ORDER: K.SARATH, J. This writ petition is filed questioning the order passed by the respondent No.2 in New Case No.F3/Spl.Tribunal/Cherial/013/2021 dated 03.02.2021 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Ashok Reddy Kanathala, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6,8 to 10. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of petitioner and his brother have sold the joint family property admeasuring to an extent of Ac.13.13 gts in different survey numbers situated at Nagapuri Village, Cherial Mandal, Warangal District, to others under various sale deeds without notice and knowledge of the petitioner and the names of the purchasers were incorporated in the revenue records illegally. The petitioner and others have filed suit in O.S.No.4 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jangoan, for partition and declaration. Thereafter, the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat and preliminary decree was passed in LAC No.213 of 2013 dated 23.11.2013 and subsequently a final decree was also passed on 25.07.2015. On the basis of final decree, the petitioner has applied before the Tahsildar to effect mutation in the revenue records and to grant pattadar passbooks and title deeds for his share of land. Thereafter, he filed W.P.Nos.5510 of 2016 and W.P.No.39830 of 2016 and as per the directions of this Court, the respondent No.5-Tahsildar has passed order dated 09.08.2016 directing mutation of the records incorporating the name of petitioner in the place of the respondent Nos.6 to 10. In the meantime, the respondent Nos.6 to 10 have filed I.A.No.214 of 2016 before the Civil Court to set aside the final decree granted by the Lok Adalat on the ground that they were not served with notice and the same was allowed by setting aside the final decree dated 25.07.2015 vide order dated 28.07.2017. Against the said order, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.3306 of 2018 and the same was dismissed on 03.04.2019. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that challenging the order of the Tahsildar dated 09.08.2016, the respondent Nos.6 to 10 filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the same was dismissed on 30.08.2018. Against the said order, the respondent Nos.6 to 10 filed revision before the respondent No.3-Joint Collector, Siddipet, which was transferred to the Special Tribunal and the same was allowed by the impugned order on 03.02.2021. Against the said order, the respondent Nos.6 to 10 filed revision before the respondent No.3-Joint Collector, Siddipet, which was transferred to the Special Tribunal and the same was allowed by the impugned order on 03.02.2021. He submits that the Special Tribunal failed to follow the rules as contemplated under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 2020 for mutation of the names and passed order without recording any findings and if any order passed by the Civil Court in respect of the final decree, the respondents shall approach the Tahsildar under Section 7 of the Act, 2020. He further submits that the impugned order is a non-speaking order passed by the Special Tribunal without jurisdiction and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.6,8 to 10 based on the counter submits that as the final decree passed by the Lok Adalat was set aside by order dated 28.07.2017 in I.A.No.214 of 2016 in I.A.No.529 of 2015 in O.S.No.4 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, and the same was also confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.3306 of 2018 dated 03.04.2019, the petitioner has no right to claim any right or title till the final decree is passed by the Civil Court and the Special Tribunal has rightly allowed the revision by the impugned order and there is no need to interfere with by this Court and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 6. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner and others filed suit in O.S.No.4 of 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, against the respondent Nos.6 to 10 and others for partition and declaration and the same was referred to Lok Adalat, wherein preliminary decree was passed in LAC No.213 of 2013 dated 23.11.2013.Thereafter, a final decree was passed on 25.07.2015. Challenging the said final decree, the respondent Nos.6 to 10 filed I.A.No.214 of 2016 in I.A.No.529 of 2015 in O.S.No.4 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, and the same was allowed on 28.07.2017 by setting aside the final decree on the ground that no notice was served on the petitioners i.e., respondent Nos.6 to 10 herein, in the final decree petition in I.A.No.529 of 2015 and the drafting of the final decree is not in terms of the preliminary decree. The said order was also confirmed by this Court in C.R.P. No.3306 of 2018 dated 03.04.2019. 7. The mutation proceedings have taken place in favour of the petitioner basing on the final decree passed in O.S.No.4 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Janagaon dated 25.07.2015 and thereafter, the petitoner has approached this Court and filed W.P.No.5510 of 2016 and W.P.No.39830 of 2016 and the same were disposed of directing the Tahsildar to mutate the revenue records as per the final decree passed in O.S.No.4 of 2007. After passing of the said decree, the unofficial respondents herein filed I.A.No.214 of 2016 in I.A.No.529 of 2015 in O.S.No.4 of 2007 and the same was ordered by setting aside the final decree in O.S.No.4 of 2007. In view of the same, there is no basis for granting mutation in favour of the writ petitioner by the Tahsildar. 8. In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner has approached this Court and obtained orders stating that the competent Civil Court has passed the final decree proceedings and this Court also directed the respondents to mutate the name of the petitioner herein. After mutation of the records, the unofficial respondents have approached the revenue authorities by filing appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and thereafter, revision petition and the same was transferred to the Special Tribunal. The Special Tribunal has rightly allowed the revision petition by setting aside the mutation proceedings in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.4 of 2007 was set aside and the same was confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.3306 of 2018 dated 03.04.2019. The Special Tribunal has rightly allowed the revision petition by setting aside the mutation proceedings in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.4 of 2007 was set aside and the same was confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.3306 of 2018 dated 03.04.2019. The Special Tribunal has allowed the revision petition filed by the unofficial respondents and there is no valid ground to interfere with the same as the petitioner has failed to obtain any favorable orders from the competent Civil Court as on this date for mutation of records in his favour. If the petitioner has succeeded in the partition and declaration suit, he can approach the revenue authorities for mutation of the records basing on the Judgment and Decree. Till obtaining the valid Judgment and Decree in favour of the petitioner, the respondents cannot continue the mutation granted in favour of the petitioner without any basis. 9. In view of the above circumstances, there are no merits in the present writ petition to set aside the impugned proceedings and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the Special Tribunal and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 11. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.