1. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to the Order passed by respondent No3 in File No.G/346/2014 dated 11.04.2014 and as confirmed by the respondent No.2 in NALA Appeal No.D3/1892/2016 dated 13.12.2019 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and 300-A of Constitution.

2. Heard Ms. Swetha, learned counsel representing Sri V. Raghava Reddy, learned counsel-on-record for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri Laxmi Narayana, learned counsel representing Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

3. The brief facts, as averred in the writ petition, are that originally, the patta for the land in Sy.No.375, admeasuring Acs.13-38 guntas, situated at Achampet Mandal, Nagarkurnool District, stood in the name of late Sri Mahaboob Ali, who died intestate leaving behind his two sons, Vikaruddin and Gulam Hyder; that though both were entitled to equal shares, Gulam Hyder managed to get the patta of the entire extent of the said land mutated in his name; that aggrieved thereby, Vikaruddin preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, in Appeal No.B/34/97, which came to be dismissed on 25.06.2001, and thereafter, he filed W.P.No.3424 of 2002 before this Court; and this Court, vide order dated 23.10.2008, remanded the matter to the Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar for fresh consideration; that pursuant thereto, the Tahsildar, Achampet, vide order dated 16.02.2009 in Case No.ROR/434/2008, recognised Vikaruddin's entitlement to half share in the subject property.

               3.1. It is further averred that Vikaruddin had agreed to sell one- fourth of his half share in the subject property i.e., Acs.1.29 gts to the petitioner for a total consideration of Rs.1,45,000/-, towards which the petitioner paid Rs.75,000/- as part consideration under the agreement dated 03.12.1997; and that Vikaruddin had agreed to execute the sale deed upon resolution of the dispute between himself and his brother concerning his share in the subject property.

               3.2. It is further averred that pursuant to Tahsildar's order dated 16.02.2009, the petitioner requested Vikaruddin to execute the sale deed, but he failed to do so, compelling the petitioner to institute O.S.No.124 of 2012 before the Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 03.12.1997; that the said suit was dismissed and, aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred A.S.No.57 of 2019 before the IX Additional District Judge, Wanaparthy and the said appeal was allowed, vide judgment dated 02.09.2024 and that aggrieved thereby, Vikaruddin preferred S.A.No.14 of 2025 before this Court, wherein an order of status quo was granted and the SA is pending adjudication.

               3.3. It is further averred that while the things stood thus, respondent No.4- grandson of Gulam Hyder through his GPA holder-respondent No.5, applied for conversion of an extent of Acs.2-16 guntas in Sy.No.375 from agricultural to non-agricultural use; that respondent No.3 vide proceedings dated 11.04.2014 in File No.G/346/2014 accorded the permission; that aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred NALA Appeal No.D3/1982/2016 before respondent No.2, who initially granted stay on 01.09.2016, but subsequently dismissed the appeal on 13.12.2019; and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner instituted suit in O.S.No.124 of 2012 before the Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 03.12.1997; that, during the said proceedings, Vikaruddin, while deposing as D.W.1, admitted execution of the agreement and their understanding that the sale deed would be executed upon resolution of the dispute between himself and his brother; that though the said suit was dismissed, the petitioner preferred A.S.No.57 of 2019 before the IX Additional District Judge, Wanaparthy.

               4.1. He further submitted that during the pendency of the civil proceedings, respondent No.4, through his GPA holder-respondent No.5, applied for conversion of an extent of Acs.2.16 guntas in Sy.No.375 from agricultural to non-agricultural use, claiming that the land stood in the name of his predecessor; that respondent No.3, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, allowed the said application by order dated 11.04.2014 in File No.G/346/2014; and that the petitioner, aggrieved thereby, preferred NALA Appeal No.D3/1982/2016 before respondent No.2; that respondent No.2 initially granted stay on 01.09.2016, but subsequently dismissed the appeal by order dated 13.12.2019, principally on the grounds that the agreement relied upon by the petitioner did not contain specific boundaries and that O.S.No.124 of 2012 had been dismissed.

               4.2. He further submitted that the agreement was in respect of an undivided share in the subject property and there had been no partition between the co-sharers; that therefore, the particular portion corresponding to the petitioner's proposed purchase could not have been identified at that stage; that in the absence of partition, Vikaruddin's entitlement was only to an undivided share in the subject land, and as such, the reasoning assigned by respondent No.2 regarding absence of boundaries in the agreement could not by itself be a ground to reject the petitioner's objection for conversion of a particular portion of the joint property.

               4.3. He further submitted that respondent No.2 erred in treating the dismissal of O.S.No.124 of 2012 as determinative of the petitioner's rights, since the same had already been challenged in A.S.No.57 of 2019 and the said appeal was still pending at the time of hearing NALA Appeal; that the rights asserted by the petitioner under the agreement dated 03.12.1997 have not attained finality and that the pendency of the appeal was a relevant circumstance which ought to have been considered by respondent No.2 while deciding the NALA appeal.

5. He finally submitted that as the conversion proceedings concerned a portion of land forming part of the larger extent in Sy.No.375 and the petitioner claimed an interest arising from an undivided share therein, respondent No.3 ought not to have proceeded with the conversion application without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing; that the impugned orders, therefore, suffer from violation of principles of natural justice and failure to properly appreciate the nature of the petitioner's claim and interest in the subject property.

6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted that the petitioner had entered into an agreement of sale with Vikaruddin and not with respondent No.5; that the petitioner, relying upon the said agreement dated 03.12.1997, had encroached upon the land claimed by respondent No.5; that respondent No.5 had instituted O.S.No.94 of 2020 before the Junior Civil Judge, Achampet, seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession, which is pending adjudication; and that the petitioner had failed to disclose the pendency of the said suit in the present writ petition, thereby suppressing a material fact and seeking to mislead this Court.

               6.1. He further submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and her alleged vendor-Vikaruddin has no bearing upon the rights of respondents No.4 and 5; that Vikaruddin, being the petitioner's vendor, was not impleaded as party in the present writ petition, though his presence was necessary for adjudication of the petitioner's claim; and that contrary to the petitioner's contention, the property in Sy.No.375 had already been partitioned between the parties concerned in the year 2009.

               6.2. He further submitted that the petitioner had already instituted O.S.No.124 of 2012 against Vikaruddin seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 03.12.1997; that though the suit was initially dismissed, the appeal preferred by the petitioner in A.S.No.57 of 2019 was allowed; that aggrieved thereby, Vikaruddin preferred S.A.No.14 of 2025 before this Court, wherein an order of status quo was granted; and that respondent No.4 was impleaded in O.S.No.124 of 2012 only as a formal party, without any substantive relief being sought against him.

7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 finally submitted that in view of the pendency of the civil proceedings in respect of the petitioner's alleged agreement and the title and possession claimed by respondent No.4, the petitioner cannot seek adjudication of such disputed civil rights in the present writ petition; that the petitioner has an appropriate remedy before the competent civil Court; and that having suppressed material facts and failed to establish any enforceable right against respondent No.4, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record.

9. The material available on record discloses that the petitioner claims an interest in the subject property under an agreement of sale dated 03.12.1997 said to have been executed by Vikaruddin. The said claim has been the subject matter of civil proceedings between the parties. The petitioner instituted O.S.No.124 of 2012 seeking specific performance of the said agreement. Though the suit was initially dismissed, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court were carried in appeal by the petitioner in A.S.No.57 of 2019, which was subsequently allowed. The matter is presently stated to be pending before this Court in S.A.No.14 of 2025 at the instance of Vikaruddin. It is in the above factual background that the legality of the order passed by respondent No.2 is required to be examined. It is further evident that NALA Appeal No.D3/1892/2016 dated 13.12.2019 was dismissed primarily on two grounds, namely, that the agreement of sale relied upon by the petitioner did not contain specific boundaries and that O.S.No.124 of 2012, instituted by the petitioner for specific performance, had been dismissed by the Trial Court.

10. As regards the ground assigned by respondent No.2 that the suit-OS.No.124 of 2102 was dismissed, it is to be noted that as the same was arrived at without taking into consideration the subsequent developments arising out of the said proceedings. The dismissal of the suit did not attain finality, as the petitioner carried the matter in appeal and the appellate proceedings were pending as on the date of passing order in NALA Appeal No.D3/1892/2016 dated 13.12.2019 by respondent No.2. Though the judgment passed by the appellate authority is challenged in S.A.No.14 of 2025, the claim asserted by the petitioner under the agreement of sale cannot be treated as having been conclusively negatived solely on the basis of the judgment initially rendered by the Trial Court. Respondent No.2 was, therefore, required to consider the entire status of the civil proceedings while adjudicating the appeal and could not have proceeded on the assumption that the dismissal of the suit had put an end to the petitioner's claim and the said ground taken by respondent No.2 is unsustainable.

11. The further reasoning of respondent No.2 that the agreement of sale did not contain specific boundaries also requires consideration in the context of the dispute between the parties. The petitioner specifically contends that the agreement relates to an undivided share in the larger extent of land and that the respective portions of the co- sharers had not been identified by metes and bounds. On the other hand, respondents No.4 contend that the property had already been partitioned. These are matters which essentially involve disputed questions concerning the nature and extent of the rights claimed by the respective parties in the subject property. The revenue authorities, while considering an application for conversion of land, are not competent to adjudicate complicated disputes relating to title or to conclusively determine the civil rights of rival claimants. In the present case, civil proceedings concerning the subject property and the rights claimed by the petitioner therein were pending. Therefore, respondent No.2 ought to have taken into consideration the pendency and status of the civil proceedings while deciding the appeal preferred against the order of conversion.

12. From the record, it is evident that the rights claimed by the parties in respect of the subject property, including the nature and extent of their respective interests and the identity of the land claimed by them, are the subject matter of pending civil proceedings. When such questions concerning the title, extent and identity of the property are under adjudication before the competent Civil Court, the revenue authorities cannot proceed on the basis of assumptions regarding the respective rights of the parties or record findings which would, in effect, prejudge the issues pending before the Civil Court.

13. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly having regard to the subsisting civil dispute concerning the very property in respect of which conversion was sought, the authorities ought to have duly taken into consideration the status of the civil proceedings and the rights claimed by the respective parties before proceeding with the conversion.

14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the reasons assigned by respondent No.2 while dismissing NALA Appeal No.D3/1892/2016, vide orders dated 13.12.2019 cannot be sustained. Consequently, the orders impugned in the present writ petition are liable to be set aside.

15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order, dated 11.04.2014, passed by respondent No.3 in File No.G/346/2014, as confirmed by respondent No.2 in NALA Appeal No.D3/1892/2016, dated 13.12.2019, is hereby set aside. No costs.

16. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.