Supreme Court of India
B. Laxmidevamma vs State Of A.P. And Ors. on 5 May, 2000
Equivalent citations: AIR2000SC3595, JT2000(8)SC201, (2001)9SCC326, (2000)3UPLBEC2438, AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 3595, 2001 (9) SCC 326, 2000 AIR SCW 3945, 2000 (3) UPLBEC 2438, (2000) 8 JT 201 (SC), 2000 (8) JT 201, (2000) 3 UPLBEC 2438, (2001) 4 SUPREME 288
Bench: M.Jagannadha Rao, M.B. Shah
ORDER
1. The Petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 5357 of 1999 seeking a direction of writ of mandamus, to the District Collector and other officers for issue of a necessary patta certificate, title deeds and orders in respect of two acres of land in Tirupati town in Survey No. 4049/3 and for the purpose the petitioner relied upon F.O. No. 9006 Revenue (Assignment-IV) dated 30.12.98. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition by a short order dated 7.3.99. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a Writ Appeal No. 449 of 1994 which was also dismissed on 5.4.99 by the Division Bench of the High Court. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court.
2. Initially the Government filed a counter affidavit dated 28.10.99 stating that the G.O. produced by the petitioner in Writ Petition was a "fake" one and further that the order in W.P.M.P. No. 13996/97 in the earlier pending Writ Petition No. 9780/97 is also a fake one. As regards to the W.P.No. 9780/97 it is submitted that it is still pending disposal. The concerned Section Officer at the time of issue of G.O. was Sri J. Srinivasulu Reddy and according to the counter his signature is not tallying with the signature on G.O. The concerned Government Pleader of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, stated in his letter dated 26.4.99 that, he personally verified the record in the pending W.P.No. 9780/97 and found that there was no W.P.M.P No. 13996/97 filed in the said W.P.No. 9780/97.
3. The petitioner filed Writ Petition in 1999 seeking assignment on the basis of the G.O. and was prepared to pay about Rs. 26 lakhs. The Government filed an additional counter affidavit giving further details as to how signature of Section Officer and Secretary do not tally. In regard to the G.O. & U.O. note etc., they said that the G.O. is not found in the register of G.O. etc. In reply the petitioner filed a further rejoinder and asserted that the G.O. was a genuine one.
4. In the state of affairs, we do not find anything wrong in the dismissal of the present Writ Petition by the High Court, both by learned Single Judge and by the Division Bench.
5. In addition, we direct the High Court to conduct an enquiry into the matter or have an inquiry conducted as to whether the G.O. was a fake one and whether the interim order dated 11.8.97 in W.P.M.P. No. 13996/97 in W.P. No. 9780/97 was a non-existent order and whether any such order in W.P.M.P. was produced before the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Hyderabad, Shri G. Sudhir, as mentioned in D.O. letter dated 26.4.99. We have already noticed that a criminal case has been filed against the petitioner in Tirupati and one other person, who is also said to be connected with the manufacture of the alleged fake order is absconding. We are sure that the High Court will go into the question or have it inquired and take appropriate proceedings depending on the result of the inquiry. Of course, petitioner has to be heard in any such inquiry.
6. We should not be considered as having said anything on the merits of the above questions.
7. The SLP is disposed of accordingly.