1. This writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

               “…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of Respondents in not issuing N 0 C to the petitioners and in not changing the entries in T S L R for the City of Hyderabad by entering the names of petitioners in respect of property admeasuring Ac.5.00 in Sy.No.58/1 4 (Old) 127/1 (New) corresponding to T.S.No.1 Part, Block- B, Ward-3, situated at Bahalulkhanguda Village, (Erragadda), Ameerpet Mandal, Hyderabad District as illegal and arbitrary and to consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith consider the representations made by petitioner on 7.10.2013 and 19.11.2014 for effecting necessary changes in respect of entries in TSLR and for issuance of N O C in respect of the above property ; Award costs and pass such other or further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Mr. K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, Mr. Ch.Ravi Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader and Ms. Dara Haritha Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents.

3. When the matter was called on last occasion, this Court passed the following order:

               “This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:

               “to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of Respondents in not issuing N O C to the petitioners and in not changing the entries in T S L R for the City of Hyderabad by entering the names of petitioners in respect of property admeasuring Ac.5 00 in Sy.No.58/1 (Old) 127/1 (New) corresponding to T.S.No.1 Part, Block-B, Ward-3 situated at Bahalulkhanguda Village (Erragadda), Ameerpet Mandal, Hyderabad District as illegal and arbitrary and to consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith consider the representations made by petitioner on 7.10.2013 and 19. 11.2014 for effecting necessary changes in respect of entries in TSLR and for issuance of N O C in respect of the above property Award costs and pass such other or further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

               During course of submissions, it is brought to notice of this Court that pursuant to direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a contempt case filed by petitioners’ in this Writ Petition, State Government was given liberty to avail remedies under law.

               A suit bearing O.S.No.1016 of 2013 came to be filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession. I.A.No.679 of 2016 filed was allowed by XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. Challenging the order of learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, C.C.C.A.No.235 of 2016 came to be filed Transferred to IO folder, before corrections, if any. W.P.No.3931 of 2016 2 SL. NO DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE before this Court and Division Bench of this Court by an order, dated 10.11.2017 has set aside the order of XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court in I.A.No.679 of 2017 in O.S.No.1016 of 2013, restoring the said suit to the file of the said Court.

               Today, when the matter is called, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents-State has informed the Court that, pursuant to the order of the Division Bench, trial in O.S.No.1016 of 2013 is in process.

               Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners seeks time to get instructions.

               Post this matter on 25.11.2025 under the caption “For Orders”.

4. Attention of this Court is invited to the order of Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5111 of 2017, dated 04.10.2017, the Hon’ble Apex Court in its order held as follows:

               “The title of the said property is in dispute. The respondent state filed a suit bearing O.S. No. 1016 of 2013 before the Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad asserting the title to the suit property. However, the plaint in the said suit came to be rejected by the proceedings of the Court on 6.9.2016.

               Aggrieved by the same, the respondent State carried the matter in CCCA No. 235 of 2016 and it is in the said appeal, the instant impugned order came to be passed in miscellaneous application CCCAMP No. 650 of 2016.

               The litigation has a long and chequered history. An earlier round of litigation, which reached up to this Court, commenced sometime in the year 1972 and ended on 8th August, 2012. By virtue of the liberty granted by this Court in the said order, the present round of litigation commenced.

               Having regard to the above-mentioned facts, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met in the present case by disposing of the instant appeal, requesting the High Court to dispose of CCCA No. 235 of 2016 expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from today. We also deem it appropriate to vacate the impugned Order dated 30th January, 2017 granted by the High Court. However, we deem it appropriate to stipulate that, in the event, the appellants herein wish to either create any encumbrances on the property or alienate the same during the pendency of the appeal, the appellants must put the prospective alienee on notice of the pendency of the present litigation.

               The relevant documents to be executed by the appellants must necessarily reflect the pendency of the above-mentioned appeal. The encumbrance or alienation, if any, would be subject to the result of the appeal pending in the High Court.”

5. Learned counsel for petitioner tried to impress upon this Court that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the Civil Appeal, granted liberty to the appellants that if they wish to either create any encumbrances on the property or alienate the same during the pendency of the appeal, they must put the prospective buyer on notice of the pendency of the present litigation. Pointing to this particular observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is contended that writ Court grant the same liberty.

6. Be that as it may, on a perusal of the order of Hon’ble Division Bench in C.C.C.A.No.235 of 2016, dated 10.11.2017, it is observed that such liberty has not been sought for before the Division Bench. On instructions, it is stated that a suit is filed, O.S.No.1016 of 2013 in the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, and the suit is being proceeded with in the trial Court. Learned counsel has requested that petitioner be permitted to make an application before the trial Court in terms of the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents, on instructions, submitted that petitioner be granted liberty, subject to the condition that State can take its objections with regard to the application filed.

8. Petitioner is at liberty to put forward his grievance in accordance with law and the State is at liberty to raise objections.

9. With the above observations, Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.