ORDER : This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “…For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioner prays that this Honorable Court writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in reserving Case No.E1/1033/2025 on its file for orders on 20.12.2025 pertaining to land admeasuring Ac.2.39 guntas in Survey No.158 of Keesera Dayara Village, Keesera Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District without affording the petitioner an opportunity to file a counter affidavit and advance final arguments and the action of the 3rd respondent in not acting upon the petitioners applications and memos dated 20.12.2025, 19.12.2025 and 02.12.2025 for furnishing the Note File in File No.J/165/2007 pertaining to the alleged Occupancy Rights Certificate of Late Mr.Ramidi Bal Reddy as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional violative of the principles of natural justice and unsustainable and consequently to direct the 3rd respondent to furnish the said Note File to the petitioner permit the petitioner to file his counter affidavit after furnishing of the said Note File and to advance final arguments before reserving the said case for orders and to pass...…” 2. Heard Sri M.Pratheek Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri H.Venugopal, leaned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Dandi Shaila, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.2-09 guntas in Survey No.158, situated at Kesara Dayara Village, Kesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed bearing document No.295 of 2016, dated 11.01.2016. Originally Smt.Tarabai was the pattadar of the entire land to an extent of Acs.17-35 guntas in Survey No.158 of Kesara Dayara Village, as recorded in the revenue records from the year 1954-55 onwards. The revenue records pertaining to Survey No.158 disclose the name of Sri Mittapalli Rajaiah in the possessor column as a protected tenant and, after the demise of the said Mittapalli Rajaiah, his sons namely Mittapalli Narasaiah, Mittapalli Narasimulu, Mittapalli Krishna and Mittapalli Sattaiah were shown as protected tenants and obtained 38-E certificates from the revenue authorities vide proceedings No.B/305/LRE/75. 4. The revenue records pertaining to Survey No.158 disclose the name of Sri Mittapalli Rajaiah in the possessor column as a protected tenant and, after the demise of the said Mittapalli Rajaiah, his sons namely Mittapalli Narasaiah, Mittapalli Narasimulu, Mittapalli Krishna and Mittapalli Sattaiah were shown as protected tenants and obtained 38-E certificates from the revenue authorities vide proceedings No.B/305/LRE/75. 4. The original pattadar Smt.Tarabai, through her GPA holder Sri Ram Prasad Tiwari, along with the protected tenants, sold the land admeasuring Acs.6-00 guntas in Survey No.158 (part) in favour of Sri N.Kishanlal and Sri N.Eshwarji through a registered sale deed bearing document No.3235 of 1982, dated 09.06.1982 for valid sale consideration and delivered physical possession of the said land to the vendees. The said purchasers thereafter partitioned the land between themselves in equal shares, pursuant to which Sri N.Eshwarji was allotted Acs.3-00 guntas under Khata No.190, as reflected in the registered documents and revenue records. The petitioner’s vendor, Sri N. Eshwarji, thereafter sold the land admeasuring Acs.2- 09 guntas out of Acs.3-00 guntas in Survey No.158 in favour of the petitioner through a registered sale deed bearing document No.295 of 2016 and on the very same day, physical possession of the land was also delivered to the petitioner in accordance with the recitals contained in the sale deed. 5. To the petitioner’s utter surprise, the office of respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 24.06.2025 to the petitioner calling upon him to submit an explanation in respect of an application filed by late Sri Ramidi Bal Reddy seeking mutation of land admeasuring Acs.2-38 guntas in Survey No.158 in the Bhu Bharati records, purportedly based upon ORC in File No.J/07/2001. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted explanation. Without following any procedure known to law and by committing multiple violations and illegalities, the office of respondent No.3, by delegated the matter to the office of respondent No.4 vide Proceedings No.E1/06070/10006/559/PPBs/Court Cases/2025, dated 07.07.2025 in favour of Late Sri Ramidi Bal Reddy and the petitioner. Challenging the said proceedings dated 07.07.2025 the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.20051 of 2025. Challenging the said proceedings dated 07.07.2025 the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.20051 of 2025. This Court vide its order dated 10.10.2025 has allowed the said writ petition by setting aside the proceedings dated 07.07.2025 and remanded the matter to respondent No.3 with a direction to pass orders afresh by issuing notice to the petitioner, respondent Nos.5 and 6 therein and all other interested parties and by affording them a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and further directed that the said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said order. 6. In the order dated 10.10.2025, this Court noted that despite multiple averments and detailed submissions made by the petitioner before respondent No.3, the said authority failed to consider the same. For instance, though it was specifically pleaded that there was an abnormal delay of 16 years on the part of Late Mr. Ramidi Bal Reddy in submitting applications seeking implementation of a purported ORC dated 03.06.2008, the said issue was not considered at all. The same is the case with the detailed averments made by the petitioner with regard to his title, which were completely ignored. This Hon'ble Court also took serious exception to the manner in which respondent No.3 delegated the drafting of the order to respondent No.4 and merely acted as a rubber stamp to what was drafted by respondent No.4. This Hon'ble Court further observed that despite serious quasi-judicial functions being vested in authorities such as respondent No.3, there appeared to be a lack of requisite training, and accordingly observed that the State Government may take appropriate measures to impart training to such quasi-judicial officers. 7. Pursuant to the order dated 10.10.2025, late Mr.Bal Reddy appears to have filed an application dated 24.10.2025 before respondent No.3, a copy of which has not been furnished to the petitioner till date despite his repeated requests. Thereafter, a few hearings were conducted in the matter, which were confined to issues of a housekeeping nature such as implead applications and applications relating to legal representatives. The purported legal heirs of late Sri Ramidi Bal Reddy filed an application seeking to implead in the proceedings and the same was illegally and unlawfully allowed by respondent No.3 without any verification of evidence and without insisting upon production of a death certificate or a legal heir certificate issued by the competent authority. The purported legal heirs of late Sri Ramidi Bal Reddy filed an application seeking to implead in the proceedings and the same was illegally and unlawfully allowed by respondent No.3 without any verification of evidence and without insisting upon production of a death certificate or a legal heir certificate issued by the competent authority. The petitioner raised a specific objection to the said impleadment by filing a memo dated 20.12.2025. Similarly, implead applications filed by certain other parties were also improperly allowed, despite the fact that such applications were not filed in accordance with Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner reserve his right to challenge the said orders by way of appropriate proceedings and all the submissions made herein are without prejudice to the same. The cause title in this writ petition is also without prejudice to his rights to challenge the claimed legal heir status of respondent Nos.5 and 6. 8. Ever since the petitioner was made aware of the application of late Sri Ramidi Bal Reddy, which was intimated to the petitioner by respondent No.3 through notice dated 24.06.2025, the petitioner made several requests and applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking relevant records, in particular the Note File pertaining to File No.J/165/2007. The petitioner specifically stated that without furnishing the said Note File relating to the alleged Occupancy Rights Certificate dated 03.06.2008 in File No.J/165/2007, the petitioner would be in no position to effectively and adequately defend himself and present a full-fledged case before the said authority. Despite the same, for reasons best known to the respondents, the said Note File has not been furnished to the petitioner till date. 9. For instance, respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 08.12.2025 in File No.E1/1033/2025 asking the petitioner to appear on 12.12.2025 for the purpose of conducting an enquiry and on 12.12.2025 the petitioner submitted a memo requesting that a fair copy be furnished to him consequent upon the impleadment of certain parties, which is a sine qua non for the matter to proceed further. However, the petitioner’s request has fallen on deaf ears and respondent No.3 has neither furnished a fair copy to all parties concerned nor directed the impleaded parties, who have been arrayed as respondents, to file an amended copy of the petition reflecting their impleadment. 10. However, the petitioner’s request has fallen on deaf ears and respondent No.3 has neither furnished a fair copy to all parties concerned nor directed the impleaded parties, who have been arrayed as respondents, to file an amended copy of the petition reflecting their impleadment. 10. Further, when another hearing was sought to be conducted by respondent No.3 on 20.12.2025, the petitioner submitted a memo through his counsel stating that he had already filed an application dated 02.12.2025 requesting the said authority to furnish the records available in File No.J/165/2007. The petitioner further stated that although certain documents pertaining to the said file were furnished to the petitioner, the crucial Note File was never supplied. The petitioner specifically pleaded that without furnishing a copy of the said Note File, he would not be in a position to adequately and effectively defend his case and that the said Note File is an absolute prerequisite for any further proceedings. The petitioner has also filed several applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005, including an application dated 19.12.2025 addressed to the offices of respondent Nos.3 and 4, however, the same are still pending and no action has been taken pursuant thereto till date. 11. On 20.12.2025, during the course of hearing, when the petitioner filed the said memo requesting for supply of the Note File, respondent No.3 conducted itself in a high-handed manner by stating that since no counter had been filed by the petitioner, the matter was being reserved for orders and the petitioner would not be permitted to submit any further arguments. The petitioner seriously protested the same and submitted that he ought to be afforded an opportunity to first receive the said Note File and thereafter to file his counter and advance final arguments, and that the matter could not be reserved for orders in a haphazard and abrupt manner without even granting the petitioner an opportunity to file his counter and address final submissions. However, respondent No.3 chose to remain adamant and inexorable and proceeded further despite his objections. Further, despite his sincere requests, respondent No.3 chose not to even make the said docket proceedings dated 20.12.2025 available to the petitioner, because of which, the petitioner is unable to file the same before this Hon'ble Court. 12. However, respondent No.3 chose to remain adamant and inexorable and proceeded further despite his objections. Further, despite his sincere requests, respondent No.3 chose not to even make the said docket proceedings dated 20.12.2025 available to the petitioner, because of which, the petitioner is unable to file the same before this Hon'ble Court. 12. It is pertinent to submit that this Hon'ble Court, in its order dated 10.10.2025 in W.P.No.20051 of 2025, had already taken serious exception to the manner and conduct of respondent No.3 in the earlier round of proceedings. This Hon'ble Court specifically found fault with respondent No.3 for not adhering to the principles of natural justice and categorically directed the said respondent to afford an opportunity to all concerned parties. Despite the same, respondent No.3 has chosen to remain recalcitrant and to defy the directions of this Hon'ble Court by once again acting in a high- handed manner with a clear predisposition and bias in favour of Late Sri Ramidi Bal Reddy and his family. In the order dated 10.10.2025, this Hon'ble Court went to the extent of observing that although officers such as the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are vested with quasi-judicial functions, they are not imparted adequate training to discharge the same, and accordingly issued persuasive directions to the Chief Secretary, State of Telangana, and the concerned District Collector to examine the issue and take an appropriate decision. 13. Despite such serious observations and reprimand by this Hon'ble Court against the conduct of respondent No.3 in the earlier round of proceedings, the said respondent has chosen to remain adamant and predisposed against the petitioner. The actions of respondent No.3 are highly reprehensible, illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary and warrant strict interference by this Hon'ble Court. Hence, the present writ petition. 14. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the respondent-authorities upon thorough examination have rightly and appropriately passed the orders and the petitioner without availing the remedies as available under law has rushed to this Court by filing writ petition seeking appropriate directions at a premature stage, which is completely misconceived and seeks to pass appropriate orders. 15. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and has perused the record. 16. The petitioner does not challenge any final order passed by respondent No.3 after remand. 15. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and has perused the record. 16. The petitioner does not challenge any final order passed by respondent No.3 after remand. The grievance is only with respect to the manner in which the proceedings are being conducted, including impleadment of parties, non-supply of records, and conduct of hearings. 17. By order dated 10.10.2025, this Court remanded the matter to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration. The proceedings are still pending and no final order has been passed deciding the claims of title or mutation. The writ petition is thus directed only against interlocutory steps in an ongoing quasi-judicial process. 18. The complaint regarding non-furnishing of the Note File in File No.J/165/2007 can be raised before the authority itself. If a final order is ultimately passed in breach of principles of natural justice, the petitioner will have an adequate remedy to challenge the same in accordance with law. 19. The objections relating to impleadment of the alleged legal representatives of late Sri Ramidi Bal Reddy and others, including alleged non-compliance with Order I Rule 10 CPC, concern procedural matters in a pending enquiry. Such procedural orders ordinarily merge with the final order and do not warrant interference under Article 226 at an interlocutory stage. 20. Though adverse observations were made against respondent No.3 in the earlier round of litigation, they do not justify repeated recourse to writ jurisdiction during remanded proceedings. The remand order did not curtail the jurisdiction of respondent No.3 nor place the proceedings under the supervision of this Court. 21. The allegations of bias and arbitrariness against respondent No.3 rest on disputed facts and subjective apprehensions. This Court cannot conduct a fact-finding enquiry in writ jurisdiction when the authority is yet to pass a final order. 22. The petitioner has efficacious alternative remedies. In the event of an adverse final order, all available statutory remedies remain open, followed by recourse to this Court, if so advised. 23. The submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue that the writ petition is premature is well founded. Entertaining the petition at this stage would result in piecemeal adjudication and unwarranted interference with pending quasi-judicial proceedings. 24. This Court, therefore, declines to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution at this stage. 23. The submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue that the writ petition is premature is well founded. Entertaining the petition at this stage would result in piecemeal adjudication and unwarranted interference with pending quasi-judicial proceedings. 24. This Court, therefore, declines to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution at this stage. All rights and contentions of the petitioner, including those relating to title, delay, validity of ORC, and alleged procedural irregularities, are left open to be urged before the competent authority and, if necessary, in appropriate proceedings. 25. This Court, therefore, declines to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution at this stage. All rights and contentions of the petitioner, including those relating to title, delay, validity of ORC, and alleged procedural irregularities, are left open to be urged before the competent authority and, if necessary, in appropriate proceedings. 26. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is premature and devoid of merit. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of this writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from raising all permissible contentions before respondent No.3 or from challenging any final order that may be passed, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.