in the face of the objection raised by the 4th respondent when the mutation was effected in the name of the petitioner and his family members. On the strength of the title documents in favour of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent also sought execution of a registered gift deed in favour of the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner and his family members executed a registered gift deed and transferred rights over land measuring 2603.14 square meters/3113.32 square yards to facilitate the 3rd respondent in utilising the same for road widening. The road has now been laid, and the petitioner was issued a TDR Certificate for the eligible extent. 26. The impugned proceedings also refer to the Memo No.2331918/12/2023, dated 22.03.2024, and on the strength of the said memo, the 3rd respondent had kept in abeyance the TDR Certificate issued to the petitioner. The Government Memo directed the Commissioner, Tirupathi Municipal Corporation, to submit a detailed report on the issuance of 342 TDR bonds encompassing an acquisition of 2.8 lakhs square yards at a compensation of Rs . 35,000/- per Square yard, totalling to 1013 crores. 27. As the report is awaited, the 2nd respondent was instructed to keep all the TDR bonds in abeyance until further orders. The Memo has nothing to do with the title dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. As such, the same could not have been referred to unle’ss and until the property of the petitioner was specifically one such property which was referred to in the said Memo. The impugned proceedings do not indicate that the petitioner’s property is part and parcel of the properties referred to in the said Memo. The reference to the title dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and issuing a blanket abeyance order on all TDRs cannot sustain the scrutiny of law and logic. The impugned proceedings do not indicate that the petitioner’s property is part and parcel of the properties referred to in the said Memo. The reference to the title dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and issuing a blanket abeyance order on all TDRs cannot sustain the scrutiny of law and logic. The petitioner has utilised more than 75% of the TDR Certificate, and the subsequent purchasers are now put to hardship on account of the impugned blanket abeyance order. 28. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed without costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.