ORDER : K.SARATH, J. Heard Sri K. Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri N. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and perused the material on record. 2. This writ petition is filed questioning the order passed by the respondent No.2 in Case No.F2/Spl.Tribunal/0229/2021 dated 06.07.2021 and the order passed by the respondent No.5 in Case No.B/6119/2017 dated 07.02.2018 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent Nos.3 and 5 to restore the entries in the revenue records in the name of grandfather of petitioners in respect of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1-03 gts in Sy.No.520/AA and Ac.1-13 gts in Sy.No.521/AA situated at Miryalguda Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the grandfather of petitioners Sri A. Kondal Reddy has purchased the agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.6-36 gts in Sy.Nos.520 and 521 from the three brothers belonging to the same family and he entered into an agreement of sale dated 15.01.2001 with the second brother namely Sri K. Sarveshwar Rao, who is the husband of the respondent No.6, for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-09 gts and after receipt of final payment on 27.04.2001, he handed over the physical possession and since then, they are in physical possession and enjoyment of the said property and his name was mutated in the revenue records for the years 2003-2018 and they are in physical possession and enjoyment of the property till date. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent No.6 being the wife of late Sri K. Sarveshwar Rao made representation on 26.07.2017 to the respondent No.5-Tahsildar for mutation of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.03 gts in Sy.No.520/AA and Ac.1.06 gts in Sy.No.521/AA after 14 years i.e, beyond period of limitation, and the respondent No.5 has issued notice to the persons who are no way connected to the case and sought clarification from the respondent No.4 seeking approval for change of entries. The respondent No.4 vide letter dated 03.02.2018 has permitted the respondent No.5 to rectify the same and thereupon, the respondent No.5 has passed amendment proceedings in File No.B/6119/2017 dated 07.02.2018 directing to rectify the entries in respect of the said lands, against which the grandfather of petitioners filed a Revision before the Joint Collector in File No.1946/2018, wherein status-quo was ordered on 08.05.2018. After the new ROR Act came into force, the said file was transferred to the respondent No.2-Special Tribunal, who in turn without issuing any notice and opportunity of hearing passed the order in Case No.F2/Spl.Tribunal/0229/2021 on 21.01.2021. Thereafter, as per the directions of this Court in PIL, the said case was taken up by the respondent No.2. In view of the death of grandfather, the petitioners filed implead petition in view of will Deed executed by their grandfather and the same was allowed on 03.07.2021 and after hearing the arguments passed the impugned order in Case No.F2/Spl.Tribunal/0229/2021 dated 06.07.2021 upholding the order passed by the respondent No.5 in File No.B/619/2017 dated 07.02.2018. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent No.5 has passed the impugned order dated 07.02.2018 without following any procedure as contemplated under the ROR Act and thereafter, the respondent No.2 without considering the written arguments or the Judgments of this Court has passed the impugned order. Learned Counsel further submits that the respondent No.5 has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for amendment or correction even after one year of entry in the revenue records and without following due procedure as contemplated under the ROR Act has passed the order dated 07.02.2018 and the respondent No.2 without considering the submissions made by the petitioners passed the impugned order and requested to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the following Judgments; 1. Thripuravaram Krishna Reddy vs. Joint Collector, Cuddapah , 2009(1) ALD 248 2. Gopathi Manikyam vs. Joint Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy , 2011(5) ALD 282 3. G. Prabhakar vs. State of Telangana , 2015(4) ALD 427 4. Chinnam Pandurangam vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal , AIR 2008 AP 15 5. Peddi Sailaja vs. State , 2014(2) ALD 246 6. Entala Bhupal vs. District Revenue Officer, Warangal , 2005(6) ALT 560 (S.B.) 7. Veeramachaneni Ramchander Rao vs. Tahsildar, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda , 2009(2) ALD 432 8. G. Prabhakar vs. State of Telangana , 2015(4) ALD 427 4. Chinnam Pandurangam vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal , AIR 2008 AP 15 5. Peddi Sailaja vs. State , 2014(2) ALD 246 6. Entala Bhupal vs. District Revenue Officer, Warangal , 2005(6) ALT 560 (S.B.) 7. Veeramachaneni Ramchander Rao vs. Tahsildar, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda , 2009(2) ALD 432 8. M.B.Ratnam vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, R.R.District, East Division at Hyderabad , 2003(1) ALT 688 (D.B) 9. Kranti Associates Private Limited vs. Masood Ahmed Khan , (2010) 9 SCC 496 10. Dharampal Satyapal Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati , (2015) 8 SCC 519 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 based on the counter submits that in the partition, the husband of the respondent No.6 late Sri Keshavaraju Sarveshwara Rao got the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.03 gts in Sy.No.520/AA and Ac.1.13 gts in Sy.No.521/AA situated at Miryalguda Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District and after his death, the respondent No.6 and her daughter were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property by cultivating the said lands. While it being so, the grandfather of petitioners Sri A. Kondal Reddy, who has purchased the lands in Sy.Nos.520/A, 521/A, 520/E and 521/E filed O.S.No.87 of 2002 and O.S.No.29 of 2003 on the file of the Lok Adalat, Miryalguda against Sri Keshavaraju Kishan Rao and Keshavaraju Suguna W/o late Keshavaraju Sapthagiri Rao respectively and obtained Lok Adalat Decrees. Thereafter, said A. Kondal Reddy got deleted the name of the husband of the respondent No.6 Sri Keshavaraju Sarveshwara Rao instead of the name of Keshavaraju Suguna W/o. Sapthagiri Rao citing the Lok Adalat Decree passed in O.S.No.29 of 2003. After the death of K. Sarveshwara Rao, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Miryalguda without verifying the records and without giving notice to the respondent No.6 has mutated the name of Sri A. Kondal Reddy on 31.12.2004 and his name was continued in the revenue records as possessor of the land in Sy.Nos.520/AA and 521/AA. After the death of K. Sarveshwara Rao, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Miryalguda without verifying the records and without giving notice to the respondent No.6 has mutated the name of Sri A. Kondal Reddy on 31.12.2004 and his name was continued in the revenue records as possessor of the land in Sy.Nos.520/AA and 521/AA. After she came to know, the respondent No.6 has made application on 28.10.2017 for correction of wrong entry in the revenue records in Sy.Nos.520/AA and 521/AA and the same was corrected vide Proc.No.B/6119/2017 dated 07.02.2018 after following due process of law, against which the grandfather of the petitioners filed Revision Case No.F2/1946/2018 and the same was dismissed by the respondent No.2-Special Tribunal vide order in Case No.F2/Spl.Tribunal/0229/2021 dated 06.07.2021. Pending revision, the grandfather of petitioners died on 18.05.2021 and his legal representatives were brought on record and the Tribunal also issued notices to them and passed the impugned order. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 further submits that neither the husband of the respondent No.6 nor the respondent No.6 sold the land in Sy.Nos.520/AA and 521/AA to any third party or the grandfather of the petitioners and under the guise of the Lok Adalat Award passed in O.S.No.29 of 2003, the grandfather of petitioners has fraudulently got mutated the revenue records on his name by deleting the name of husband of the respondent No.6 and the petitioners are trying to grab the land of the respondent No.6 basing on a wrong entry made at the behest of Sri Kondal Reddy in the revenue records and they have no right whatsoever with regard to the subject lands. Neither the husband of the respondent No.6 nor the respondent No.6 has executed any sale deed dated 15.01.2001 in favour of the grandfather of petitioners and the petitioners have not filed the said document before the Tahsildar and the Tribunal as well as before this Court. He further submits that the respondent No.6 is having pattadar passbooks and title deeds with respect to the subject properties, but taking advantage of the wrong entry in the revenue records, the petitioners at the instance of their grandfather are trying to grab the subject lands and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 9. He further submits that the respondent No.6 is having pattadar passbooks and title deeds with respect to the subject properties, but taking advantage of the wrong entry in the revenue records, the petitioners at the instance of their grandfather are trying to grab the subject lands and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 9. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are questioning the orders passed by the Special Tribunal in Case No.F2/Spl.Tribunal/0229/2021 dated 06.07.2021 and upholding orders passed by the respondent No.5 in Case No.B/6119/2017 dated 07.02.2018. The contention of the petitioners is that their grandfather has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.6-36 gts in Sy.Nos.520 and 521 situated at Miryalguda Village and Mandal, Nalognda District from the three brothers namely Sri K. Saptagiri Rao, Sri K. Sarveshwar Rao and Sri K. Kishan Rao through agreement of sale with different dates and particularly from the husband of the respondent No.6 Sri K. Sarveshwar Rao on 15.01.2001 for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-09 gtas and final payment was paid on 27.04.2001. After receiving the amount, the husband of the respondent No.6 handed over the physical possession and thereafter, grandfather of the petitioners came into possession of the property and his name was mutated in the revenue records for the pahanies for the years 2003-2018. 10. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent No.6 made a representation to the respondent No.5 on 26.07.2017 for mutation after 14 years i.e., beyond the period of limitation and the respondent No.5 has no jurisdiction to mutate the records beyond the period and the same is liable to be set aside and without any power the respondent No.4 has directed the respondent No.5 to rectify the entries in the revenue records by issuing letter dated 03.02.2018. 11. The respondent No.5 has passed the amendment proceedings in File No.B/6119/2017 dated 07.02.2018 by correcting wrong entries and ordering for restoration of title with regard to the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.16 gts i.e, Ac.1-03 gts in Sy.No.520/AA and Ac.1.13 gts in Sy.No.521/AA in favour of Sri Keshavaraju Sarveshwar Rao, the husband of the respondent No.6, and deletion of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.03 gts in Sy.No.520/AA, Ac.1.13 gts in Sy.No.521/AA from the holding of Smt Keshavaraju Sugunamma W/o late Sapthagiri Rao. Aggrieved by the said order, the grandfather of the petitioners filed revision before the District Collector under Section 9 of the ROR Act, 1971 and the same was transmitted to the Special Tribunal in view of the ROR Act, 1971 came into force under the ROR Act, 2020. Pending the Revision, grandfather of the petitioners expired and the petitioners have filed implead petition and the same was ordered on 03.07.2021 and contested the matter. The said revision was dismissed by the Special Tribunal by the impugned order dated 06.07.2021. 12. As per the averments in the writ affidavit, the grandfather of the petitioners has purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2-09 gts in Sy.No.520/AA and 521/AA from the husband of the respondent No.6. Whereas in the revision filed by the grandfather of the petitioners, no where mentioned about purchase of the property by him and only claimed the land by relying on the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.Nos.29 of 2003. In fact, O.S.No.29 of 2003 was filed between the grandfather of petitioners Sri A. Kondal Reddy and Smt Keshavaraju Suguna W/o late Sapthagiri Rao and Lok Adalat Award was passed on 03.05.2003 pertaining to the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.03 gts out of Sy.No.520/A and Ac.1.13 gts out of Sy.No.521/A situated at Miryalguda consisting compact piece of land with the boundaries mentioned therein. 13. Along with the material papers in the writ petition, the petitioners filed material in page Nos.24 and 25 which shows the unregistered agreement of sale dated 15.01.2001. There is no proceeding to show that the property was regularized in favour of the grandfather of the petitioners under Section 5-A of ROR Act, 1971. Moreover, under Section 5-A of ROR Act, 1971, no agreement of sale can be regularized as per the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Konkana Ravinder Goud and others Vs. Bhavanarishi Cooperative House Building Socieity, Hyderabad and others , 2003 SCC OnLine AP 852 . The relevant portion of the said Judgment is as follows: “67. In the instant case, we are concerned with the purport and meaning of the word "transfer" as contained in Section 5-A of the Act in the light of the objects and reasons in introducing the said provision, namely, to regularise an unregistered sale transaction, which would not mean to regularise incomplete transfers. In the instant case, we are concerned with the purport and meaning of the word "transfer" as contained in Section 5-A of the Act in the light of the objects and reasons in introducing the said provision, namely, to regularise an unregistered sale transaction, which would not mean to regularise incomplete transfers. There is no machinery or mechanism provided in the Act that even a person who has entered into an agreement of sale and in case sale is not completed but he has been put into possession of the property even on payment of entire sale consideration that can approach the Mandal Revenue Officer for grant of a certificate under Section 5-A of the Act. The Mandal Revenue Officer in such a case cannot proceed to hold an enquiry as to whether agreement of sale has been complied with or not. On the failure on the part of vendor to complete the sale transaction, a person in whose favour there is an agreement of sale can seek specific performance of the agreement of sale so as to convey right, title or interest of the vendors. The machinery provided under the Act is not the appropriate machinery for perfecting title merely on the basis of agreement to sell. We are, therefore, of the view that the finding of the learned Judge that there is a valid transfer of immoveable property under agreements of sale cannot be sustained. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the agreement of sale relied upon by the Society is not covered by the term transfer and cannot be treated as an "alienation" or "transfer" within the scope and meaning of Section 5-A of the Act and we answer the first question accordingly”. 14. Basing on the representation of the grandfather of the petitioners, the amendment proceedings were issued vide No.24 of 2004 dated 31.12.2004 as per the Lok Adalat Award and Decree passed in O.S.No.29 of 2003 dated 03.05.2003. In implementation of the Court Decree in the revenue records, the land pertaining to the husband of the respondent No.6 was deleted instead of deletion of the land pertaining to Keshavaraju Suguna W/o late Sapthagiri Rao, who was defendant in O.S.No.29 of 2003. 15. In implementation of the Court Decree in the revenue records, the land pertaining to the husband of the respondent No.6 was deleted instead of deletion of the land pertaining to Keshavaraju Suguna W/o late Sapthagiri Rao, who was defendant in O.S.No.29 of 2003. 15. The mutation has taken place in view of the Award and Decree passed in O.S.No.29 of 2003 and 87 of 2002 on the file of the Lok Adalat, Miryalguda dated 03.05.2003 and 21.12.2002 respectively, clearly shows that the Lok Adalat Award was passed between the grandfather of the petitioners Sri A. Konda Reddy and the other two brothers and their family members of the husband of the respondent No.6. The husband of the respondent No.6 or the respondent No.6 are not parties to the above two Decrees. 16. The entire extent of land as mentioned by the writ petitioners is not tallied with the total extent of land mentioned in Lok Adalat Decrees. In fact, the land mentioned in the two Lok Adalat Decrees total comes to Ac.4-19 gts. It clearly shows that the mutation taken place in the year 2004 for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4-19 gts only. The records show that there was no mutation proceedings taken place but only for implementing the Award and Decree passed by the Lok Adalat in O.S.No.29 of 2003 and O.S.No.87 of 2002. 17. The respondent No.5 basing the representation of the respondent No.6 has verified the same and found that the revenue authorities have mutated the name of the grandfather of the petitioners for the land pertaining to the husband of the respondent No.6 instead of land of Smt Keshavaraju Suguna W/o late K. Sapthagiri Rao and in view of the same, after obtaining necessary instructions from the respondent No.4 has corrected the revenue records without issuing notice to the grandfather of the petitioners as there is no change of the extent of land belongs to the grandfather of the petitioners. The said finding of the respondent No.5 was upheld by the Special Tribunal in the impugned order by stating that no extent was reduced from the patta held by the grandfather of the petitioner in the said survey numbers. The said finding of the respondent No.5 was upheld by the Special Tribunal in the impugned order by stating that no extent was reduced from the patta held by the grandfather of the petitioner in the said survey numbers. Moreover, the grandfather of the petitioners has failed to show any documents that the property belongs to K. Sarveshwar Rao purchased and the same was regualarized as per the Section 5-A of the ROR Act, 1971 through the valid proceedings and the petitioners have not agitated before the revenue authorities mentioning that their grandfather has purchased the property from the husband of the respondent No.6 by producing any documents. 18. In the revision petition, the contention of the grandfather of the petitioners is that he has approached the Civil Court in O.S.29 of 2003 pertaining to the land belongs to Keshavaraju Suguna W/o late Sapthagiri Rao and the respondent No.5 without conducting enquiry and without issuing any notice to the petitioners has rectified the entries in the revenue records in the impugned order dated 07.02.2018. 19. The petitioners have contended before this Court for the first time stating that the grandfather of the petitioners has purchased the property from the husband of the respondent No.6 through unregistered agreement of sale dated 15.01.2001 and subsequently received the final payment endorsement on 27.04.2001 by filing the said agreement of sale and endorsement of final payment. This Court while disposing of the present writ petition cannot be taken into account the said document filed by the petitioners as the petitioners have not filed before the appropriate authority and unregistered agreement of sale cannot be regularized by the Revenue authorities as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Kokana Ravinder Goud (supra) and the same was followed in Mukhala Kotilingam (died) by LRs vs. Joint Collector, R.R.District, Hyderabad and Others, 2005 (2) ALD 838 . 20. Moreover, if the petitioners have any valid document, they can approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of title basing on the document. After obtaining orders from the competent Civil Court, they can approach the revenue authorities for mutation of the revenue records in their favour. 20. Moreover, if the petitioners have any valid document, they can approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of title basing on the document. After obtaining orders from the competent Civil Court, they can approach the revenue authorities for mutation of the revenue records in their favour. Admittedly, the grandfather of the petitioners has earlier filed two suits against the two brothers out of three brothers and obtained Lok Adalat Awards pertaining to the two shares of the joint family of the three brothers in O.S.No.29 of 2003 and O.S.No.87 of 2002 on the file of the Lok Adalat, Miryalguda. 21. The respondent No.6 is the wife of one of three brothers namely Keshavaraju Sarveshwar Rao and there are no orders from the competent Court and there are no valid mutation proceedings taken place in favour of the grandfather of the petitioners in respect of the land pertaining to the husband of the respondent No.6 and it was only basing on the Lok Adalat Award in O.S.No.29 of 2003 and 87 of 2002 mutated the records. At the time of mutation of records, the respondents have not issued notice to the respondent No.6 or her husband, who died on 20.11.2004. In view of the same, the mutation in the name of the grandfather of the petitioners cannot be continued for the land pertaining to the respondent No.6 as the same was mutated basing on the Lok Adalath Award in O.S.No.29 of 2003 and the same is void. 22. The Void order can be questioned at any stage as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Brundaban Sharma , 1995 Supp (3) SCC 249 . The relevant portion of the said Judgment in para No.16 and 18 are extracted as under; “16. It is, therefore, settled law that when the revisional power was conferred to effectuate a purpose, it is to be exercised in a reasonable manner which inheres the concept of its exercise within a reasonable time. Absence of limitation is an assurance to exercise the power with caution or circumspection to effectuate the purpose of the Act, or to prevent miscarriage of justice or violation of the provisions of the Act or misuse or abuse of the power by the lower authorities or fraud or suppression. Length of time depends on the factual scenario in a given case. Length of time depends on the factual scenario in a given case. Take a case that patta was obtained fraudulently in collusion with the officers and it comes to the notice of the authorities after a long lapse of time. Does it lie in the mouth of the party to the fraud to plead limitation to get away with the order? Does lapse of time an excuse to refrain from exercising the revisional power to unravel fraud and to set it right? The answers would be no. 18. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Board of Revenue exercised the power under Section 38B after an unreasonable lapse of time, though from the date of the grant of patta by the Tahsildar is of 27 years. It is true that from the date of the alleged grant of patta 27 years did pass. But its authenticity and correctness was shrouded with suspicious features. The records of the Tahsildar were destroyed. Who is to get the benefit? Who was responsible for it? The reasons are not far to seek. They are self-evident. So we hold that the exercise of revisional power under Section 38B by the Board of Revenue was legal and valid and it brooked no delay, after it had come to the Board's knowledge. That apart as held by the Board of Revenue, the order passed by the Tahsildar without confirmation by the Board is nonest. A nonest order is a void order and it confers no title and its validity can be questioned or invalidity be set up in any proceeding or at any stage. The facts stated in the said Judgment squarely apply to the facts of the instant case and the contention of the petitioners that the delay in filing petition for correction of entries is not acceptable. 23. In the instant case, the revenue authorities without any valid proceedings have mutated in favour of the grandfather of the petitioners for the land pertaining to the respondent No.6. 23. In the instant case, the revenue authorities without any valid proceedings have mutated in favour of the grandfather of the petitioners for the land pertaining to the respondent No.6. The respondent authorities have authority to correct the entries by mentioning the survey numbers pertaining to the extent of land of Keshavaraju Suguna W/o late Sapthagiri Rao as per the Lok Adalat Decree in O.S.No.29 of 2003 and the respondent No.2 has rightly held in the impugned order dated 06.07.2021 as under: “Subsequently, the land held by Keshavarapu Sapthagiri Rao has been mutated by way of Fouthi in the name of his wife Smt. K.Suguna. Further Lok Adalath passed the award dated 03.05.2003 in O.S.No.29/2003 declaring the plaintiff A.Kondal Reddy S/o. Late Ranga Reddy as owner for the extents of Ac.2.07 gts in Sy.520 and 2.25 gts in Sy.No.521 which lands are pertains to the Keshavaraju Sapthagiri Rao and Keshavaraju Kishan Rao. It is implemented in the records, during the amendment, deleted the extent of Keshavaraju Someshwar Rao and Keshavaraju Kishan Rao instead of Keshavaraju Sapthagiri Rao and Keshavaraju Kishan Rao. Aggrieved by the respondent No.3 i.e. wife of Keshavaraju Sarveshwar Rao (who died in the year 2004), filed a petition before the Tahsildar, Miryalaguda for rectification of the said wrong entry. The Tahsildar, Miryalaguda after taking permission from the RDO, Miryalaguda issued the orders for rectification of defect i.e. replaced the name of Keshavaraju Suguna W/o. Late Sarveshar Rao in the place of Keshavaraju Suguna W/o. late. Sapthagiri Rao as Pattadar for the said extent Ac.1.03 gts in Sy.No.520 and Ac.1.13 guntas in Sy.No.521. No extent reduced from the Patta held by the review petitioner in the said survey number”. 24. The contention of the writ petitioners is that the respondent No.6 approached the authorities for correction of the entries in the revenue records after 14 years of amendment without filing delay condonation petition and the same cannot be taken into account as there are no valid proceedings and therefore, the question of delay in correcting entries in the revenue records does not arise and they rectified the mistake done earlier in void proceedings and the petitioners cannot take advantage of the same and without any right over the subject property. 25. 25. The other contention of the petitioners is that the Tahsildar has no power to correct the entries in the revenue records basing on the representation of the respondent No.6, is not correct. As per the ROR Act, 1979 and as per the instructions of the respondent No.4, the respondent No.5 has corrected the revenue records. 26. The number of Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not apply to the facts of the case as there is no appeal filed by the respondent No.6 under Section 5-B of the ROR Act and in view of impugned orders, the extent of land belongs to the petitioners was not changed and there is no violation of principles of natural justice in correcting the wrong entries made basing on void proceedings. 27. In view of the above findings, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.5 in Case No.B/6119/2017 dated 07.02.2018 and the consequential order passed by the respondent No.2 in Case No.F2/Spl.Tribunal/ 0229/2021 dated 06.07.2021 needs no interference by this Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. If the petitioners have any right over the suit schedule property, they can approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of their title. 28. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 29. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.