1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.4 in issuing Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed bearing No.T06060010001 and Khata No.60097 vide Memo B/2112/2019 Dated 17/01/2020, and entertaining 1B-ROR Mutations vide Proceedings No.MUT/06/06/00001/2020 dated 29/01/2020 and Dharani Transaction No.2000030940 in favour of the Respondent No.5 in respect of the petitioners’ lands admeasuring Acs.5-00 gts in Survey Nos.318 and 319/2 situated at Jawaharnagar Municipal Corporation Kapra Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject lands’) during the pendency of the Civil Suit and without following the due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

2. Heard Smt. B.Sapna Reddy learned counsel for petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and Sri Pushadapu Subba Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

3. The facts of the case, shorn-off unnecessary details, as averred in the writ affidavit, are that the petitioners’ grandfather, Syed Suleman, who was an ex-serviceman, was allotted land admeasuring Acs.3.12 gts in Sy.No.318, Acs.3.05 gts in Sy.No.319 and Ac.1.11 gts in Sy.No.646, total Acs.7-28 guntas, situated at Jawaharnagar Municipal Corporation, Kapra Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, by Jawaharnagar Co-Operative Land Colonization Society; that as he was not granted pattadar passbook in respect of the said lands, he filed a writ petition-W.P.No.16393 of 1994 and the said Writ Petition was disposed of with direction to revenue authorities to consider the case of Syed Suleman for grant of patta; that subsequently, alleging that the said order was not complied with, the said Syed Suleman filed CC.No.849 of 1995; that pursuant to the orders passed in the said Contempt Case, patta certificate No.B6/195/76 dated 19.02.1996, covering land to an extent of Acs.3-12 guntas in Sy.No.318 and Acs.1-28 guntas in Sy.No.319/2, was issued in his favour along with a sketch plan; however, as the extent of land granted under the said patta certificate was only Acs.5-00 guntas, instead of the actual allotted land of Acs.7-28 guntas, the same which was accepted under protest.

               3.1. It is further averred that as per the terms of patta certificate, the lands covered thereunder are heritable, but not alienable; that after the death of Syed Suleman, pattadra passbooks and title deeds were issued to his wife, i.e., petitioners’ grandmother-Kaneez Fatima Begum; and that after her death on 15.02.2010, the petitioners have been in physical possession and enjoyment of the subject lands along with the remaining land allotted to Syed Suleman.

               3.2. It is further averred that while so, in the first week of August 2011, respondent No.5 tried to dispossess the petitioners claiming that their grandmother executed registered sale deed in his favour in respect of the subject lands; that the petitioners submitted a representation dated 04.09.2011 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, complaining the action of respondent No.5 in attempting to dispossess them from the subject lands; that aggrieved by the inaction of the RDO on the said representation, the petitioners filed W.P.No.1520 of 2012 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, however, the Court did not entertain the said writ petition, observing that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners was to approach the civil court for enforcement of their rights; and that accordingly, the petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.1408 of 2014 before the City Civil Court, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar, against respondent No.5 seeking cancellation of Sale Deed No.9361 of 2004 dated 24.11.2003, registered on 03.11.2004 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Shamirpet; and that the said suit was later transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Medchal and re-numbered as O.S.No.149 of 2017 and the same is pending.

               3.3. It is further averred that while so, in the first week of February 2020, the petitioners came to know that respondent No.5, with an intention to grab the subject lands, fraudulently obtained a new Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed and mutation entries were effected in his favour in respect of the subject land. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners principally submitted that the lands assigned to the petitioners’ grandfather under patta were heritable, but not alienable, and as per G.O.Ms.No.1117, dated 11.11.1993, land/s assigned to an ex-serviceman shall not be sold or otherwise alienated for a period of ten (10) years from the date of assignment and as such, the Sale Deed No.9361 of 2004, which is alleged to have been executed in favour of respondent No.5 within period of ten years from the date of patta, is void and nonest in the eye of law.

               4.1. Learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that the petitioners being muslims are governed by Muslim Personal Law, as per which, the widow of late Syed Suleman, who was recognized as his legal heir, is entitled to only 1/8th share in the property, however, she purportedly executed a sale deed in respect of the entire extent of Acs.5-00 guntas in favour of respondent No.5, which is impermissible and contrary to law.

               4.2. He further submitted that the Sub-Registrar, Shamirpet, vide Letter No.275/2013 dated 05.10.2013, clarified that Sale Deed No.9361 of 2004 was registered on the basis of a No Objection Certificate issued by respondent No.2-District Collector, wherein rights are reserved to cancel the same if the land is found to be assigned land.

               4.3. Learned counsel further submitted that during the pendency of the suit-OS.No.149 of 2017 filed by the petitioners against respondent No.5, with an intention to grab the subject property, has made application for pattadar passbook and title deed by suppressing the facts that the matter is sub judice before competent civil Court and fraudulently, obtained the same and also got mutation effected in his favour, vide proceedings of the MRO, vide Memo No.B/2112/2019 dated 17.01.2020, and therefore, he prayed to allow the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts, as the dispute pertains to title and possession of immovable property, which involves disputed questions of fact and requires adjudication by a competent civil Court.

               5.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners have already filed a suit in O.S. No.149 of 2017 against respondent No.5 in respect of the subject lands and the same is pending, and therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.

               5.2. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.5 is a bona fide purchaser of the subject lands for valuable consideration under registered Sale Deed No.9361 of 2004 dated 24.11.2003, executed by Kaneez Fatima Begum, who was recorded as pattadar and was in possession of the subject lands at the relevant time.

               5.3. He further submitted that the sale transaction was effected based on No Objection Certificate issued by respondent No.2 as well as the Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed in the name of the vendor. He further submitted that NOC given by respondent No.2, based on which the sale transaction was registered has not been cancelled till today, therefore, the petitioners cannot, at this belated stage, seek to invalidate the sale deed.

               5.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the plea of the petitioners regarding the nature of the subject lands as “assigned lands” is misconceived and is not substantiated by any conclusive material, hence, the sale transaction in favour of respondent No.5 cannot be termed void.

6. Learned counsel finally submitted that respondent No.5, who is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property, pursuant to the registered sale deed, was rightly granted pattadar passbook and title deed and mutation was effected in his favour, and hence, the Writ Petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.

7. Perusal of the material available on record reveals that admittedly, the subject lands were originally assigned to the petitioners’ grandfather-Syed Suleman under patta certificate and upon his death, his wife who was recognized as his legal heir was granted pattadar passbook and title deed in respect of the subject lands.

8. The petitioners’ case is that the said patta was granted subject to certain conditions, includes that the land/s assigned thereunder are only heritable, but not alienable.

9. The contention of the petitioners is that the sale deed executed in favour of Respondent No.5 is void, being in contravention of the conditions of assignment and also on the ground that the vendor had no authority to alienate the entire extent of land.

10. On the other hand, respondent No.5 claims to be a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration under registered sale deed, based on the No Objection Certificate issued by the competent authority.

11. There exist serious disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.5 with regard to title, validity of the sale deed, nature of the land, etc., in respect of the subject lands. All these issues involve adjudication of disputed questions of fact, including examination of documentary and oral evidence. Undisputably, the petitioners have already instituted a civil suit in O.S. No.149 of 2017 seeking cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.5 by the grandmother of the petitioners, which is pending adjudication before the competent civil Court and as such, therefore, the rights of the parties are yet to be conclusively determined and the rights of the parties are subject to the outcome of the civil proceedings.

12. As regards the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that inspite of status quo orders granted by the trial Court on 11.03.2020, the respondent authorities effected mutation in favour of respondent No.5, it is to be noted that mutation was effected in revenue records in the name of respondent No.5 on 17.01.2020, that is prior to passing of the status quo order. Therefore, the said contention of learned counsel holds no water.

13. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to take appropriate steps as available under law, subject to the result of suit-OS.No.149 of 2017 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Medchal. No costs.

14. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.