1. The subject matter of these two (02) Writ Petitions is one and the same and between the same parties and hence, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of by this Common Order.

2. The petitioner in both the Writ Petitions is one Challagondla Sharada Devi, who is the daughter of Smt. Takkellapati Usha Rani, daughter of Late Vipparla Mangaiah. It is the case of the petitioner that her grandfather, namely Vipparla Mangaiah, was the original owner and pattadar of land admeasuring Acs. 12.00 gts., situated in Sy. Nos. 335, 365, 276 and 277 of Raghunadhapalem Village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District, and he executed a registered gift settlement deed, dated 07-04-1971 in favour of the mother of the petitioner namely Smt. Takkellapati Usha Rani, vide Doc. No. 945 of 1971 in respect of the said extent of land. It is also the case of the petitioner that the said land, which was gifted in favour of the petitioner's mother, was included in the holding of Sri Vipparla Mangaiah under the proceedings initiated under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the said extent of land was finally deleted from the holding of the said Sri Vipparla Mangaiah, as the same was gifted in favour of the mother of the petitioner herein. The same is also stated to be confirmed by this Court, in a Civil Revision Petition. While the mother of the petitioner was staying away from the village where the subject lands are situated, the grandfather of the petitioner who is said to be passed away in the year 2000, used to look after the said lands. After the demise of Sri Vipparla Mangaiah, the mother of the petitioner stated to have approached respondent No. 4 herein requesting for mutation of her name in ROR and for issuing Pattadar Pass Books, but the same was not considered and finally it came to the notice of the mother of the petitioner that the names of respondent Nos. 5 to 11 herein have been mutated in the Revenue records and Pattadar Pass Book and title deeds were issued in their names in respect of the subject land. Having noticed the same, the mother of the petitioner herein filed appeal under sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act, 1971') before respondent No. 3 herein and the said appeal No. A3/4723/2012 was allowed by respondent No. 3 herein, by an order, dated 01.02.2013, cancelling the Pattadar Pass Books issued in the name of respondent Nos. 5 to 11 and remanding the matter back for fresh consideration to respondent No. 4 herein. During pendency of the appeal before respondent No. 3, the mother of the petitioner, who was the appellant in the said appeal, passed away and the petitioner herein, who is the sole legal-heir of Smt. Takkellapati Usha Rani, came on record as appellant in the said appeal.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 01.02.2013, respondent Nos. 5 to 11 herein filed Revision Petition under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 before respondent No. 2 herein and the said Revision Petition was allowed by respondent No. 2 by an order, dated 07.04.2017, in Revision Petition No. 07 of 2013 by setting aside the order dated 01.02.2013 passed by respondent No. 3 herein. Aggrieved by the said order dated 07.04.2017 passed by respondent No. 2 herein, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 37653 of 2017.

4. This Court, while admitting Writ Petition No. 37653 of 2017, passed an interim order in W.P.M.P. No. 46763 of 2017, dated 30.11.2017. The said interim order is extracted hereunder:-

"Admittedly, there is no record available in the office of the 4th respondent about regularization of the sada sale deeds set up by respondent Nos. 5 to 11 for obtaining 13-B certificates. This is the finding recorded by 3rd respondent in his order dt. 01.02.2013 in ROR appeal No. A3/4723/2012.

However, in the revision filed by respondent Nos. 5 to 11 before the 2nd respondent, without adverting to this aspect, the 2nd respondent comes to a startling conclusion that there is an abnormal delay on the part of the petitioner in challenging the mutation and issuance of Pattadar Pass Book to respondent Nos. 5 to 11.

When there is no record available with respondent Nos. 1 to 4 regarding the alleged regularization of the sada sale deeds presented by respondent Nos. 5 to 11, it is absurd to think that petitioner is aware of it and therefore kept quiet for any period of time particularly when there is no evidence to show that petitioner had notice of such proceedings taken up by 4th respondent.

Therefore, there shall be interim suspension as prayed for."

5. During pendency of the said W.P. No. 37653 of 2017, the Act, 1971, came to be repealed by enacting the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020 (for short 'the Act, 2020') and digitalization of land records also came into existence including Dharani Portal. The names of respondent Nos. 5 to 11 have been updated on Dharani Portal and they were also issued Digital Pass Books in respect of the subject land. Apprehending that respondent Nos. 5 to 11 herein may alienate the subject lands or create third party interest, the petitioner herein filed W.P. No. 24919 of 2021 seeking implementation of the order, dated 01.02.2013, passed by respondent No. 3 on the ground that the order passed by respondent No. 2 in Revision Petition, dated 07.04.2017 was suspended by this Court, as noted above and as such the order, dated 01.02.2013 is bound to be given effect to. This Court, while directing the said Writ Petition to be listed along with the W.P. No. 37653 of 2017, made an observation that, any alienation made in respect of the subject land shall be subject to result of the Writ Petition.

6. Respondent Nos. 5 to 11 filed a common counter in both the Writ Petitions along with vacate petitions. Both the matters are listed before this Court and counsel on either side argued the matter at length for final disposal of the Writ Petitions and accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are heard by this Court.

7. Heard Sri V. Murali Manohar, learned counsel representing S. Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions and Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 to 11 in both the Writ Petitions and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in both the Writ Petitions.

8. It is the further contention of Mr. Murali Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged sada sale deeds said to have been executed by the mother of the petitioner are in fact not the sale deeds and as is evident from the document dated 01.07.1976 filed along with the counter affidavit in W.P. No. 37653 of 2017, the same is only an agreement of sale and hence the question of regularization of an agreement of sale does not arise and it is only the sada sale deeds that can be regularized under Section 5(A) of the Act, 1971. Reliance is also placed on a judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Konkana Ravinder Goud And Ors. v. Bhavanarishi Co-operative House Building Society and others  2003 (5) ALD 654 wherein it was held at as para 67 under:-

"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."

He also further contended that respondent Nos. 5 to 11 herein have played fraud and obtained the regularization proceedings without there being any sada sale deeds executed by the mother of the petitioner and hence, the question of limitation does not arise and that the fraud vitiates entire proceedings, as such there is no necessity to file any separate application seeking condonation of delay and submitted that respondent No. 3, having taken note of totality of facts and circumstances of the case, deemed it fit to remand the matter back to respondent No. 4 for fresh consideration. He also placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sesha Nath Singh and others v. Baidyabati Co-operative Bank Ltd. And others (2021) 7 SCC 313, to contend that there need not be any formal application seeking condonation of delay. Though the counsel for the petitioner relied upon several other citations, this Court does not find it necessary to refer to all such citations for disposal of the present case.

9. On the other hand Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 to 11, having laid a stress on the ground of delay in filing appeal before respondent No. 3 herein and also on the ground that under a wrong provision the appeal was filed, contended that the sale deeds that are being claimed by the respondents are never questioned nor sought for cancellation of such sales and supported the impugned order contending that respondent No. 2 has rightly interfered with the order passed by respondent No. 3. He also further placed reliance on a order, dated 11.02.2021 in Special Tribunal Case No. 352 of 2021 passed by the Special Tribunal under Section 16 of the Act, 2020, wherein the Special Tribunal refused to interfere with the matter on the ground that their dispute is on civil nature, and the Writ Petition vide W.P. No. 37563 of 2017 is pending before this Court.

10. In the light of the above observations and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that respondent No. 3 has rightly exercised its power and the reasoning given by respondent No. 3 for exercising such power also equally meets all the objections and contentions raised by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 11 with regard to the aspect of limitation, which is already discussed in detail in the paragraphs supra. Insofar as the order of Special Tribunal, dated 11.02.2021 is concerned, it is not known how the said matter went before the Special Tribunal and the learned counsel on either side could not inform this Court about the same. Even otherwise, the said order has no bearing in adjudication of this Writ Petitions.

11. It is an admitted fact that Sri Vipparla Mangaiah was the absolute owner and possessor of the subject lands and he executed a registered gift settlement deed, dated 07.04.1971 vide document No. 945 of 1971 in favour of the mother of the petitioner herein. The claim of the petitioner's mother is basing upon the said registered gift settlement deed. The claim of respondent Nos. 5 to 11 herein is basing upon a sada sale deed said to have been executed by the mother of the petitioner herein during the years 1976 and 1977, and that the said sada sale deeds were regularized under Section 5A of the Act, 1971, by respondent No. 4 herein. Respondent Nos. 5 to 11 herein, who are the respondents in the appeal filed by the mother of the petitioner before respondent No. 3, have filed their counter in the said appeal. From the said counter, the basis for the claim of respondent Nos. 5 to 11 is clear, especially in paragraphs 5 to 8. The same are extracted herein:-

"It is submitted that, the father of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 by name Chintapalli Pedda Venkaiah purchased the lands in the year 1976 and 1977 through sada sale deeds from the very appellant and his name was also recorded in the Revenue records and got regularized the same about 20 years back and subsequently obtained ROR title Deed and Pass Book on his name and he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same till his death. After his demise, the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 being his legal heirs succeeded the said property and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights of ownership, having perfect, good and marketable title thereto. Thus the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and their father were in possession and enjoyment over the above lands for the last 35 years without any interruption and their title also perfected in due course of law.

That the father of the respondent No. 6 by name Yerragadda Narayana purchased the land of Acs. 4.00 gts., in and out of Sy. No. 265, 263 and 264 situated at Raghunadapalam Village, through a sada sale deeds in the year 1976 and 1977 from the very appellant and his name was also recorded in the Revenue records and got regularized the same in the year 1992 onwards and subsequently obtained ROR title Deed and Pass Book on his name and he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same till his good health. After his ill health, the respondent Nos. 6 being his legal heir succeeded the said property and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute rights of ownership, having perfect, good and marketable title thereto. Thus the respondent No. 6 and his father are in possession and enjoyment over the above lands for the last 35 years without any interruption and their title also perfected in due course of law.

That the respondent No. 7 by name Ch. Rajaiah purchased the land of Acs. 3.20 gts., in and out of Sy. No. 265, situated at Raghunadapalam Village, through a sada sale deed in the year 1976 and 1977 from the very appellant and his name was also recorded in the Revenue records and got regularized the same about 20 years back and subsequently obtained ROR title Deed and Pass Book on his name and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights of ownership, having perfect, good and marketable title thereto. Thus the respondent No. 7 is in possession and enjoyment over the above lands for the last 35 years without any interruption and their title also perfected in due course of law.

That the father of the respondent No. 8 by name Naddi Venkaiah purchased the land Acs. 2.00 gts., in and out of Sy. No. 265 and the land of Acs. 3.00 gts., in and out of Sy. No. 338 situated at Raghunadapalam Village, through a sada sale deeds in the year 1976 and 1977 from the appellant and his name was also recorded in the Revenue records and got regularized the same about 20 years back and subsequently obtained ROR title Deed and Pass Book on his name and he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same till his death. After his demise, the respondent No. 8 being his legal heir succeeded the said property and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights of ownership, having perfect, good and marketable title thereto. Thus the respondent No. 8 and his father are in possession and enjoyment over the above lands for the last 35 years without any interruption and their title also perfected in due course of law."

12. From the above extracted paragraphs, it is clear that respondent Nos. 5 to 11 (including their predecessor-in-title) have been claiming title only through the mother of the petitioner herein and by virtue of regularization done under Section 5A of the Act, 1971, and the consequential certificates issued in Form 13-B. Copies of the certificates issued under Section 5A i.e., Form 13-B certificates are placed on record along with the counter filed by respondent Nos. 5 to 11 in W.P. No. 37653 of 2017 at pages 122, 131, 140 and 145 dated 05.03.1992, 08.08.1994, 17.01.1993, and 30.07.1992 respectively.

13. A perusal of the said certificates shows that the respective purchasers under the said certificates through whom respondent Nos. 5 to 11 herein are claiming right and title over the subject lands are shown to have purchased the respective extents covered by the said certificates from the grandfather of the petitioner herein namely Vipparla Mangaiah. Thus, the claim of respondent Nos. 5 to 11, as contended in the counter filed before respondent No. 3, is running contrary to the contents of the Form 13-B certificates. Further, from the material filed on record along with I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in W.P. No. 24919 of 2021 i.e., the files that pertain to the regularization proceedings show that one Chintapalli Peda Venkaiah purchased an extent of Acs. 4.20 gts., in Sy. No. 265 of Raghunadapalam Village through document dated 10.04.1973 from one Vipparla Mangaiah. Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 herein are claiming through the said Chintapalli Peda Venkaiah. Similarly, one Yerragadda Narayana claims to have purchased the land situated in Sy. No. 265 admeasuring Acs. 2.00 gts., through a document dated 06.03.1970 from Vipparla Mangaiah. Respondent No. 9 herein is claiming through the said Yerragadda Narayana, so also respondent No. 10 herein also claims to have purchased land to an extent of Acs. 3.20 gts., in Sy. No. 265 through a document dated 03.02.1973 from the said Vipparla Mangaiah. So also one Naddi Venkaiah claims to have purchased the land in Sy. Nos. 265 and 338 admeasuring Acs. 2.00 gts., and Acs. 3.00 gts., respectively under a document dated 03.05.1969 from Vipparla Mangaiah.

14. From the above noted contents of the regularization proceedings, it is noticed that the so called purchase of the subject property by respondent Nos. 5 to 11 herein is during the years 1969 to 1973, which is contrary to the specific stand of respondent Nos. 5 to 11 before respondent No. 3 i.e., the subject lands were purchased by respondent Nos. 5 to 11 during the years 1976 and 1977 from the mother of the petitioner herein. In a way, respondent Nos. 5 to 11 herein have admitted the title of the mother of the petitioner herein namely Smt. Takkellapati Usha Rani and claim to have purchased the subject land from the mother of the petitioner herein and got the same regularized. Once respondent Nos. 5 to 11 admit the title of the mother of the petitioner over the subject land, any proceedings regularizing the subject land in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 11 by showing the purchase from Sri Vipparla Mangaiah, the grandfather of the petitioner herein is of no avail.

15. A perusal of the copies of the file pertaining to regularization proceedings does not show that the mother of the petitioner herein was put on notice before issuing the regularization proceedings or Form 13-B certificates in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 11 herein. The respondent Nos. 5 to 11 herein filed copies of various sada sale deeds, dated 10.06.1977, 01.07.1976, 19.02.1983, 12.06.1968 and 21.02.1982 along with their counters. These said sale deeds are not the copies of the sale deeds that were referred to in the file pertaining to the regularization proceedings. There are no regularization proceedings regularizing the above referred five (05) sada sale deeds nor any such material is placed on record either before respondent Nos. 2 and 3 or before this Court. Thus, the Claim of respondent Nos. 5 to 11 herein is self contradictory.

16. A perusal of the appellate order, dated 01.02.2013, shows that the respondent No. 3, having noticed the ambiguity, contradiction and inadequacy or non availability of the record pertaining to the regularization proceedings, remanded the matter back to respondent No. 4 for considering the matter afresh by putting all the parties on notice. The said order of respondent No. 3 is interfered with by respondent No. 2 in exercise of revisional power under Section 9 of the Act, 1971, through the impugned order in W.P. No. 37653 of 2017. Respondent No. 2 Revisional Authority herein, having noted the rival contentions in detail has recorded the following findings.

"The Revision Petitioners have purchased the schedule lands from father of the respondent No. 1 herein through sada sale deeds in the year 1976 and 1977.

Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds were issued to the Revision Petitioners in the year 1994 and 13-B Certificate has also been issued.

The Revision Petitioners are in actual possession of the land for the past 30 years.

The respondent No. 1 filed appeal before the RDO after a period of nearly 30 years. Without condoning the abnormal delay the RDO passed orders.

Respondent No. 1 argued that her father is the pattadar of the schedule land and after his demise she succeeded the property and she appointed one person Talluri Veerabhadra Rao as GPA to manage her lands. They never alienated or sold the lands to anyone till now. By relying on this argument of respondent No. 1, the lower Court passed orders. But lower Court failed to observe that Revision Petitioners are in physical possession of the land for the past three years, respondent No. 1 is silent for the past 30 years, by the time respondents got gift registration. The Revision Petitioners are in physical possession and also entered in record.

Hence the order passed by Revenue Divisional Officer vide Rc. No. A3/4723/2012, dated 01.02.2013 are set aside and directed Tahsildar to restore the PPB/TD's issued in favour of Revision Petitioners over the suit schedule property.

Any miscellaneous petitions pending shall stand disposed off."

17. In spite of the categorical claim of respondent Nos. 5 to 11 that they have purchased the subject property from the mother of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 observed that they have purchased the subject property from the grandfather of the petitioner herein during the years 1976-77 and the same was regularized in the year 1994. Such a finding or observation noted by respondent No. 2 is contrary to the record and admitted facts and such finding is perverse. The further finding with regard to physical possession of the subject property is totally an irrelevant factor while deciding the validity of the regularization proceedings issued under Section 5A of the Act, 1971. In spite of contradictory claims made by respondent Nos. 5 to 11 and their failure to substantiate the regularization proceedings, respondent No. 2 erroneously interfered with the order passed by respondent No. 3 on the ground that the mother of the petitioner herein kept quiet for more than thirty (30) years.

18. The main defence of respondent Nos. 5 to 11 to contest the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner herein filed appeal after a long lapse of time without there being any application either seeking condonation of delay or giving any explanation for filing such an appeal. Though, such an objection at the first instance appears to be attractive and convincing, but, having noted the admitted fact situation, the so called delay in filing appeal shall not come in the way of the petitioner in agitating her rights especially in the context of the findings rendered above. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sesha Nath Singh (2021) 7 SCC 313 (supra) relied upon by the counsel for petitioner applies to the fact situation wherein it was held as under:-

"Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not speak of any application. The Section enables the Court to admit an application or appeal if the applicant or the appellant, as the case may be, satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the application and/or preferring the appeal, within the time prescribed. Although, it is the general practice to make a formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in order to enable the Court or Tribunal to weigh the sufficiency of the cause for the inability of the appellant/applicant to approach the Court/Tribunal within the time prescribed by limitation, there is no bar to exercise by the Court/Tribunal of its discretion to condone delay, in the absence of a formal application.

A plain reading of Section 5 of the Limitation Act makes it amply clear that, it is not mandatory to file an application in writing before relief can be granted under the said section. Had such an application been mandatory, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would have expressly provided so. Section 5 would then have read that the Court might condone delay beyond the time prescribed by limitation for filing an application or appeal, if on consideration of the application of the appellant or the applicant, as the case may be, for condonation of delay, the Court is satisfied that the appellant/applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Alternatively, a proviso or an Explanation would have been added to Section 5, requiring the appellant or the applicant, as the case may be, to make an application for condonation of delay. However, the Court can always insist that an application or an affidavit showing cause for the delay be filed. No applicant or appellant can claim condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as of right, without making an application.

In any case, Section 5 and Section 14 of the Limitation Act are not mutually exclusive. Even in a case where Section 14 does not strictly apply, the principles of Section 14 can be invoked to grant relief to an applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by purposively construing 'sufficient cause'. It is well settled that omission to refer to the correct section of a statute does not vitiate an order. At the cost of repetition it is reiterated that delay can be condoned irrespective of whether there is any formal application, if there are sufficient materials on record disclosing sufficient cause for the delay."

Though respondent Nos. 5 to 11 claim to have acquired right over the subject land from the mother of the petitioner, admittedly she was never put on notice while issuing the regularization proceedings in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 11 in respect of the subject property. Any order passed behind the back of the effected person in violation of principles of natural justice, is non-est in the eye of law and the same is not binding on the party concerned.

19. It is settled law that the Revisional Authority, while exercising the power of revision, has got very limited scope to interfere with the matter. In the context of a detailed order passed by respondent No. 3, while remanding the matter back to respondent No. 4 wherein all the contesting parties will have an ample opportunity to put forth their claim and establish the same, the revisional authority, while misconstruing the facts and the contentions of the respective parties, erroneously interfered with the order passed by respondent No. 3 herein. In the considered view of this Court, the action of respondent No. 2 in exercising its revisional power, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is totally unwarranted and respondent No. 2 ought to have allowed the parties to go before respondent No. 4 to establish their respective claims. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is wholly unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. Therefore the objection on the ground of delay which is purely technical shall not come in the way of administration of justice and fair play. In view of the fact that the so called regularization proceedings under Section 5A of the Act, 1971 were issued in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 11 behind the back of the mother of the petitioner, who is admittedly the owner of the subject property and copies of the so called regularization proceedings are not communicated to the mother of the petitioner, the question of delay in filing appeal does not arise.

20. In the light of the above, the impugned order, dated 07.04.2017 is set aside and the order passed by respondent No. 3 in appeal No. A3/4723/2012, dated 01.02.2013 is restored.

21. In view of enactment of the Act, 2020 and the issuance of Circular No. 1 of 2021 dated 15.01.2021 issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, respondent No. 4 is not having any authority to deal with the subject matter in terms of the order passed by respondent No. 3, dated 01.02.2013. In the circumstances, the respondent No. 4 herein is directed to forthwith transmit the entire record pertaining to the impugned regularization proceedings in respect of the land admeasuring Acs. 11.30 gts., situated in Sy. No. 265 of Raghunadapalem Revenue Village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District to the office of the District Collector, Khammam District and on receipt of such record from respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 2 shall conduct necessary enquiry by putting all the parties concerned on notice and after affording them a reasonable opportunity shall decide the matter within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of the record from the office of respondent No. 4.

22. Pending disposal of the matter by the District Collector, Khammam District as directed above, status quo obtaining as on date with regard to entries in the Revenue records shall be maintained.

23. It is further made clear that this Court has not dealt with the aspect of possession over the subject property in any manner and this order shall not be construed as an order having an effect on the physical possession of the subject property.

24. In view of the above, no further orders need be passed in W.P. No. 24919 of 2021. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of.

25. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.