ORDER : 1. Heard Sri B.Narayana Reddy, learned Senior counsel representing Sri Bommineni Vivekananda, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri L.Ravinder, learned Asst. Govt. Pleader for Revenue, Sri H.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Dandi Shailaja, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and Sri Vijay Kumar Panuganti, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. 2. The writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings No.E1/0607010006/559/PPBs-Court Cases/2025 dated 07.07.2025 of 3 rd respondent. 3. Vide the aforesaid proceedings dated 07.07.2024, 3 rd respondent ordered to implement the name of 5 th respondent in the revenue record/Bhu Bharati Portal in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.2.09 guntas out of Ac. 17.35 guntas in Sy.No.158, situated at Keesara Dayara Village, Keesara Mandal (for short, ‘the subject property’) and issuance of e-pattadar passbook in a Court Case Module. He has also directed to carry out necessary changes in Bhu Bharati Portal in respect of the subject property. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. Vide order dated 11.07.2025, this Court granted status – quo to the extent of alienating the subject property till 15.07.2025. The same has been extended from time to time. 5. The petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6 raised so many grounds to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 07.07.2025 of 3 rd respondent. During the course of hearing, Sri B.Narayana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Bommineni Vivekananda, learned counsel for the petitioner that 3 rd respondent did not follow the procedure laid down under law, more particularly, the procedure laid down under Telangana Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Act, 2025 (for short, ‘Bhu Bharati Act, 2025’). 3 rd respondent has fixed date of hearing on 03.07.2025 and informed the petitioner that he will close the case on the said date. The petitioner appeared before the 3 rd respondent and represented that land is not Inam land and ORC which is sought to be implemented by 5 th respondent is not valid. The petitioner requested the 3 rd respondent to issue notices to all the effected parties. 3 rd respondent did not consider the said aspect. 3 rd respondent passed impugned proceedings in gross violation of principles of natural justice and also the procedure laid down under the Bhu Bharati Act, 2025. 6. The petitioner requested the 3 rd respondent to issue notices to all the effected parties. 3 rd respondent did not consider the said aspect. 3 rd respondent passed impugned proceedings in gross violation of principles of natural justice and also the procedure laid down under the Bhu Bharati Act, 2025. 6. In the light of the said submissions, vide order dated 12.08.2025, this Court, directed learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Revenue, to produce original File in respect of the subject proceedings from 3 rd respondent. He has produced original File in respect of the impugned proceedings from 3 rd respondent. 7. Perusal of the said original file would reveal that 4 th respondent has prepared Note File dated 09.05.2025 stating that 5 th respondent has submitted online application vide Id.Rc.No.2400007424, dated 11.09.2024. seeking implementation of the ORC to record his name in the revenue record/Bhu Bharati Portal and issue e-pattadr passbook in respect of the subject property. ORC issued vide proceedings No.J/165/2007, dated 03.06.2008 in respect of the subject property. He has also submitted another application vide Id.No.06070100006, dated 08.05.2025 in Rythu Sadassu held at Keesara Village on 08.05.2025 with similar request. 8. On receipt of the said application, 4 th respondent has took up the same for enquiry, observed in the Note File that on verification of PT of Keesara Daira Village, Sy.No.158 to an extent of ac.17.32 guntas is recorded in the name of Tara Bai as pattedar and the tenants are K.andadi Venkaiah (grandfather of the petitioner herein) and Nukalagudem Papaiah and others. On verification of the orders of this Court in CRP No.2106 of 2017 would also reveal that 6 th respondent herein is the petitioner and 5 th respondent is the respondent. It is also further mentioned in the Note File that if agreed, a notice may be issued to the interested/affected parties i.e. 1. Pyalla Buchamma – 6 th respondent herein, Ramidi Bal Reddy – 5 th respondent herein and Kandadi Venkat Reddy – the petitioner herein in respect of the Court Case PPB application filed by 5 th respondent with a direction to attend the hearing and submit relevant documents. He has also submitted a draft notice prepared by him for approval of the 3 rd respondent. The said notice was approved by 3 rd respondent on 21.06.2025. He has also submitted a draft notice prepared by him for approval of the 3 rd respondent. The said notice was approved by 3 rd respondent on 21.06.2025. The case was called on 26.06.2025 and it was adjourned to 03.07.2025 on which date, 3 rd respondent noted in the docket sheet as follows:- “Case is called today. Both parties called present, and counsel for respondent also deputed Ganesh Raj, who is represented on behalf of Basappa, further stated that one W.P.No.15529 of 2025 was filed against the Tahsildar and RDO, same is pending, so not to taken up present case as comes sub judice, and another W.P. also filed which is under admission stage. So requested hold the case until finalization of W.P. Further respondent has stated that, he has obtained ORC in the year 2008, RDO, East file No.5/165/2007, but, Kondadi Venkat Reddy, has intentionally created registered document through Nethekal Eshwarji, who has not in possession and no way concerned the land, and requested to implement his name in ROR while deleting Kandadi Venkat Reddy, and Pailla Buchamma, further it was noticed that Kandadi Venkat Reddy and Pailla Buchamma have filed petitions against the said ORC, since 2008, but appeal filed by Buchamma only. Further, both side parties have filed written arguments. Hence, case is R.F.O.” 9. Perusal of the Note File also would reveal that on 07.07.2025, 4 th respondent put up note stating as follows:- “In compliance to the instructions of the Officer to prepare draft order, I prepared and placed below for kind perusal and approval Sir.” 10. Thus, 4 th respondent prepared draft order, submitted to 3 rd respondent for perusal and approval. Accordingly, 3 rd respondent issued impugned proceedings dated 07.07.2025 i.e. on the same day. Thus, 3 rd respondent did not pass the said order. On consideration of the pleadings/contentions of the parties and also documents, 4 th respondent prepared the order and 3 rd respondent approved the same. Thus, the impugned order is contrary to the procedure laid down under the Bhu Bharati Act, 2025 and without application of mind by 3 rd respondent. 11. 3 rd respondent cannot instruct the 4 th respondent/Tahsildar to prepare the draft order. 4 th respondent cannot prepare the draft order and submit the same to 3 rd respondent and 3 rd respondent cannot approve the same. 11. 3 rd respondent cannot instruct the 4 th respondent/Tahsildar to prepare the draft order. 4 th respondent cannot prepare the draft order and submit the same to 3 rd respondent and 3 rd respondent cannot approve the same. The entire procedure adopted by respondent Nos.3 and 4, is illegal. 3 rd respondent, being the quasi - judicial officer has to consider the contentions /pleadings of the parties and also documents submitted by them in support of their submissions and pass an order. Instead of doing so, he has instructed 4 th respondent to prepare draft order, who, in turn, prepared draft order and submitted for approval of 3 rd respondent. 12. Accordingly, 3 rd respondent approved the same and passed order/proceedings dated 07.07.2025 which is impugned in the present writ petition. Thus, the impugned proceedings are in violation of the procedure laid down under law. On the said ground itself, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 13. It is also relevant to note that 5 th respondent has submitted application vide Id.No. RC 2400007424 in Dharani, dated 11.09.2024 with the 2 nd respondent with a request to implement ORC Certificate issued by 3 rd respondent vide proceedings No.J/165/2007, dated 03.06.2008 in respect of the subject property. He has also submitted another application vide Id.No.06070100006, dated 08.05.2025 during Bhu Bharati Rythu Sadassu programme to the 4 th respondent. 4 th respondent has prepared Note File dated 09.05.2025 and also report dated 04.06.2025 and submitted the same to 3 rd respondent. Thus, there is abnormal delay of 16 years in submitting the said applications by the 5 th respondent with a request to implement the ORC, dated 02.06.2008 including mutating his name in the revenue records and issuance of e-pattadar passbook. There is no consideration of the said aspect by the 3 rd respondent. 14. It is also apt to note that in the impugned proceedings dated 07.07.2025, 3 rd respondent held that one N. Eswarji, has executed sale deed in the year 2016 in favour of the petitioner which is null and void since he has no right to alienate without obtaining ORC from the competent authority. In fact, the petitioner is claiming that he has purchased the land admeasuring Ac.2.09 guntas in Sy.No.158 of Keesara Dayana Village, Keesara Mandal from N.Eswarji under registered sale deed bearing document No.295/2016 dated 11.01.2016. In fact, the petitioner is claiming that he has purchased the land admeasuring Ac.2.09 guntas in Sy.No.158 of Keesara Dayana Village, Keesara Mandal from N.Eswarji under registered sale deed bearing document No.295/2016 dated 11.01.2016. Therefore, 3 rd respondent cannot declare the said registered sale deed as null and void while considering the online application dated 02.06.2008 submitted by 5 th respondent seeking implementation of his name in revenue records. 15. It is also apt to note that according to the petitioner originally Smt. Tara Bai, is the pattadar, owner and possessor of the entire land in Sy.No.158 admeasuring Ac.17.35 gutnas in Keesara Dayana Village, the same was recorded in the revenue record from 1954-55 onwards. Mittapally Rajaiah name was written in the possessor column in respect of the land in Sy.No.158 as protected tenant. On the demise of the said Mittapally Rajaiah, the names of his sons i.e. Mittapally Narsaiah, Muttapally Narsimulu, Mittapally Krishna and Mittapally Sathaiah have obtained 38-E certificate from 3 rd respondent vide proceedings No.B/705/LRE/75. 16. Smt. Tara Bai through her General Power of Attorney Sri Sree Ram Prasad Tiwari, along with protected tenants sold away the land admeasuring Ac.6.00 guntas in Sy.No.158/part, in favour of Kishan Lal and Eshwarji bearing document No.3235/82, for a valid sale consideration. The said Kishan Lal and Eswarji, partitioned their land into two equal shares, Eshwarji got Ac.3.00 guntas vide Khata No.190, based on the registered document. The petitioner has purchased Ac.2.09 gutas out of Ac.3-00 guntas of land in Sy.No.158 from the said Eswarji. The petitioner has narrated the said aspects and also details of the pattadars in a tabular form in paragraph No.11 of the writ affidavit. There is no consideration of the said aspects by 3 rd respondent. 17. It is also apt to note that the petitioner herein has filed W.P.No.19084 of 2025 to declare the action of 3 rd respondent in issuing notice dated 21.06.2025 as illegal. Vide order dated 04.07.2025, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the 3 rd respondent – competent authority to entertain any of the claims for mutation/rectification and consequential issuance of the pattadar pass books. The Revenue Divisional Officer has not issued notices to all the persons who are interested and affected by acting on the application submitted by respondent No.5 for mutation of the lands forming part of Survey No.158. The Revenue Divisional Officer has not issued notices to all the persons who are interested and affected by acting on the application submitted by respondent No.5 for mutation of the lands forming part of Survey No.158. If there is any deviation in the procedure contemplated for mutation of names, the petitioner is always entitled to assail the said mutation proceedings before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Since the learned Senior Counsel stated that the petitioner has already submitted objections to the impugned notice, this Court directed respondent No.3 i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the objections submitted by the petitioner and others who are interested and affected by mutation proceedings and pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the parties. 18. Thus, there is categorical finding for issuance of notice to all the interested parties. 19. As discussed supra, the petitioner has specifically mentioned the details of the pattadars, purchasers etc, in a tabular form in the writ affidavit. Even then, 3 rd respondent did not issue notices to all the interested parties/effected parties. Thus, the impugned order is contrary to the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 04.07.2025 in W.P.No.19085 of 2022. 20. It is also apt to note that the petitioner herein has filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.15529 of 2025 to declare the action of the respondents therein, more particularly, 4 th respondent/Tahsildar, Keesara Mandal, Medchal – Malkajgiri District, in trying to take over the subject land on the ground that the same is included in the prohibitory list, without any prior notice and without following due process of law, as illegal. The said writ petition is pending. The petitioner brought pendency of the aforesaid writ petition to the notice of the 3 rd respondent and requested him not to proceed further. The said fact was recorded in the docket sheet dated 03.07.2025 of 3 rd respondent. As on the date of 03.07.2025, the aforesaid W.P.No.19684 of 2025 was pending before this Court and on the next day i.e. 04.07.2025 disposed of the said writ petition with the aforesaid directions. There is no consideration of the said aspect by the 3 rd respondent. 21. As discussed supra, 3 rd respondent has passed the impugned proceedings dated 07.07.2025 in gross violation of the procedure laid down under law including the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 04.07.2025. 22. There is no consideration of the said aspect by the 3 rd respondent. 21. As discussed supra, 3 rd respondent has passed the impugned proceedings dated 07.07.2025 in gross violation of the procedure laid down under law including the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 04.07.2025. 22. At the cost of repetition, it is apt note that 3 rd respondent cannot instruct 4 th respondent /Tahsildar to prepare draft order and submit for approval of 4 th respondent and 4 th respondent cannot prepare draft order and submit to the approval of 3 rd respondent. 3 rd respondent cannot approve the order prepared by 4 th respondent. The draft order was submitted on 07.07.2025 by 4 th respondent and respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order on 07.07.2025 itself. There is no application of mind by 3 rd respondent in the order passed by 3 rd respondent. The order passed by him. Any order passed without application of mind is non - est. 23. Thus, without going into the merits and demerits of the case and viewed from any angle, the impugned order dated 07.07.2025 is illegal, arbitrary in violation of the procedure laid down under law and in violation of principles of natural justice. It is liable to be set aside only on the aforesaid grounds. 24. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings dated 07.07.2025 issued by the 3 rd respondent are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the 3 rd respondent with a direction to pass orders afresh by putting the petitioner, respondent Nos.5 and 6 and all interested parties on notice and affording them an opportunity. 3 rd respondent shall consider the aforesaid aspects i.e. abnormal delay in approaching respondent Nos.2 to 4 by 5 th respondent seeking implementation of the ORC dated 03.06.2008, pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions by following due procedure laid down under law. In fact, 5 th respondent has submitted application through Dharani Portal to the 2 nd respondent who is the competent authority. As per the Bhu Bharathi Rules, more particularly, the Schedule –A and B of the Rules, if the market value of the subject property is below Rs.5 Lakhs, the RDO is the competent authority and the market value is above Rs.5 Lakhs, the District Collector is the competent authority. As per the Bhu Bharathi Rules, more particularly, the Schedule –A and B of the Rules, if the market value of the subject property is below Rs.5 Lakhs, the RDO is the competent authority and the market value is above Rs.5 Lakhs, the District Collector is the competent authority. There is no consideration of the said aspect in the impugned order. 25. During the course of hearing, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that all the applications received in Bhu Bharathi Portal were transferred to competent authorities as specified in Bhu Buarathi Rules, but the said fact is not mentioned in the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order is in violation of the aforesaid procedure and report. 26. At this stage, it is apt to note that quasi - judicial officials like respondent Nos.2 to 4 have been assigned with certain quasi - judicial functions. The Government has not imparted them any training with regard to the said functions. Therefore, they are not in position to conduct quasi - judicial proceedings properly and pass orders on consideration of the pleadings, provisions of law and principles laid down by the Apex Court and this Court. Thus, they require necessary training. 27. Vide order dated 21.07.2020 in W.P.No.6457 of 2020, this Court directed the Chief Secretary of the State to impart training to the quasi - judicial officials, but there is no consideration of the same by the Chief Secretary. Therefore, in the light of the same, both the Chief Secretary, State of Telangana and 2 nd respondent/District Collector, are directed to look into the matter and take a call on the same. Registry is directed to mark copy of the said order to the Chief Secretary, State of Telangana, and all the official respondents along with the copy of this order. 3 rd respondent shall consider the same and pass order. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6 and all interested parties to raise all the contentions/grounds before the 3 rd respondent which they have raised in the present writ petition. However, he shall complete the said exercise within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.