ORDER : G.RADHA RANI, J. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner – J.Dr. aggrieved by the order dated 06.09.2019 passed in E.P.No.110 of 2018 in L.S.A.No.35 of 2000 by the learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar. 2. Heard Sri Alladi Ravinder, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri B.Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner – J.Dr. on record and Smt.Chinthalaphani Avani Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent – D.Hr. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar committed an error in directing the petitioner – J.Dr. to execute the registered sale deed in favor of the respondent – D.Hr. to an extent of 1371.28 square yards. The same was contrary to the evidence on record. As per the compromise agreed between the parties before the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Peddapalli, the J.Dr. has to execute the land to an extent of Ac.1-20 guntas, which was a compact block. But the respondent – D.Hr. requested the petitioner - J.Dr. to register individual plots. While making house plots in Ac.1-20 guntas of land, 20 feet and 30 feet internal roads were left in between the plots. The land measuring 2342.62 square yards was covered under the roads. Another house plot measuring 748.48 square yards was sold by the D.Hr. through registered sale deed and the same was later ratified by the J.Dr. by executing registered sale deed. Thus, the land covered under the road and the plot sold by J.Dr. totally would come to 3091.00 square yards [2342.62 square yards covered under 20’ & 30’ road + 748.38 square yards ratified plot area]. Hence, the total area of 3091.00 square yards was not available to register in favor of D.Hr. The owners of the plots have got the right over the internal roads. As such, the J.Dr. was unable to execute any type of registered sale deeds to the D.Hr. The petitioner – J.Dr. executed the registered sale deeds in favor of individuals to whom the plots were sold by the respondent – D.Hr. As the nature of land was changed and part of the land was converted into roads, the decree was already satisfied and the same was not executable. In the cross-examination, the respondent – D.Hr. admitted that 1800 square yards of land was covered with roads and houses were also constructed in the land claimed by the respondent – D.Hr. As the nature of land was changed and part of the land was converted into roads, the decree was already satisfied and the same was not executable. In the cross-examination, the respondent – D.Hr. admitted that 1800 square yards of land was covered with roads and houses were also constructed in the land claimed by the respondent – D.Hr. As such, the direction given by the court below to execute the sale deed to an extent of 1371.28 square yards was illegal and contrary to the evidence on record and prayed to set aside the order dated 06.09.2019 passed in E.P.No.110 of 2018 by the learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent – D.Hr. admitted filing of a compromise memo by the parties before the Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Peddapalli and the order passed by the Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Committee, Peddapalli on 15.04.2000 directing the J.Dr. to execute the registered sale deed in favor of respondent – D.Hr. in respect of Ac.1-20 guntas of land in Survey No.342/343/5 of Peddapalli revenue village and that the respondent – D.Hr requested the J.Dr. to execute individual registered sale deeds in favor of the purchasers in respects of the plots sold by him and accordingly the petitioner – J.Dr. executed 11 registered sale deeds in favor of the vendees of the D.Hr. covering an area of 4088.331 square yards of land out of Ac.1-20 guntas of land. She further contended that an extent of 3171.669 square yards of land was left over after executing the said 11 registered sale deeds. 5. The D.Hr. after filing the EP, restricted the EP to an extent of 1371.28 square yards of land, which was spread over in three different places. The location and description of those three different pieces of land were also specifically shown by the D.Hr. as 1) open plot measuring 919.16 square yards (consisting of three plots measuring 345 square yards + 300 square yards + 274.16 square yards), 2) open plot measuring 338.12 square yards (consisting of two plots measuring 169.37 square yards + 168.75 square yards), 3) 114 square yards, all in Survey No.342/343/5 of Peddapalli Village. She further contended that the area of 1371.28 square yards claimed by the D.Hr was not covered by roads. She further contended that the area of 1371.28 square yards claimed by the D.Hr was not covered by roads. There was no illegality in the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar and prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 6. Perused the record. 7. As seen from the record, the J.Dr. agreed to register Ac.1-20 guntas as per the compromise agreed between him and the D.Hr. But the said land was made into individual plots and the D.Hr. requested the J.Dr. to execute the registered sale deeds in favor of the parties sold by him individually and the J.Dr. agreed for the same and executed 11 registered sale deeds as requested by the D.Hr covering an area of 4088.331 square yards out of Ac.1-20 guntas of land. 8. The J.Dr. contended that out of the balance of 3171.669 square yards of land, 2342.62 square yards of land was converted into roads and an area of 748.38 square yards of land sold by the D.Hr. through registered sale deed was later ratified by him. 9. The D.Hr. who was examined as PW.1 admitted only about 1800 square yards of land laid as roads and also admitted about J.Dr. executing the registered sale deed to third parties at his instance in respect of 748.48 square yards by executing a rectification deed. As such, he had restricted the EP only to an extent of 1371.28 square yards of land and stated that it was spread over in three different places and had pointed out the said land with its location and description in the map along with specific boundaries. 10. He also got examined PW.2 to prove that 919.16 square yards of land was sold by the D.Hr. to the wife of PW.2, but the J.Dr. failed to execute a registered sale deed in favor of the wife of PW.2. PW.2 stated that his wife died intestate on 20.03.2011 and he filed the suit vide O.S.No.40 of 2011 for perpetual injunction against the J.Dr. before the Junior Civil Judge Court at Peddapalli and during the pendency of the suit one Dhanalaxmi illegally occupied an extent of 250 square yards out of 919.16 square yards. PW.2 stated that his wife died intestate on 20.03.2011 and he filed the suit vide O.S.No.40 of 2011 for perpetual injunction against the J.Dr. before the Junior Civil Judge Court at Peddapalli and during the pendency of the suit one Dhanalaxmi illegally occupied an extent of 250 square yards out of 919.16 square yards. As such, he had withdrawn the suit to an extent of 250 square yards of land and proceeded for the rest of the land and the said suit was decreed in his favor holding that he was in possession of 669.16 square yards of land. PW.2 gave evidence that 919.16 square yards of land was very much available and he was in possession of the same and stated that apart from the land possessed by him, there were other two vacant plots available with a measurement of 338.12 square yards and 114 square yards in the layout made by the D.Hr. PW.2 in his cross-examination admitted that Dhanalaxmi illegally constructed a house in his land of 919.16 square yards. 11. The J.Dr. was examined as DW.1. He admitted in his cross-examination that he knew that the D.Hr. executed a registered sale deed in favor of the wife of PW.2 vide registered sale deed document No.2236 of 2002 dated 16.07.2002. He stated that he sold 919.16 square yards of land covered under the above registered sale deed to three persons namely Dhanalaxmi, one Reddy and Sammaiah subsequent to the registered sale deed dated 16.07.2002. He stated that he had not filed any documents before the Court to show that he sold the land to an extent of 338.12 square yards and 114 square yards to third parties. He admitted that the extent of the above referred lands were part of Ac.1-20 guntas of land sold by him to D.Hr. 12. These admissions made by the J.Dr. would clearly prove that the above extents of land 919.16 square yards, 338.12 square yards and 114 square yards, which was part of Ac.1-20 guntas of land sold by him to D.Hr. was available and that the same was not registered in favor of D.Hr. 13. As such, this Court does not find any illegality in the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar in directing the J.Dr. to execute the registered sale deed in favor of the D.Hr. was available and that the same was not registered in favor of D.Hr. 13. As such, this Court does not find any illegality in the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar in directing the J.Dr. to execute the registered sale deed in favor of the D.Hr. in respect of an extent of 1371.28 square yards in Survey Nos.342/343/5 situated at Peddapalli. 14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar in E.P.No.110 of 2018 in L.S.A.No.35 of 2000 dated 06.09.2019. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed.