ORDER : E.V.VENUGOPAL, J. 1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “…pleased to issue orders writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings No B/133/2025/Gandipet/Court Cases dt 20.05.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 Tahsildar Gandipet Mandal which was received on 08.07.2025 whereunder he refused and rejected for blocking the transactions inspite of the orders of the learned X Addl Chief Judge City Civil Court at Hyderabad in I.A.No.307 of 2021 dt 16.8.2023 and further in deciding the title as illegal without jurisdiction contrary to law arbitrary and liable to be set aside and consequently initiate proceedings against the Respondent No.3 Teasildar Gandipet Mandal for refusing and rejecting to implement the interim orders dt 16.08.2023 in I.A.No.307 of 2021 in O.S.No.18 of 1963 and in the interest of justice and pass..…” 2. Heard Sri K.K. Waghray, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri T.S.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing Ms. Manjari S.Ganu, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the elders of the petitioner filed O.S.No.18 of 1963 on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad for partition and administration of properties against the other family members who are sharers. The schedule of properties which are subject matter of the partition suit were agricultural lands in various survey numbers of different villages in Jangaon, Siddipet, etc., apart from agricultural lands and houses in Hyderabad and open land at Himayatsagar Village. In the said suit a compromise preliminary decree was passed on 29.11.1963 and the schedule of properties was annexed to the preliminary decree. One of the schedule is agricultural land in Survey Nos.13 and 15 of Himayatsagar Village in all admeasuring Acs.15.00 guntas. While passing the compromise decree, dated 29.11.1963, the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad appointed Sri Ahmed Shareef Advocate as Receiver-cum-Commissioner to take possession of all the lands which are annexed by way of schedule in the preliminary decree and to manage them. 4. While passing the compromise decree, dated 29.11.1963, the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad appointed Sri Ahmed Shareef Advocate as Receiver-cum-Commissioner to take possession of all the lands which are annexed by way of schedule in the preliminary decree and to manage them. 4. Accordingly, in pursuance of the warrant of appointment, the said receiver, Sri Ahmed Shareef visited the office of Tahsildar, Jangaon, Warangal District on 30.01.1964 and Tahsildar deputed Revenue Inspectors and Village officers with instructions to deliver the possession of the lands and thus the receiver with the help and assistance of the Revenue Inspector and in presence of decree holder visited all the schedule properties spread over different villages in Jangaon and took actual possession and conducted panchanama and also announced by beat of drums, apart from obtaining two receipts from village officers and thus the Receiver-cum-Commissioner took possession of all the lands given in the schedule of the preliminary decree which includes the lands in Survey Nos.13 and 15 of Himayatsagar Village and thereafter, the said receiver filed affidavit to that effect before the court in I.A.No.602 of 1964 in O.S.No.18 of 1963 and submitted report. 5. Subsequently, the said receiver Ahmed Shareef was replaced by another receiver namely, B.Dayakar Reddy, Advocate in 1983 and the said Receiver also after taking charge visited all the villages and inspected all the lands and thereafter from time to time filed reports on 03.10.1983, 15.01.1985, 07.01.1998, 20.11.1998, 24.09.2001 and 31.03.2002. The parties to the suit who are sharers intend to sell an extent of Acs.05-00 guntas of land forming part of survey No.15 of Himayatsagar Village and accordingly an application I.A.No.166 of 1985 was filed for seeking permission to sell the lands through the receiver and accordingly the trial court granted permission to sell the land as per orders dated 22.02.1995. However, the sale deed was executed by the receiver, B. Dayakar Reddy on behalf of the parties in favour of the purchaser for an extent of Acs.05-00 guntas in survey No.15 of Himayatsagar Village and the said sale deed was registered as document No.2407 of 2002 and the consideration amount was deposited to the credit of the suit through the challan, which was subsequently, withdrawn by the sharers/parties. 6. 6. The said receiver, B. Dayakar Reddy was discharged by the Hon'ble Court and in his place Sri Sunil Narsikar was appointed as receiver on 20.12.2022, and the said receiver on receiving the warrant of appointment addressed letters to all the revenue authorities, i.e., Collector, Jangaon District, Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar of various villages apart from Tahsildar Gandipet, respondent No.3 herein on 01.02.2023 which was received and acknowledged by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and he also visited all the villages and inspected the lands which are part of the preliminary decree and thereafter, the said receiver filed interim reports periodically. All the revenue authorities received and acknowledged the letters issued by the receiver Sri B. Narsikar and thus it was once again brought to the knowledge of all the authorities about the lands in custodi legicio of the Hon'ble Court since 1964. The Receiver on coming to know about several transactions being entertained by the Tahsildars, filed another report before the court seeking preventive orders to avoid any multiplication or litigation and basing on the report of the receiver the learned X Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad passed interim orders on 16.08.2023 in I.A.No.307 of 2021 in O.S.No.18 of 1963 restraining the Revenue authorities from carrying out mutations in respect of the properties covered by the preliminary decree in O.S.No.18 of 1963. 7. After the interim orders were passed on 16.08.2023, the Receiver again furnished the copy of the interim orders to all the revenue authorities i.e., the District Collector, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon, Tahsildar Jangaon and further to respondent No.2 - Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendrangar Division, and to respondent No.3, which was received and acknowledged by them. Thus, the restraining orders dated 16.08.2023 are in force and the revenue authorities are bound to implement the same by blocking the transactions against the subject lands, even understanding order No.219, the registering authority are bound to implement as decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court reported in 2023(1) ALT 561 . 8. In spite of receipt of the interim orders, the Tahsildar of Jangaon, Siddipet and Gandipet, respondent No.3 started transacting in respect of the lands against which the restraint orders were issued and further on the report of the receiver, the learned X Addl. 8. In spite of receipt of the interim orders, the Tahsildar of Jangaon, Siddipet and Gandipet, respondent No.3 started transacting in respect of the lands against which the restraint orders were issued and further on the report of the receiver, the learned X Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, issued show-cause notice to all the Tahsildars including respondent No.3 calling for explanation as to why the contempt proceedings for violating the orders may not be taken up and the Tahsildar Gandipet Mandal, respondent No.3 received the notice from the Hon'ble Court and till this date failed to submit his explanation. While so, the petitioner submitted representation on 22.12.2024 informing the Respondent No.3, Tahsildar Gandipet, to block online/offline transaction on Dharani for Survey No.13/ee in Himayatsagar, Gandipet Mandal and also furnished the restraining orders passed by the learned X Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad apart from the letter addressed by the receiver dated 05.11.2023. The said representation was received by respondent No.3 on 28.12.2024, instead of blocking the transactions by implementing the orders of the learned X Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, respondent No.3 received objection petition from respondent No.4 herein in respect of land admeasuring Acs.05-04 guntas in Survey No.13/ee of Himayatsagar Village, Gandipet Mandal and based on such applications, respondent No.3 issued notice to the petitioner dated 24.03.2025 and 29.03.2025 calling for submission of the explanation. 9. The petitioner on receiving the notice dated 29.03.2025 submitted representation to respondent No.3 on 19.04.2025, furnishing the details of the court order and also about the alleged sale deed that was obtained by respondent No.4 from their so called vendors, D.Raja Ram and D.Pentoji both sons of Mallari, which is a nonest and illegal document and which does not create any right, title or interest and the question of claiming possession by respondent No.4 does not arise being the lands in the custody of the court through the receiver since 1964. Apart from that it was also stated in the explanation that the then receiver B. Dayakar Reddy sought for survey and demarcation of land for fixation of boundaries in Survey Nos.13 and 15 of Himayatsagar Village through the Assistant Director, Survey and Land records, and before conducting survey through the Asst. Apart from that it was also stated in the explanation that the then receiver B. Dayakar Reddy sought for survey and demarcation of land for fixation of boundaries in Survey Nos.13 and 15 of Himayatsagar Village through the Assistant Director, Survey and Land records, and before conducting survey through the Asst. Director Survey and Land Record also issued notices to D. Raja Ram and D. Pentoji both sons of Mallari by the then receiver B.Dayakar Reddy on 18.04.2000 fixing the date of survey on 22.04.2000 and the notices were received by them and thereafter, the survey was conducted, demarcation was done and boundaries were fixed for survey Nos.13 and 15 of Himayatsagar Village and the said D. Raja Ram and D. Pentoji (alleged vendors of respondent No.4), never objected nor raised any claim over the said lands. Thus the alleged sale deed obtained by respondent No.4 is an illegal and nonest document and does not confer any title nor possession can be claimed on the basis of the alleged sale deed. The mutations that were carried out on the alleged sale deed were all illegal and neither valid nor binding on the Petitioner apart from that those mutations are required to be cancelled. 10. It is submitted that after receiving the explanations from the Petitioner and also from Respondent No.4, apart from receiving letter from the Receiver cum Commissioner dated 05.11.2023, the Respondent No.3 passed impugned orders in proceedings No.B/133/2025, and rejected the request of the Petitioner for blocking transactions in respect of Survey No.13/ee of Himayatsagar Village, admeasuring Acs.05-04 guntas. Respondent No.3 in spite of facing contempt proceedings and in spite of bringing to his notice about the interim order and the show cause notice issued by the trial court, respondent No.3, gone into deciding the title dispute between the parties and thereby abused not only the process of law but exceed its jurisdiction for extraneous consideration. 11. Respondent No.3 in spite of facing contempt proceedings and in spite of bringing to his notice about the interim order and the show cause notice issued by the trial court, respondent No.3, gone into deciding the title dispute between the parties and thereby abused not only the process of law but exceed its jurisdiction for extraneous consideration. 11. It is necessary to submit that when the Petitioner was insisting for furnishing the copies of the File No.B/133/2025 under Right to Information Act before the Respondent No.3, the same was refused by the Respondent No.3 which compelled the Petitioner to file appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar, bearing RTI/Appeal No.19 of 2025 and when the appeal was pending, the Respondent passed the interim order on 20.05.2025 and neither furnished the copy of order nor sent it through the post to the Petitioner and therefore when the appeal before Revenue Divisional Officer, respondent No.2, came up for hearing on 08.07.2025, the impugned order dt.20.05.2025 was furnished to the petitioner on 08.07.2025. The impugned proceedings of the order dated 20.05.2025 are ex facie, illegal, unwarranted and without jurisdiction as the only request made by the petitioner to respondent No.3 was to block the transactions in respect of lands in survey Nos.13 and 15 of Himayatsagar Village, Gandipet Mandal, R.R.District by implementing the restraining orders dated 16.08.2023 granted by learned X Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. However, instead of implementing the orders, respondent No.3 on receipt of the objection petition from respondent No.4 conducted the enquiry and gone into the question of title and based on the alleged sale deed, respondent No.3 rejected and refused to implement the orders, thus the impugned orders dated 20.05.2025 are arbitrary, contrary to law and in utter violation of the interim orders of the learned X Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. 12. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. 12. Respondent No.3 ought to have honestly implemented the orders and would have directed respondent No.4 to approach the concerned court in whose custody the subject lands are since 1964 and prior to that the lands in possession of our elders even prior to 1950 and thus the Respondent No.3 ought not to have entertained the objection petitions, however by accepting the objection petition and adjudication and deciding not only the claim but also the title, respondent No.3 exceeded its jurisdiction and passed an erroneous and arbitrary order in utter violation of the restraint orders passed by the learned X Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. Therefore the Petitioner has no other effective remedy except to file the present writ petition. 13. Learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondent would submit that the petitioner cannot randomly seek for blocking the entire survey numbers, when admittedly Sy.No.13 has an extent of Acs.20.16 guntas, as per the revenue records, and the alleged claim of the petitioner is only Acs.15.00 guntas in both Sy.Nos.13 and 15, combined together, that too without specifying as to the extents in each of the survey numbers. The petitioner cannot seek omnibus relief of blocking all survey numbers and its sub-numbers, when admittedly the sub-numbers are not part of the preliminary decree as various pattedars are in possession of Sy.No.13 and sub-numbers are not parties to the proceedings initiated by the so-called family members of the petitioner. 14. Learned counsel further submitted that the revenue authorities have not acted as is sought to be projected before this Court and only on apprehension of the explanation submitted by respondent No.4 and verification of revenue records and on appreciation of the orders of the trial Court, have rejected the said application of the petitioner by well- reasoned order which does not call for any interference by this Court. 15. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the respondent-authorities have rightly and appropriately passed the impugned proceedings vide proceedings No.B/133/2025/Gandipet/Court Cases, dated 20.05.2025. Hence, seeks to dismiss the present writ petition. 16. 15. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the respondent-authorities have rightly and appropriately passed the impugned proceedings vide proceedings No.B/133/2025/Gandipet/Court Cases, dated 20.05.2025. Hence, seeks to dismiss the present writ petition. 16. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner ought to have availed the remedy of appeal before the appellate authority by filing an appropriate application as per G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 14.04.2025 and without availing such remedy, has filed this writ petition at premature stage. 17. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to file necessary application as per the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 14.04.2025. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.