ORDER : (B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J.) This writ petition is filed seeking a direction from this Court to declare the Proceedings No.B/877/2016 dated 19.06.2019 of the respondent No.4 treating the land covered by “Tholla Kharkana” (Old Sy.No.380) of Alwal Village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District as Government land as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of the principles of natural justice, non-application of mind and vitiated by perversity as well as opposed to Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Proceedings No.B/877/2016 dated 19.06.2019 and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners’ plots. 2. The background facts of the case are as under: (a) In the earlier round of litigation, one Mohd. Najamuddin filed WP.No.984 of 2004 to declare the action of the respondent No.4 herein (Tahsildar – Mandal Revenue Officer, Alwal Mandal, Medchal – Malkajgiri District) in claiming to have handed over the possession of the land to the respondent No.3 to an extent of Ac.5.00 in Tolla Kharkhana of Alwal Village within the Municipal Limits of Alwal Municipality of Malkajgiri Mandal, at the request and instructions of the respondents No.1 and 2 and the action of the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 in seeking to implement the VAMBAY scheme by construction of houses treating the said land as the Government land as illegal, void, without authority or power and consequently, direct the respondents to refrain from in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in the subject land. By order dated 06.02.2015, the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to issue appropriate notices to the affected parties before taking any action either for construction of houses for urban poor and before claiming the land as Government land, and till such time, the persons in possession of the land shall not be disturbed. (b) Thereafter, WP.No.5371 of 2016 was filed by the petitioners herein to declare the action of the respondents in trying to demolish the structures in their respective plots and trying to dispossess them from their peaceful possession and enjoyment as being arbitrary and violative of orders of this Court dated 06.02.2015 in WP.No.984 of 2004. (b) Thereafter, WP.No.5371 of 2016 was filed by the petitioners herein to declare the action of the respondents in trying to demolish the structures in their respective plots and trying to dispossess them from their peaceful possession and enjoyment as being arbitrary and violative of orders of this Court dated 06.02.2015 in WP.No.984 of 2004. Order dated 03.03.2016 was passed in WPMP.No.6837 of 2016 in WP.No.5371 of 2016 granting interim direction as prayed for by recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that the respondents are not interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners of the subject land and would strictly follow the order dated 06.02.2015 in WP.No.984 of 2004. It appears that for non-compliance of the order dated 03.03.2016, CC.No.1350 of 2018 was filed by the petitioners. In the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar – respondent No.3 therein, it was contended that the petitioners are pendente lite purchasers from the petitioner – Mohd. Najamuddin in WP.No.984 of 2004. As on the date of disposal of WP.No.984 of 2004, there were no constructions in the subject land and when third parties tried to change the nature of the land, the Tahsildar erected sign boards to avoid multiple alienations. That pending enquiry into the matter, as directed by this Court in WP.No.984 of 2004, the Tahsildar has removed the sign board erected on 26.06.2018 and that erection of sign boards of Government is not intentional, wilful or wanton and it is only to prevent the encroachments. (c) In consequence thereof, proceedings have been initiated by the Tahsildar in Proceedings No.B/877/2016 and individual notices have been issued to the petitioners under the Telangana Revenue Summons Act , 1869, through registered post directing them to file any proof in support of their claim over the land. The petitioner No.1 filed explanation on behalf of all plot owners stating that Hazi Mohd Turab Saheb purchased the property in old Sy.No.380 of Alwal Village through registered sale deed No.3053/1353 Fasli and the existence of document was clearly mentioned in encumbrance certificate No.5188/2003 dated13.08.2003 issued by the Joint Sub Registrar Hyderabad – II. Hazi Mohd Turab Saheb executed Registered Gift deed on 16.07.1981 but the said documents are not available and the Tahsildar can obtain the same from the Sub Registrar. Hazi Mohd Turab Saheb executed Registered Gift deed on 16.07.1981 but the said documents are not available and the Tahsildar can obtain the same from the Sub Registrar. The land is a private patta land as confirmed by the Assistant Director Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District vide Memo No.A2/310/2002 dated 16.08.2012 and the revision survey records disclose that it is “Abadi” and the petitioners purchased the subject land under individual registered sale deeds from Mohd Najamuddin S/o. Ibrahim Nazam. (d) It is evident from the record that one Ayub Ali Khan S/o.Sardar Ali Khan filed claim/objection petition stating that he purchased the subject property in old Sy.No.380 of Alwal Village from Mohd Najamuddin S/o. Ibrahim Nazam vide Agreement of Sale dated 10.01.2002 and thereafter, he levelled the land and formed the roads. M/s. Kanya Constructions filed a suit against him in O.S.No.1161 of 2023 seeking injunction against A. Malikarjun Reddy, Mohd Najamuddin and another, which ended in compromise on 20.07.2005. WP.No.984 of 2004 was filed by Mohd Najamuddin, which was disposed of on 06.02.2015 wherein status quo orders have been passed. When status quo orders were subsisting, Mohd Najamuddin executed 40 registered sale deeds in favour of Bujju Banoth and others (petitioners herein). (e) In the said proceedings, the respondent No.4 framed four issues as under: A. Whether the land is Government or private patta land. B. Whether it was purchased by Haji Mohammed Turab Saheb S/o Dada Saheb through registered sale deed No.3053/1353 Fasli. C. Whether the claim of Mr. Ayub Ali Khan S/o Saradar Ali Khan as GPA holder is sustainable. D. Whether Mohd Najmuddin S/o Ibrahim Nazam got saleable rights on the subject land and Bujji Banothand others acquired any ownership rights. (f) While answering issue A, it was discussed as under: “As per Sethwar prepared under Revision Survey, the land covered by old Sy.No.380 was not assigned any new Sy.No. and it was written as Abadi Kharkhan Cheram which means old Kharkhana which indicates that the land belongs to the Government but not any private individuals. The Sethwar is the base for all the entries in the subsequent records but based on the letter addressed by Mr. Mohd Najamuddin the Asst. The Sethwar is the base for all the entries in the subsequent records but based on the letter addressed by Mr. Mohd Najamuddin the Asst. Director Sy & LR vide No.A2/310/2002, Dt.16-08-2002 informed that the old Sy.No.380 was assigned to new Sy.No. Tollakarkana which extent is Ac.5-30 gts, on verification of pucca book of survey & settlement records the owner of the land is Haji Turbasab and that it is a private property and not a Govt. land. In the counter Affidavit filed by District Collector Ranga Reddy District in WP.No.984/2004 Dt.26-02-2004 stating that the land in old Sy.No.380 was described as “Tollakarkana” in the revision survey which took place in the year 1354 Fasli and that the Memo issued by the then Asst.Director, Survey and Land Records is not in dispute but the same was issued basing on loose papers available purportedly pertaining to the pucca book of Alwal Village. The petitioner did not raise any objection with regard to the non-assigning of Sy.No. corresponding to old Sy.No.380 and also with regard to the classification describing it as “Tollakarkana”. Any persons aggrieved by Revision Survey have to question the same within two years there from. The petitioner did not do so. The records shows that the (old Sy.No.380) of “Tollakarkana” is described as “Abadi” and further the petitioner failed to establish that they are in possession of the subject land and the documents submitted as link documents are proved to be fake. In view of the same the subject land can be treated as Govt. land. In view of the above facts, there is no evidence that the land covered by old Sy.No.380 of Alwal village is a private property.” (g) The issue B was decided by giving a finding that the documents relied upon by the petitioners, through which the vendors of Bujji Banoth and others as well as Ayub Ali Khan are claiming the land, are fake documents. On enquiry whether Tolla Karkhana was registered in the property register of Alwal Gram Panchayath in the name of Haji Mohammed Turab Saheb or Mohd. Najamuddin, the Alwal Municipality vide Lr.No.G1/242/TPS/C- 27KPZ/GHMC/18 dated 17.07.2018 informed that no property is registered in the name of “Tolla Karkhana” as per their records. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners as well as Ayub Khan through their vendor with regard to the subject land is false. Najamuddin, the Alwal Municipality vide Lr.No.G1/242/TPS/C- 27KPZ/GHMC/18 dated 17.07.2018 informed that no property is registered in the name of “Tolla Karkhana” as per their records. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners as well as Ayub Khan through their vendor with regard to the subject land is false. It was further recorded that neither the petitioners nor Ayub Khan are in possession of the subject land. There are only three structures existing on the subject land, which are marked as A, B, C in the sketch prepared by the Surveyor and that the registered documents clearly the same house numbers and the vacant plots also are registered in the same House Number i.e. 2096, which proves that they are fake numbers. Issue C is not concerned with the petitioners but is regarding the claim of Ayub Ali Khan, which was rejected. (h) In issue D, it was held that no registered was executed in favour of Haji Mohammed Turab Saheb and it is a fake document. Neither Haji Mohammed Turab Saheb nor Mohd. Najamuddin are owners of the schedule property and have any saleable rights. Therefore, the petitioners have not acquired any rights with the documents executed by Mohd. Najamuddin. In conclusion, the respondent No.4 held that the land covered by Tollakarkana is Government land classified as “Abadi” and no one including Mohd. Najamuddin S/o. Ibrahim, Ayub Ali Khan, S/o. Sardar Khan and the petitioners are having any rights therein. The order of the Tahsildar dated 19.06.2019 is impugned in this writ petition. 3. Mr. Srinivas Polavarapu, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the sale deed bearing document No.3053/1353 dated 26.12.1353 Fasli evidences that one Abu Baker, Abdul Azizand Abdul Hameed sold an extent of Ac.14.13 guntas in old Sy.Nos.380, 381 and 382 of Alwal Village to one Haji Mohammed Turab Saheb. The Encumbrance Certificate No.5188/2003 dated 13.08.2003 disclosed the said transaction. The old Sy.Nos.381 and 382 are assigned new Sy.Nos.26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 in the revision survey that took place in 1354 Fasli. As old survey numbers are agricultural lands, the survey authorities assigned new survey numbers. Haji Mohammed Turab Saheb gifted the new Sy.Nos.26 to 30 to his son Mohd. Ibrahim Najam. The rest of the land admeasuring Ac.7.37 guntas in old Sy.No.380 was used as Tanning Units and for that reason, in the revision survey, no new survey numbers has been assigned to old Sy.No.380. Haji Mohammed Turab Saheb gifted the new Sy.Nos.26 to 30 to his son Mohd. Ibrahim Najam. The rest of the land admeasuring Ac.7.37 guntas in old Sy.No.380 was used as Tanning Units and for that reason, in the revision survey, no new survey numbers has been assigned to old Sy.No.380. The revision survey disclosed that the land in old Sy.No.380 was classified as “Abadi Karkhana Cheram” popularly known as “Tholla Karkhana”. By a registered gift deed dated 16.07.1981, Haji Mohammed Turab Saheb gifted the old Sy.No.380 admeasuring Ac.7.37 guntas to his grandson Mohd. Najamuddin, who converted the land into plots and sold the same to the petitioners under various sale deeds. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the vendor of the petitioners did not hand over the link document bearing document No.3053/1353 Fasli to the petitioners during his lifetime stating that he has retained some portion of the land for himself and required the link document to be kept for himself. The petitioners applied for certified copy of the said document in the office of the Joint Sub Registrar I in the year 2016 and it was informed to the petitioners that the record pertaining to the said document was sent to the civil Court and they are unable to provide the certified copy of the same. 5. Learned counsel submitted that on an objection filed by the vendor, Mohd. Najamuddin dated 04.02.2002, the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, issued a Memo in File No.A2/310/2002 dated 16.08.2002 stating that old Sy.No.380 was assigned to new Survey No./Tholla Karkhana, which extent is recorded in new survey records as Ac.5.30 guntas and on verification of Pucca Book of Survey and Settlement Records, the pattadar name is also recorded as Haji Turab Saheb and according to the records, the Tholla Karkhana is a private property and not a Government land. The revenue department erroneously presumed that Tholla Karkhana is a Government land. Tholla Karkhana means Tanning Industry. As per the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 in WP.No.984 of 2004, for old Sy.No.380 no new survey number was assigned and in the Wasool Baqui Register for the said survey number it was written as ‘Abadi Karkhana Cheram’, which means old Karkhana and it belongs to the Government. 6. Tholla Karkhana means Tanning Industry. As per the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 in WP.No.984 of 2004, for old Sy.No.380 no new survey number was assigned and in the Wasool Baqui Register for the said survey number it was written as ‘Abadi Karkhana Cheram’, which means old Karkhana and it belongs to the Government. 6. Learned counsel submitted that the registered sale deed bearing document No.3053/1353 Fasli of the original owners followed by subsequent registered documents and the sale deeds of the petitioners clearly reveal that the subject property is a private property. Based on entries in the revenue records, the respondents cannot claim title to the property, as held by this Court in HYDERABAD POTTERIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. COLLECTOR, HYDERABAD , [ 2001(3) ALD 600 ] . The land classified as Abadi/Gramakantam cannot be classified as Government land and it means land earmarked for residential purpose. When there is a bonafide dispute regarding title and possession of the petitioners is prima facie established, the respondent-Government is bound to institute a civil suit or appropriate proceedings. The title of the petitioners cannot be decided in summary proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the impugned proceedings are passed without jurisdiction. It is not stated under which statute the impugned proceedings have been initiated. The Telangana Revenue Summons Act , 1869, deals with the manner in which summons or notices have to be issued to the parties. It is not a proceeding akin to the Land Encroachment Act or Land Grabbing Act. The order of this Court dated 06.02.2015 in WP.No.984 of 2004 is wrongly construed by the respondent No.4.This Court directed the respondents to issue appropriate notices to the affected parties before taking any action, which would mean that notice should have been issued under the relevant statute. Neither the impugned proceedings refer to any provision of law nor in the counter affidavit, the respondents were able to substantiate the jurisdictional power of the respondent No.4 in passing the impugned order. Thus, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. 8. Mr. Muralidhar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, submitted that the lands recorded as ‘Abadi’ are to be treated as Government lands. The petitioners have purchased the land from Mohd. Najamuddin during the pendency of WP.No.984 of 2004 and in violation of status quo order, purchases were made by the petitioners between 2004-2015. 8. Mr. Muralidhar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, submitted that the lands recorded as ‘Abadi’ are to be treated as Government lands. The petitioners have purchased the land from Mohd. Najamuddin during the pendency of WP.No.984 of 2004 and in violation of status quo order, purchases were made by the petitioners between 2004-2015. The vendor of the petitioners does not have any title to the property. Thus, the question of the petitioners acquiring title does not arise. The petitioners do not have locus standi to file the instant writ petition. Merely because the proceedings are issued under the Telangana Revenue Summons Act , 1869, it will not vitiate the proceedings. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on several decisions in support of his case and the decisions, which have direct bearing on the issue involved in this writ petition, are as under: Entries in TSLR will not decide the Title STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. PRAMEELA MODI , [ 2005 (3) ALT 379 (D.B.)] and G. SATYANARAYANA v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH , 2014 (4) ALD 358 Bonafide disputes of Title – Land Encroachment Act cannot be invoked SHANTHA SRIRAM CONSTRUCTIONS (P) LTD. v. STATE OF TELANGANA , [2021 (3) ALD6 83] ; P. KRISHNA APPA RAO v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH , [ 2021 (3) ALD 200 (AP)] and G. SATYANARAYANA ’s case (3 supra). Meaning of Abadi and Gramakantam RADHE SHYAM v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH , [ 2013 (1) ALD 109 ] VOONNA BANGARAJU v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH , [ 2014(3) ALD 443 ] and SIGADAPU VIJAYA v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH , [ 2015(4) ALD 88 ] 10. Heard Mr. Srinivas Polavarapu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Muralidhar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 11. I have perused the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4, which reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned proceedings dated 19.06.2019. The counter affidavit does not say anything about the jurisdiction of the respondent No.4 and underwhich statutory provisions, the impugned proceedings came to be issued. Even in the oral submissions, the learned Government Pleader was not able to convince this Court as to under which statute, the impugned proceedings are issued. The counter affidavit does not say anything about the jurisdiction of the respondent No.4 and underwhich statutory provisions, the impugned proceedings came to be issued. Even in the oral submissions, the learned Government Pleader was not able to convince this Court as to under which statute, the impugned proceedings are issued. According to the learned Government Pleader, as directed by this Court by order dated 06.02.2015, notices have been issued to the petitioners under the Telangana Revenue Summons Act , 1869 (for short ‘the Act’) and detailed enquiry was conducted by following theprinciples of natural justice and the order impugned was passed. 12. The operative portion of the order dated 06.02.2015 inWP.No.984 of 2004 reads as under: “In view of the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to issue appropriate notices to the affected parties before taking any action either for construction of houses for urban poor and before claiming the land as a Government land, and till such time, the persons in possession of the land shall not bedisturbed.” 13. It has to be noted that there was no specific direction issued by this Court to the respondent No.4-Tahsildar to pass an order. It was a general direction to all the respondents. Though it is contended by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed in the contempt case that the enquiry pursuant to order passed by this Court in WP.No.984 of 2004 dated 06.02.2015 is pending, there isno reference to any statute or provision of law. 14. It is evident from the record that notices have been issued to the petitioners under the Act, which is a procedural law. The Act empowers the revenue authorities to summon a person to produce evidence for investigation in any matter. The manner in which summon has to be issued and served on the party concerned are provided under the Act. The impugned proceedings should have been initiated under a substantive law to which power of therespondent No.4 can be traced. 15. The order of High Court directing the statutory authorities to issue notices and pass orders, in accordance with law, presupposes that such orders have to be passed in exercise of relevant statutory power. When there is no statutory power vested in the authority, the question of such authority passing an order, on merely being directed by the High Court, would not arise. When there is no statutory power vested in the authority, the question of such authority passing an order, on merely being directed by the High Court, would not arise. It is not as if the High Court can confer jurisdiction on the Tahsildar, which he does not possess. The Tahsildar is an authority under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971; the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, etc. The impugned proceedings are not initiated under any of these Acts. As pointed out above, this Court has not specifically directed the Tahsildar to issue anynotices as such. 16. In a given case, if the petitioners were found in possession of the property, then proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act or the Land Grabbing Act ought to have been initiated. If the respondents were in possession of the property, nothing prevented them from challenging the order dated 06.02.2015 in WP.No.984 of 2004 wherein the possession of petitioners was protected until enquiry was initiated by the respondents in the writ petition by issuing appropriate notices. Having not challenged the order dated 06.02.2015 in WP.No.984 of 2004, the respondent No.4 cannot be allowed to plead that the petitioners are not in possession of the subject land. It is settled law that the revenue records does not confer any title and as held in HYDERABAD POTTERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ’s case (1 supra), the TSLR entries are not conclusive todecide title of a party. 17. In the light of the above discussion, as the respondent No.4 lacks jurisdiction in passing the impugned proceedings and there is no reference to any statutory provision, without entering into the merits of the case and giving findings regarding title of the petitioners vis-à-vis the respondents, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings No.B/877/2016 dated 19.06.2019. The respondents are, however, at liberty to invoke appropriate legal proceedings for removing – dispossessing the petitioners from the subject property by following due process oflaw and in compliance of order dated 06.02.2015 in WP.No.984 of 2004. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.