ORDER : N.TUKARAMJI, J. Considering that the issues involved in all these Writ Petitions are identical and interrelated, they are being adjudicated through this common order. 2. I have heard Mr. N. Naveen Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. 3. W.P. No. 31169 of 2017 has been filed seeking a declaration that the impugned order in File No. C/4066/2016 dated 09.05.2017, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division (respondent No. 2), is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971(hereinafter “the Act”). The petitioners further seek a direction to the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful possession of the land in Sy. No. 105/12/E, admeasuring Ac. 2.20 guntas, situated at Nagireddiguda Village, Moinabad Mandal (hereinafter “the subject property”). 4. W.P. No. 26475 of 2019 has been filed seeking to declare the impugned orders in File Nos. B/2388, B/2389, B/2390, and B/2391 dated 23.01.2019, issued by the Tahsildar, Moinabad Mandal (respondent No. 3), mutating the land in Sy. No. 105/12UU 1 to 3, admeasuring Ac. 2.12 guntas, situated at Nagireddiguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and unsustainable. 5. W.P. No. 1203 of 2020 has been filed seeking a direction to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Rajendranagar, and the Station House Officer, Moinabad Police Station (respondent Nos. 1 and 2), to consider the representation dated 08.01.2020 and provide police aid for implementation of the order of this Court dated 09.11.2019 in I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2019 in W.P. No. 26475 of 2019. 6.1. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that respondent No. 4 filed O.S. No. 135 of 2003 before the Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, seeking a perpetual injunction simpliciter against the petitioners in respect of the subject property. The said suit was dismissed. However, respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal, which was allowed. The petitioners, aggrieved thereby, filed a Second Appeal, wherein an interim direction to maintain status quo was granted. 6.2. Further, respondent Nos. 4 to 6 subsequently instituted O.S. No. 819 of 2017 before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking declaration and injunction in respect of the same property. The petitioners contested the said suit. The petitioners, aggrieved thereby, filed a Second Appeal, wherein an interim direction to maintain status quo was granted. 6.2. Further, respondent Nos. 4 to 6 subsequently instituted O.S. No. 819 of 2017 before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking declaration and injunction in respect of the same property. The petitioners contested the said suit. However, as the petitioners failed to adduce evidence due to Advocates abstaining from court proceedings in the relevant period, an ex parte decree was passed on 08.07.2016. Thereafter, an application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed with a delay of eight days. The said delay was condoned, and the application was allowed, resulting in the restoration of the suit, which is presently pending adjudication. 6.3. In the meantime, during the pendency of the restoration proceedings, respondent Nos. 4 to 6 made a representation seeking incorporation of their names in the revenue records in respect of the subject property based on the ex parte decree in O.S. No. 819 of 2017. Acting upon the said representation, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO)/respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 09.05.2017, directing the Tahsildar (respondent No. 3) to implement the decree and rectify the relevant revenue entries. Challenging the said order, W.P. No. 31169 of 2017 was filed. This Court granted interim suspension of the impugned order on 14.09.2017, which was subsequently extended until further orders on 13.10.2017. 6.4. Despite the subsistence of the interim suspension, respondent Nos. 4 to 6 executed registered sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos. 8 to 12, selling portions of the subject property and thereby creating third-party interests. The said purchasers were impleaded as respondent Nos. 8 to 12 in W.P. No. 31169 of 2017 vide I.A. No. 2 of 2018. In pursuance of their sale deeds, the purchasers made representations before the Tahsildar and obtained proceedings bearing Nos. B/2388 to B/2391 dated 23.01.2019, resulting in mutation of their names in the revenue records in place of respondent Nos. 4 to 6. These mutations were made on the basis of the very RDO order which stood suspended by this Court. Challenging such amendment of entries in violation of the Court’s suspension order, W.P. No. 26476 of 2019 was filed. 6.5. The petitioners thereafter instituted O.S. No. 231 of 2022, challenging the sale deeds executed by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in favour of respondent Nos. Challenging such amendment of entries in violation of the Court’s suspension order, W.P. No. 26476 of 2019 was filed. 6.5. The petitioners thereafter instituted O.S. No. 231 of 2022, challenging the sale deeds executed by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in favour of respondent Nos. 7 to 14. The said suit was decreed in part on 23.12.2025, declaring the impugned sale deeds as null and void. 6.6. The petitioners also sought police protection for implementing this Court’s interim order dated 14.09.2017, by filing W.P. No. 1203 of 2020, based on their representation dated 08.01.2020. 7.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the decree in O.S. No. 819 of 2017 was an ex parte decree dated 08.07.2016, and that an application for setting aside the decree was filed with a delay of only eight days, which was allowed. The pendency of that restoration application was duly brought to the notice of the RDO during the revenue proceedings. However, without considering the same, and in disregard of the mandatory procedure under Section 5 of the Act, the RDO proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 09.05.2017. It is contended that the RDO, who is the appellate authority under the Act, usurped the original jurisdiction vested in the Tahsildar under Section 5(5) of the Act and thereby acted without jurisdiction. Moreover, no notice was issued to the petitioners, nor were they afforded any opportunity to submit remarks. The incorporation of the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in the revenue records, based on an ex parte decree that has since been set aside, is therefore unsustainable. 7.2. It is further contended that, despite the suspension of the RDO’s order in 2017, the Tahsildar proceeded to mutate the names of respondent Nos. 7 to 14, based on the sales executed by respondent Nos. 4 to 6. Such action, undertaken while the civil and writ proceedings were pending, is wholly illegal and contrary to judicial discipline. As the petitioners’ suit challenging those sale deeds has now been decreed, the consequential revenue mutations are liable to be set aside. 7.3. The petitioners also assert that they continue to remain in possession of the subject property and that the respondents have been interfering with their possession based on the impugned sale deeds and revenue entries. This Court, by order dated 29.11.2019, directed respondent Nos. 7.3. The petitioners also assert that they continue to remain in possession of the subject property and that the respondents have been interfering with their possession based on the impugned sale deeds and revenue entries. This Court, by order dated 29.11.2019, directed respondent Nos. 4 to 14 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. The petitioners therefore seek setting aside of the orders passed by the RDO (respondent No. 2) and Tahsildar (respondent No. 3) incorporating the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 14 in the revenue records and request for police protection as prayed for. 8.1. Per contra, Mr. B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, contends that the petitioners have failed to establish any legal right over the subject property and have not pleaded the same in the affidavit. He submits that, as on the date of the RDO’s order, the ex parte decree was in force and had not been set aside, and hence, the RDO’s direction to incorporate the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 was not per se illegal. It is further submitted that the revenue entries made by the Tahsildar were within jurisdiction. However, he fairly concedes that since the civil suit filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 has been restored and the petitioners’ subsequent suit challenging the sale deeds has been partly decreed, the revenue records must necessarily abide by the outcome of those civil proceedings. 8.2. He therefore submits that it would be appropriate to direct the parties to maintain status quo till the conclusion of the civil suits. He further contends that, since the alleged interference pertains to factual issues regarding possession, granting police protection at this stage would cause prejudice to the interests of the respondents. Accordingly, he prays that these writ petitions be dismissed. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions and learned Counsel on either side and perused the material on record. 10. In respect of W.P. No. 31169 of 2017, it is evident from the record that respondent Nos. 4 to 6 had instituted two civil suits against the present writ petitioners. Among them, O.S. No. 819 of 2007 was filed seeking a declaration of title over the suit schedule property and was decreed ex parte. 10. In respect of W.P. No. 31169 of 2017, it is evident from the record that respondent Nos. 4 to 6 had instituted two civil suits against the present writ petitioners. Among them, O.S. No. 819 of 2007 was filed seeking a declaration of title over the suit schedule property and was decreed ex parte. During the pendency of the petition filed by the petitioners herein for setting aside the ex parte decree, and while such decree was still subsisting, respondent Nos. 4 to 6 approached the revenue authorities seeking mutation of their names in the revenue records. Acting on such request, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) passed an order dated 09.05.2017 directing the Tahsildar (respondent No. 3) to carry out mutation of the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in pursuance of the ex parte decree. 11. The petitioners, placing reliance on Section 5 of the Act, contend that the RDO lacked jurisdiction to issue directions for mutation of names. For ready reference, the statutory provision is extracted hereunder: 5. Amendment and updating of Record of Rights: - (1) On receipt of intimation of the fact of acquisition of any right referred to in Section 4, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall determine as to whether, and if so in what manner, the record of rights may be amended in consequence therefor and shall carryout the amendment in the record of rights in accordance with such determination: Provided that no order refusing to make an amendment in accordance with the intimation shall be passed unless the person making such intimation has been given an opportunity of making his representation in that behalf. (2) Where the Mandal Officer has reason to believe that an acquisition of any right of a description to which Section 4 applies has taken place and of which an intimation has not been made to him under that Section and where he considers that an amendment has to be effected in the record of rights, the Mandal Revenue Officer shall carry out the said amendment in the record of rights. (3) The recording authority shall, before carrying out any amendment in the record of right under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) issue a notice in writing to all persons whose names are entered in the record of rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and to any other persons whom he has reason to believe to be interested therein or affected thereby to show cause within the period specified therein as to why the amendment should not be carried out. A copy of the amendment and the notice aforesaid shall also be published in such manner as may be prescribed. The recording authority shall consider every objection made in that behalf and after making such enquiry as may be prescribed pass such order in relation thereto as he deems fit. (4) Every order passed under this section shall be communicated to the person concerned. (5) Against every order of the recording authority either making an amendment in the record of rights or refusing to make such an amendment, an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer or such authority as may be prescribed, within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the said order and the decision of the appellate authority thereon shall subject to the provisions of Section 9, be final. (6) The Mandal Revenue Officer shall have the power to correct clerical errors, if any, in the Pass Books. 12. This provision clearly envisages that the original jurisdiction for amendment and updating of the record of rights lies with the Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildar), and the statutory scheme under Section 5 of the Act, read with Rules 19 and 20 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules, 1989 (“the Rules”), mandates a specific procedural framework. The Tahsildar must: I. Issue notice in Form VIII to all persons whose rights may be affected; II. Conduct an enquiry as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 5; III. Consider representations from interested persons; and IV. Pass a reasoned order and prepare a draft record of rights. An appeal against such an order lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer under sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Act. Therefore, the RDO is not vested with original jurisdiction to undertake or order any mutation or amendment of records. 13. Consider representations from interested persons; and IV. Pass a reasoned order and prepare a draft record of rights. An appeal against such an order lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer under sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Act. Therefore, the RDO is not vested with original jurisdiction to undertake or order any mutation or amendment of records. 13. In the instant case, neither the pleadings of the respondents No.2 and 3 nor the record disclose any enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar in accordance with the prescribed statutory procedure. Hence, the impugned order dated 09.05.2017 is ex facie contrary to the procedure mandated by law and without jurisdiction. 14. Significantly, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents fairly conceded that the impugned order of the RDO was passed beyond the jurisdiction contemplated under the Act. Moreover, the entire process of requisition and subsequent mutation is predicated upon the ex parte decree in O.S. No. 819 of 2007, which has since been set aside and recalled by the competent Civil Court. Consequently, the very foundation upon which the RDO acted stands extinguished. 15. In view of these circumstances, the order dated 09.05.2017 passed by the RDO (respondent No. 2) is unsustainable, being ultra vires the provisions of Section 5 of the Act and in violation of the procedural safeguards prescribed under the Rules. Accordingly, the said order is set aside. All consequential actions taken by the revenue authorities in furtherance thereof shall also stand annulled. 16. However, as O.S. No. 819 of 2007 is presently pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court, the parties shall be at liberty to seek appropriate rectification or updating of the revenue records depending on the final outcome of the said suit, in accordance with law. Consequently, W.P. No. 31169 of 2017 is allowed. 17. In regard to W.P. No. 26475 of 2019, it is the admitted position that respondent Nos. 4 to 6, basing on the said ex parte decree, executed sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos. 7 to 14 in respect of portions of the subject property. Acting upon such sale deeds, and after assigning distinct survey numbers, the Tahsildar (respondent No. 3) passed the impugned order dated 23.01.2019, mutating the names of the subsequent purchasers in place of respondent Nos. 4 to 6. 18. 7 to 14 in respect of portions of the subject property. Acting upon such sale deeds, and after assigning distinct survey numbers, the Tahsildar (respondent No. 3) passed the impugned order dated 23.01.2019, mutating the names of the subsequent purchasers in place of respondent Nos. 4 to 6. 18. The petitioners contend that the RDO’s order dated 09.05.2017, which formed the basis for mutation, had already been stayed by this Court in W.P. No. 31169 of 2017 by interim order dated 14.09.2017. The registered sale deeds in favour of respondent Nos. 7 to 14 were executed in 2018, during the subsistence of such stay. Furthermore, the Tahsildar failed to conduct any enquiry or issue notice as required under Section 5 of the Act read with Rules 19 and 20 of the 1989 Rules. Such omission renders the mutation proceedings patently irregular and contrary to law. It is further brought to notice that the petitioners filed O.S. No. 231 of 2022 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge-cum-VIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella, challenging the sale deeds executed by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in favour of respondent Nos. 7 to 14. The said suit has been decreed in part, declaring the sale deeds as null and void. Consequently, the subsequent mutations based on those sale deeds cannot be sustained. 19. The impugned order dated 23.01.2019, passed by the Tahsildar (respondent No. 3), was predicated on the revenue entries in the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 6, which in turn stemmed from the RDO’s order dated 09.05.2017 an order that had already been suspended by this Court. Therefore, the entire chain of subsequent transactions and mutations stands vitiated. Additionally, there is also no evidence of any statutory enquiry having been conducted by the Tahsildar prior to effecting such amendments. Further, as the sale deeds forming the foundation of respondent Nos. 7 to 14’s claim have been declared null and void by the Civil Court in O.S. No. 231 of 2022, the corresponding entries in the revenue records cannot survive. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.01.2019 passed by the Tahsildar is liable to be and is accordingly set aside. 20. Nonetheless, upon conclusion of the civil proceedings between the petitioners and respondent Nos. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.01.2019 passed by the Tahsildar is liable to be and is accordingly set aside. 20. Nonetheless, upon conclusion of the civil proceedings between the petitioners and respondent Nos. 4 to 14, the parties shall be at liberty to approach the revenue authorities for necessary amendment or updating of the revenue records, strictly in accordance with law. 21. With respect to W.P. No. 1203 of 2020, the petitioners have sought police protection to implement the interim directions issued in W.P. No. 6475 of 2019. However, since the civil suits filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 for declaration of title and injunction are still pending before competent Civil Courts, the question of possession is sub judice and constitutes a matter of factual determination based on evidence. In the absence of conclusive proof of possession, granting police protection at this stage would be premature and may prejudice the rights of either party. Accordingly, reserving the liberty of the petitioners to avail appropriate remedies before the competent Civil Court or in the pending suits, W.P. No. 1203 of 2020 is disposed of. 22. For the foregoing reasons, W.P. Nos. 31169 of 2017 and 26475 of 2019 are allowed. The impugned orders dated 09.05.2017 and 23.01.2019, passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, along with all consequential actions taken by the revenue authorities, are hereby set aside. The parties are at liberty to seek amendment or updating of the revenue records after conclusion of the pending civil suits, in accordance with law. 23. W.P. No. 1203 of 2020 is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent Civil Court as permissible under law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.