1. Learned counsel Sri K.V.Rajendra Prasad appears for the appellants. Learned Advocate General Sri A. Sudarshan Reddy appears for the respondents.

2. The appellants, who are writ petitioners in W.P.No.21767 of 2024, are aggrieved by the interim order dated 06.05.2026 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 and Review I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.P.No.21767 of 2024, whereby the learned review court has, while adjourning the matter for filing counter affidavit to the review petition, granted interim suspension of the order dated 08.08.2024 passed in W.P.No.21767 of 2024.

3. The writ petition assailed the action of the respondents in proceeding to resume the agricultural patta lands of the writ petitioners to an extent of Acs.52.28 guntas in Survey No.62 and an extent of Acs.31.38 guntas in Survey No.73, total measuring Acs.84.26 guntas situated at Yendapally Village, Madhira Mandal, Khammam District, for establishment of Industrial Park in Madhira Mandal vide Memo dated 02.08.2024 without following due process of law, as being illegal. The writ petition was disposed of on 08.08.2024 after hearing learned counsel for the writ petitioners and the State counsel in the following manner:

               “5. In view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case and entitlement of the petitioners over the subject property, deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their patta lands, which are forming part of Sy.Nos.62 and 73 of Siripuram Village, Yendapally Revenue Village, Madhira Mandal, Khammam District, without following the due procedure and if the said lands are required for the purpose of establishment of Industrial Park, the respondents are directed to follow the procedure in accordance with law.

               6. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

               7. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.”

4. The writ petitioners pursued the contempt petition in C.C.No.2501 of 2024 for alleged disobedience of the order of the learned writ court wherein the respondents were directed not to dispossess the writ petitioners from their patta lands forming part of Survey Nos.62 and 73 of Siripuram Village, Yendapally Revenue Village, Madhira Mandal, Khammam District. On the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Industries and Commerce Department, Government of Telangana, the contempt petition was disposed of on 28.02.2025. The review petition has been filed by the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as, “the Corporation”), who was respondent No.3 in the writ petition. The review petition has been filed on the ground of lack of notice to an affected party to whom the land has been handed over by the Revenue Department of Government of Telangana on 05.03.2024. The learned review court, taking note of the stand of the review petitioner, suspended the order passed in the writ petition while directing the counter affidavit to be filed in the review petition.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners submits that the counter affidavit though was filed on that date, but it was returned with some defects and could not be placed before the learned review court when the matter was taken up. It is submitted that after the contempt case was disposed of on the statements of respondents No.1 and 3 therein as far back as on 28.02.2025, the review petition was filed on 18.08.2025, almost one year after the writ petition was disposed of. By virtue of the interim order passed by the review court, the review petitioner is trying to evict the writ petitioners without following the due process of law. Therefore, the impugned interim order vitally affects the rights and interests of the writ petitioners. Interference is, therefore, called for.

6. Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that the specific ground to seek review of the order passed in the writ petition is lack of notice and opportunity to contest to a necessary party i.e., the Corporation. Possession of the land was handed over to the Corporation before institution of the writ petition. Therefore, the learned review court has, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, directed interim suspension of the order impugned and directed filing of counter affidavit in the review petition. He submits that, therefore, there is no reason for the writ petitioners to be aggrieved by the interim order, when the review petition is likely to be heard after filing of the counter affidavit in a short time.

7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the relevant material to examine the challenge to the interim order passed in the review petition.

8. The factum of non-service of notice to the review petitioner – Corporation, when the writ petition was disposed of apparently is not disputed by the writ petitioners. That may be the reason for seeking review of the impugned order passed by the learned writ court. The learned writ court had, however, directed the respondents not to dispossess the writ petitioners from their patta lands without following due procedure. The writ petitioners have been apprehending coercive action on account of the interim suspension granted by the learned review court. Whether the order impugned in the review petition merits recall or not is the subject matter to be decided by the learned review court. Therefore, we avoid making any comments on the merits of the challenge made to the order dated 08.08.2024 passed in the writ petition. Since the writ petitioners have been enjoying the benefit of the order dated 08.08.2024 passed in the writ petition till the impugned order was passed on 06.05.2026, it would be in the fitness of things that the main review petition be heard expeditiously. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that the counter affidavit has already been filed.

9. In that view of the matter, we deem it proper to direct that the review petition be posted before the concerned court on 14.07.2026.

10. In the background facts and circumstances noted above, the interim suspension granted by the learned review court shall remain in abeyance till 14.07.2026. It would be open for the learned review court to take a call on the question of interim relief if required after hearing the parties.

11. The instant appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.