ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. K. Jamali, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.25248 of 2024, Mr. S. Lakshmikanth, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.7982 of 2024 and Mr. N. Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.25071 of 2024, Mr. L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.P. Nos.25248 and 7982 of 2024 and respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 in W.P. No.25071 of 2024, Mr. Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 & 7 in W.P. Nos.25248 of 2024 and 25071 of 2024, Mr. S. Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5, while Mr. Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P. No.7982 of 2024. 2. As the lis involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same though the petitioners are different, all these writ petitions were heard together and the same are being disposed of by way of this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in W.P. No.25248 of 2024. 3. The petitioners in all these writ petitions and respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P. No.7982 of 2024 are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of their respective plots in Survey Nos.374, 378, 379, 381, 385 and 386, situated at Kanajiguda Hamlet of Alwal Village and Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District. They have purchased the same under different registered sale deeds way back in the years 1989 and 1990. All the plot owners have organized themselves and formed an Association in the name and style of ‘Green Fields Plot Owners Association’. 4. When some unknown persons claimed right, title and interest over the said property under the guise of false ORC, their association preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District challenging the said ORC. The said appeal was allowed. Challenging the same, the third parties carried the matter to this Court by filing a writ petition vide W.P. No.34970 of 1997. The same was heard and decided along with W.A. No.806 of 1999 remanding the matter back to the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District for fresh consideration. The said appeal was allowed. Challenging the same, the third parties carried the matter to this Court by filing a writ petition vide W.P. No.34970 of 1997. The same was heard and decided along with W.A. No.806 of 1999 remanding the matter back to the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District for fresh consideration. The Joint Collector conducted a denovo inquiry in File No.F1/4578/1998, and vide orders, dated 29.04.2002 held that the Inamdars and persons claiming through the Inamdars and protected tenants were never in possession of the subject lands as on 01.07.1973 and accordingly set aside the said ORCs issued vide proceedings No.L/4062/1993 and L/4063/1993. 5. The said order dated 29.04.2002 was challenged by the third parties by way of filing writ petitions vide W.P. Nos.11777, 14175 and 18107 of 2002, 23732 of 2003 and C.R.P. No.4830 of 2003. Vide order dated 29.12.2005, this Court dismissed the said writ petitions upholding the order dated 29.04.2002. The petitioner, Mr. P. Dayanand, in W.P. No.14175 of 2002 carried the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide S.L.P. (Civil) No.2963 of 2006, which was also dismissed on17.04.2006. He filed a review petition vide R.P. (C) No.972 of 2006 and the same was also dismissed on 08.11.2006. Thereafter, he filed Curative Petition (C) No.103 of 2007 in the said review petition and the same was also dismissed. 6. Even the petitioner in W.P. No.11777 of 2002 filed SLP vide SLP (C) No.8754 of 2006 challenging the common order dated 29.12.2005 and the same was also dismissed on 03.07.2006. 7. During the said interregnum period, respondent No.1 had issued a G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.06.2008 for regularization of land. The petitioners herein availed the said scheme. They submitted application by paying necessary charges. Since the official respondents did not consider the said applications, they approached this Court by filing a writ petition vide W.P. No.1178 of 2009, and this Court directed the Tahsildar to consider the applications submitted by the individual plot owners of the aforesaid Association under G.O.Ms.No.166. Thereafter, the aforesaid Association also filed another writ petition vide W.P. No.1606 of 2010, and this Court vide order dated 29.03.2011 directed the District Collector to complete the regularization process within three (03) months from the date of said order. 8. Thereafter, the aforesaid Association also filed another writ petition vide W.P. No.1606 of 2010, and this Court vide order dated 29.03.2011 directed the District Collector to complete the regularization process within three (03) months from the date of said order. 8. The said Dayanad also filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.3000 of 2011, wherein this Court directed the District Collector to consider the objections filed by him while deciding the regularization applications. 9. Vide letter dated 06.12.2008, the District Collector directed the Tahsildar to process the regularization applications of individual members. Thereafter, the District Collector afforded opportunity to both the parties and passed order dated 15.03.2015 holding that the land is government land and the applicants are eligible, but subject to the outcome in W.P. No.15895 of 2010, which is still pending for adjudication before this Court. 10. The Plot owners of the aforesaid Association filed one more writ petition vide W.P. No.1178 of 2009, wherein this Court directed the District Collector to regularize the plots of individual owners in terms of the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.166. While so, the unofficial respondents herein filed a civil suit vide O.S. No.98 of 2021 for perpetual injunction before IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District in respect of the land in Survey No.375 and the same was dismissed on 27.10.2021. As against the same, they preferred an appeal vide A.S. No.53 of 2021, and the same was also dismissed by learned Principal District Judge-cum-Family Court, Medchal - Malkajgiri District on 21.02.2023. As against the said dismissal, the unofficial respondents preferred a second appeal vide S.A. No.425 of 2023 before this Court and the same is pending. 11. Ignoring the above checkered history, the District Collector issued pattadar passbooks in favour of the unofficial respondents vide pattadar passbook Nos.T06010030074 and T0601030075 in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.1.28 guntas and 1.26 guntas in Survey Nos.385/A/2 and 385/A/1/2, respectively, by recording that they purchased the said land on 17.07.2023. Further, respondent Nos.3 and 5 conducted a survey on 25.07.2023. Before issuing the aforesaid pattadar passbooks, the official respondents did not put the petitioners on notice and afford them an opportunity. Therefore, the said pattadar passbooks are liable to be cancelled and so also the panchanama conducted on 25.07.2023 in respect of the land in Survey No.385. 12. Further, respondent Nos.3 and 5 conducted a survey on 25.07.2023. Before issuing the aforesaid pattadar passbooks, the official respondents did not put the petitioners on notice and afford them an opportunity. Therefore, the said pattadar passbooks are liable to be cancelled and so also the panchanama conducted on 25.07.2023 in respect of the land in Survey No.385. 12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has produced written instructions of the Tahsildar, Alwal Mandal, wherein it is stated that as per Khasra Pahani i.e., 195f4-55, the land in Survey No.385 to an extent of Acs.12.09 guntas was classified as Inam and recorded in the name of Sabeer Hussain as Inamdar, and possession column, the name of Shiva Lachaiah was recorded as protected tenant, and so also as per Sessala Pahani i.e., 1955-58. As per the pahani for the year 2015-16, the land in Survey No.385/A to an extent of Acs.5.09 guntas, Survey No.385/AA to an extent of Acs.5.00 guntas and Survey No.385/E to an extent of Acs.2.00 guntas is classified as Inam patta and recorded in the name of Sabeer Hussain and others as Pattadars, and in possession column as plots. As per the new ROR Act, 2020, respondent No.2 - the District Collector is competent authority for cancellation of passbooks. 13. Whereas, the unofficial respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P. No.7982 of 2024 filed counter opposing the claim of the petitioners and contending as follows: i) Originally the total extent of land in Survey No.385 of Kanajiguda Village is Acs.12.09 guntas, and the same was recorded in the name of Mr. Saber Hussaini as Inamdar. ii) Mr.Saber Hussaini had four sons and the aforesaid extent of Acs.12.09 guntas of land was devolved in favour of Mr. Syed Kutubuddin Hussain, who in turn gifted the same to his son, Mr. Akbar Nizamuddin. iii) The father of these respondents, Mr. Ramachandra Reddy and another were occupants/possessors of the total extent of Acs.12.09 guntas in Survey no.385. The father of these respondents was in possession of the land admeasuring Acs.5.00 guntas in Survey No.385 since 1954-55. iv) The father of these respondents was leaseholder of the aforesaid property, and as per Koulnama (lease deed), the koul (lease) amount was being paid regularly to one Mr. Shivalingam, who was managing the property on behalf of the owners. v) After the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, their father and one Mr. iv) The father of these respondents was leaseholder of the aforesaid property, and as per Koulnama (lease deed), the koul (lease) amount was being paid regularly to one Mr. Shivalingam, who was managing the property on behalf of the owners. v) After the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, their father and one Mr. Narasimha Reddy approached the Inams Tribunal to record their names as Inamdars. After the death of their father, the petitioners herein along with their brother, Mr. S. Malla Reddy filed a suit vide O.S.No.115 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif to declare them as possessors of the land to an extent of Acs.5.00 guntas, along with their paternal uncle as Kabzadars since 1954-55. Accordingly, the MRO, Malkajgiri had passed the orders in their favour vide file No.L/2977/1987 and also issued relevant pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their names. vi) These respondents had also approached the Inams Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.5.00 guntas on 16.09.1988. The same was sent to the Tahsildar, Malkajgiri for preliminary enquiry vide proceedings dated 03.12.1988. Upon enquiry conducted on 24.03.1989 and final enquiry, the Inams Tribunal passed the judgment dated 02.09.1989 holding that the said extent of Acs.5.00 guntas has been given equally to these respondents and Mr. S. Malla Reddy and the same shall be implemented after payment of Rs.432/-, Rs.200.60ps. and Rs.400/- in lumpsum or in ten (10) equal instalments by them. vii) Accordingly, these respondents along with their brother paid the said entire premium through Challan No.124, dated 08.09.1989 of SBH City Branch and thereupon their names were directed to be recorded as owners of the land vide order dated 16.02.1990. Their names were accordingly recorded as the owners of the subject property and continued to be in peaceful possession and ownership of the subject property. viii) When some unknown persons were trying to dispossess these respondents, they filed a suit vide O.S. No.98 of 2021 seeking perpetual injunction. However, the same was dismissed. The appeal preferred vide A.S.No.53 of 2021 was also dismissed. They have also filed second appear vide S.A. No.425 of 2023 and the same is pending. Interim stay was granted by this Court in the said second appeal on 11.12.2023 in I.A. No.2 of 2023. However, the same was dismissed. The appeal preferred vide A.S.No.53 of 2021 was also dismissed. They have also filed second appear vide S.A. No.425 of 2023 and the same is pending. Interim stay was granted by this Court in the said second appeal on 11.12.2023 in I.A. No.2 of 2023. ix) While so, these respondents filed an application dated 15.07.2023 seeking demarcation of land in Survey No.385. The Tahsildar, Malkajgiri, vide endorsement dated 25.07.2023 confirmed the survey and conducted panchanama with the local sketch. Thus, the location sketch clearly shows that the lands in Survey Nos.383, 384, 379, 386 and 391 are bounded by Survey No.385. x) As far as the petitioners’ claim is concerned, as per their sale deeds, their plots are in Survey Nos.378, 379, 381 and 386 and there is no reference with regard to survey No.385. Whereas, the land of these respondents is in Survey No.385. xi) The proceedings of the Joint Collector and the RDO and also the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are not in respect of the land in Survey No.385. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT 14. The aforesaid rival submissions would reveal that the petitioners are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the plots and also residential houses and respondent Nos.6 and 7 i.e. S.Sanjeev Reddy and S.Mohan Reddy, are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the agricultural land in Sy.Nos.385/A/2 and 385A/1/2 situated at Kanagiguda Village, H/o Alwal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. 15. The particulars of plot numbers, extent, survey number, sale deed number and date etc. of the petitioners in W.P.No.25071 of 2024 are as mentioned below:- S. No. Name of writ petitioner Plot Number Extent Sq. yds Sale deed No. & Date Sy. Nos. Situated at 1 W. Prakash 7 267 2969/1989, 26.07.1989 378, 379, 381, 386 Kanagiguda Village, H/o Alwal Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District 2 G.S. Ratnam 45 & 46/P 400 1188/1990, 26.04.1990 378, 379, 381, 386 3 A.V. Ethiraju 9/P H.No.1- 30-73/5 150 302/1995, 01.02.1995 374, 378, 379, 381, 386 W.P. No. 25248 of 2024 Sl. No. Name of writ petitioner Plot Nos. Extent Sq. yds Sale deed No.& Date Sy. Nos. Situated at 1 B. Leela and her brother B. Vasanth 13 267 998/1989, 17.03.1989 378, 379, 381. No. Name of writ petitioner Plot Nos. Extent Sq. yds Sale deed No.& Date Sy. Nos. Situated at 1 B. Leela and her brother B. Vasanth 13 267 998/1989, 17.03.1989 378, 379, 381. 386 Kanajiguda village, H/o Alwal Mandal Medchal-Malkajgiri District 2 B.S. Subramanyam 14 267 997/1989, 17.03.1989 3 N. Srinivasa Rao 10 267 3401/1990, 31.08.1990 4 K. Srikanth Raj (succeeded from his father late K. Ganeshraj) 20 267 3403/1990, 13.08.1990 W.P. No. 7982 of 2024 S. No Name of writ petitioner Plot Nos. Extent Sq. yds. Sale deed No & Date Sy. Nos. and Situated at 1 Smt. Sobha Rani 47 & 46/P (46A) 400 2207/1989, 24.05.1989 378, 379, 381, 386 Situated at Kanajiguda village, H/o Alwal Mandal 2 Alaparthy Phaniraj H.No.32- 2/28 Plot No.28 267 332/1996, 15.02.1986 3 M.N. Jayalakshmi (Succeeded from her husband M.R. Narasimha Reddy) 35 267 8206/2014, 31.12.2014 Medchal- Malkajgiri District 4 M.R. Narasimha Reddy 36 267 8205/2014, 31.12.2014 5 Panchagundla Jay Ram (R.6) 15 200 47/1992, 06.01.1992 6 P. Meenakshi (R.7) 19 and 15/P 334 43/1992, 06.01.1992 All the petitioners in three writ petitions and respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.No.7982 of 2024 are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the aforesaid open plots and residential houses basing on the aforesaid registered sale deeds situated in Sy.Nos.378, 379, 381 and 386 of Kanajiguda village, H/o. Alwal, Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. 16. Sri S.Sanjeev Reddy, the unofficial respondent in all the aforesaid writ petitions is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.1.28 guntas in Sy.No.385/2 and Sri S.Mohan Reddy, respondent No.7 is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land Ac.1.06 guntas in Sy.No.385/1/2 situated at Kanajiguda village, H/o Alwal Mandal, Medchal – Malkajgiri District. 17. In proof of their respective claims, the petitioners in all the aforesaid three writ petitions and respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.No.7982/2024 filed copies of the registered sale deeds and also link documents. Perusal of the same would reveal that they have purchased the subject plots from Syed Akbar Nizamuddin Hussain s/o late Syed Kuthbuddin Hussain. 18. 17. In proof of their respective claims, the petitioners in all the aforesaid three writ petitions and respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.No.7982/2024 filed copies of the registered sale deeds and also link documents. Perusal of the same would reveal that they have purchased the subject plots from Syed Akbar Nizamuddin Hussain s/o late Syed Kuthbuddin Hussain. 18. In the recitals of the said sale deeds, it is mentioned that their vendors i.e. Sri Syed Akbar Nizamuddin Hussain and Sri Syed Kuthbuddin Hussain were the owners and pattadars of the land admeasuring 15000 sq.yards in Sy.Nos.378, 379, 385 and 386 situated at Kanajiguda Village, H/o Alwal Mandal. He has entered into agreement of sale dated 08.11.1975 with the original owners, who failed to execute the registered sale deeds in his favour. Therefore, he has filed O.S.No.38 of 1989 for specific performance of agreement of sale. The same was decreed on 13.02.1989. Therefore, as nominee of the purchasers, he has executed the aforesaid registered sale deeds in favour of writ petitioners in all the three writ petitions and respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.No.7982 of 2024. 19. Whereas, Sri S.Sanjeev Reddy, and Sri S. Mohan Reddy i.e. respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.No.25248 of 2024 and 25071 of 2024 and respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P.No.7982 of 2024 are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the aforesaid land in Sy.Nos. 378, 379, 385 and 386. According to them, their father Ramachandra Reddy and another were occupants of land in Sy.No.385 admeasuring Ac.12.09 guntas. Their father was in possession of Ac.5.00 guntas of land in Sy.No.385 since 1954 and 1955. 20. Perusal of the record would reveal that the said Sri Sanjeev Reddy and Sri Mohan Reddy filed a suit vide O.S.No.98 of 2021 against Y.Ravinder and 6 others for perpetual injunction in respect of open land to an extent of Ac.05.00 guntas out of Ac.12.09 guntas in Sy.No.385 situated at Kanajiguda village, H/o Alwal, Medchal – Malkajgiri District. The said suit was dismissed on 27.10.2021 by learned IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. 21. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree, they have preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.53 of 2021. Learned Principal District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District dismissed the said appeal on 21.02.2023. The said suit was dismissed on 27.10.2021 by learned IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. 21. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree, they have preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.53 of 2021. Learned Principal District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District dismissed the said appeal on 21.02.2023. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment, they have filed second appeal vide S.A.No.425 of 2023 and the same is pending before this Court. This Court granted interim order dated 11.12.2023 in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in S.A.No.425 of 2023. The said second appeal is pending and the said interim injunction is subsisting. 22. The petitioners in all the three writ petitions contend that the subject plots are part and parcel of Greenfield colony. They are in possession of the subject plots. They have narrated about filing of appeals, writ petitions, CRPs etc. There is no need of referring the same in detail in view of the lis involved in all the aforesaid three writ petitions. 23. In all the three writ petitions, the petitioners and respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.No.7982 of 2024 are aggrieved by the survey dated 25.07.2023 conducted by Tahsildar, Mandal Surveyor of Alwal Mandal and also the panchanama in respect of the land in Sy.No.385. According to them, Tahsildar and Mandal Surveyor of Alwal Mandal conducted survey on 25.07.2023 on the request made by the said S. Sanjeev Reddy and S.Mohan Reddy who tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over their respective plots/houses. There are 600 house plots in the said lay out. They have obtained the aforesaid orders from this Court to consider their applications seeking LRS. They are in possession of the respective plots. Even then, Tahsildar and Mandal Surveyor, Alwal, conducted survey without putting them on notice and affording them an opportunity. Tahsildar, Mandal Surveyor, Alwal did not even put other interested parties on notice and afforded them an opportunity. In fact, there is no agricultural land available in Sy.No.385 as claimed by the said S.Sanjeev Reddy and S. Mohan Reddy. Part of the property is in Alwal Municipality. Therefore, Tahsildar, Alwal cannot issue latest pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the said S.Sanjeev Reddy and S. Mohan Reddy dated 17.07.2023. Therefore, issuance of pattadar passbooks in their favour is in violation of procedure laid down under ROR Act, 2020. Part of the property is in Alwal Municipality. Therefore, Tahsildar, Alwal cannot issue latest pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of the said S.Sanjeev Reddy and S. Mohan Reddy dated 17.07.2023. Therefore, issuance of pattadar passbooks in their favour is in violation of procedure laid down under ROR Act, 2020. Thus, the survey and panchanama both dated 25.07.2023 are also in violation of the principles of natural justice, procedure laid down under the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, and the guidelines issued by CCLA, for conducting survey from time to time and principle laid down by this Court and Apex Court. 24. Under the guise of the said survey, respondent Nos.6 and 7 S.Sanjeev Reddy and S.Mohan Reddy tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in all the three writ petitions and respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.No.7982 of 2024. Challenging the said action of Tahsildar and Mandal Surveyor of Alwal Mandal, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions. 25. Whereas, respondent Nos.6 and 7 i.e. S. Sanjeev Reddy and S.Mohan Reddy, in W.P.No.25071 of 2024 and W.P.No.25248 of 2024 and respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P.No.7982 of 2023 are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject property. On their application, the Tahsildar, Alwal Mandal, has conducted survey, drawn panchanama strictly in accordance with law and issued latest passbooks dated 17.07.2023 in their favour. There is no error in it. 26. The petitioners are claiming that they are the owners of the respective plots in Survey Nos.374, 378, 379, 381, 385 and 386, situated at Kanajiguda Hamlet of Alwal Village and Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District. Whereas, they are claiming right over the aforesaid land in Sy.No.385 of Kanajiguda Village, H/o Alwal Mandal. Therefore, the plots of the petitioners are different to the land claimed by them. 27. The aforesaid rival contentions would reveal that the petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions and respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.No.7892 of 2024 are claiming that they are absolute owners and possessors of the open/residential plots in Survey Nos.374, 378, 379, 381, 385 and 386, situated at Kanajiguda Hamlet of Alwal Village and Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, basing on the registered sale deeds. 28. Whereas, respondent Nos.6 and 7, S.Sanjeev Reddy and S. Mohan Reddy are claiming that they are the owners of the aforesaid land in Sy.No.385. 28. Whereas, respondent Nos.6 and 7, S.Sanjeev Reddy and S. Mohan Reddy are claiming that they are the owners of the aforesaid land in Sy.No.385. Therefore, there is dispute with regard to the identification of the land. 29. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners have filed plans- cum- lay outs issued by the then grampanchayat. According to them, there are 600 residential plots. Most of them constructed houses and living in the said houses. In proof of the same, they have filed photographs. 30. Perusal of the record would reveal that latest passbooks issued in favour of S.Sanjeev Reddy and S.Mohan Reddy are dated 17.07.2023. By the said date, Kanajiguda Village H/o Alwal Mandal is merged in GHMC limits. Therefore, without considering the said fact, 3 rd respondent has issued passbooks in their favour. The Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 2020 (for short, ‘ROR Act, 2020’) is not applicable to non-agricultural properties. It is intended for the agricultural lands and also for the lands not capable of being used for the purpose of agriculture including horticulture. Admittedly, land in Sy.No.385 is in GHMC limits of Alwal Circle, without considering the said aspects, latest e-passbooks were issued to them. 31. Perusal of the panchanama dated 25.07.2023 and also counter filed by respondent Nos.6 and 7 would reveal that the petitioners and other plot owners were not put on notice and afforded opportunity while conducting survey. The aforesaid survey numbers wherein the petitioners plots are situated are abutting to the land in Sy.No.385. Therefore, Tahsildar, Mandal Surveyor have to necessarily put the petitioners and other interested parties on notice. Without putting the petitioners and other interested parties on notice, the Tahsildar and Mandal Surveyor Alwal Mandal, conducted survey dated 25.07.2023. Therefore, the aforesaid survey dated 25.07.2023 conducted by Tahsildar, Mandal Surveyor of Alwal Mandal is in violation of principles of natural justice and procedure laid down under the Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act, 1973, guidelines issued by CCLA and also principle laid down by this Court in catena of decisions. Therefore, survey and panchanama dated 25.07.2023 of Tahsildar, Mandal Surveyor of Alwal Mandal are liable to be set aside. 32. Therefore, survey and panchanama dated 25.07.2023 of Tahsildar, Mandal Surveyor of Alwal Mandal are liable to be set aside. 32. It is also relevant to note that the suit filed by S.Sanjeev Reddy and S.Mohan Reddy vide O.S.No.98 of 2021 for perpetual injunction before IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District in respect of the land in Survey No.375 and the same was dismissed on 27.10.2021. Feeling aggrieved by the same, they preferred an appeal vide A.S. No.53 of 2021, and the same was also dismissed by learned Principal District Judge-cum- Family Court, Medchal - Malkajgiri District on 21.02.2023. As against the said dismissal, they have preferred second appeal vide S.A. No.425 of 2023 before this Court and this Court granted interim injunction on 11.12.2023. During pendency of said Second Appeal and subsistence of the interim order, the said S.Sanjeev Reddy and S.Mohan Reddy cannot request Mandal Surveyor and Tahsildar to conduct survey and fix boundaries. If there is any problem with regard to the property claimed by them, including identification aspect, they have to take steps by filing a petition in the said Second Appeal seeking survey of land. But they have not filed any such application. Therefore, on the said ground also the impugned survey and panchanama both dated 25.07.2023 of Tahsildar and Mandal Surveyor, Alwal Mandal, are liable to be set aside. 33. Viewed from any angle, the survey and panchanama both dated 25.07.2023 of Tahsildar and Mandal Surveyor, Alwal Mandal are in violation of principles of natural justice, in violation of the guidelines issued by CCLA from time to time for conducting survey, procedure laid down under the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, principle laid down by this Court and Apex Court. Therefore, the survey and panchanama dated 25.07.2023 are liable to be set aside. Consequently, passbooks issued in favour of Sri S.Sanjeeva Reddy and Sri S.Mohan Reddy are also cancelled. 34. Considering the aforesaid issues and also judgment and decree in O.S.No.98 of 2021 dated 25.07.2021, A.S.No.53 of 2021, dated 21.02.2023, pendency of S.A. No. 425 of 2023 and interim order dated 11.02.2023 in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in S.A.No.425 of 2023, the 2 nd respondent – the District Collector, Medchal – Malkajgiri District is directed to conduct enquiry in detail by putting said S. Sanjeev Reddy and S. Mohan Reddy - respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in W.P.Nos.23248 of 2024 and 25071 of 2024, the writ petitioners in all three writ petitions, respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P.No.7982 of 2024 and all interested parties on notice and affording them an opportunity. He shall also consider the fact that the ROR Act, 2020 is not applicable to the urban properties and the land in Sy.No.385 is in GHMC limits. However, he shall complete the said exercise within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 35. With the aforesaid observations, these writ petitions are disposed of. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these writ petitions shall stand closed.