Telangana High Court
Karri Koteswara Rao, S/O. Rama ... vs The Govt Of A.P.Rep By Its Principal ... on 22 April, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA
SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 5716 OF 2013
22.04.2026
Between:
Karri Koteswara Rao (died) & another
..... Petitioners
And
The Govt. of A.P.,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Tribal Welfare Department,
A.P. Secretariat Buildings,
Hyderabad & others.
..... Respondents
O R D E R:
Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant : Fraud and Justice never dwell together.
Fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent : Fraud and deceit ought to benefit none.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the issue of fraud in A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P. 1 wherein it was held as under:
" 25. It has been said: fraud and justice never dwell together (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant); or fraud and deceit ought to benefit none (fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent).1
(2007) 4 SCC 221 2
26. Fraud may be defined as an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing some unfair or undeserved benefit by taking undue advantage of another. In fraud one gains at the loss of another.
Even most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud. Fraud is thus an extrinsic collateral act which vitiates all judicial acts, whether in rem or in personam. The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be stretched to the extent of an absurdity that it can be utilized as an engine of oppression by dishonest and fraudulent litigants.
39. The above principle, however, is subject to the exception of fraud. Once it is established that the order was obtained by a successful party by practising or playing fraud, it is vitiated. Such order cannot be held legal. valid or in consonance with law. It is non-existent and non-est and cannot be allowed to stand. This is the fundamental principle of law and needs no further elaboration. Therefore, it has been said that a judgment, decree or order obtained by fraud has to be treated as a nullity, whether by the court of first instance or by the final court and it has to be treated as non est by every court, superior or inferior."
***
2. This a classic case of fraud played not only by Respondent No.4 on the revenue authorities, original petitioner, innocent purchasers encouraging them to make illegal construction but also the Advocate on record on his behalf who made false statements. However, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view for the present with a stern caution to learned counsel for Respondent No.4, to be cautious and diligent while filing affidavits and making submissions before the Court. The fraudulent intention of Respondent No.4 is visible to the naked 3 eye as he produced the stamp paper dated 27.03.1973 which was released / printed by the Press on 25.02.1977. The below paragraphs establish the mind of the Court as to why such an opinion has been drawn in this case.
3. Original Petitioner (petitioner No.1) filed this Writ Petition seeking to delete the proceedings of the 1st respondent - Tribal Department in G.O.Ms.No. 13, Social Welfare (LTR2) Department, dated 15.02.2013 confirming the order passed by the Additional Agent to Govt. and Project Officer-ITDA, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District in CMA No. 11 of 2010 dated 19.11.2011.
4. At the stage of admission, on 27.02.2013, the following order has been passed:
" Prima facie this court finds that the plea put forward by the 4th Respondent before the Special Deputy Collector was totally different from the one, which he has urged before the appellate authority. The matter needs to be examined in detail.
There shall be interim stay, as prayed for."
5. Thereafter, original petitioner No.1 was stated to have died and in view of the same, this Court passed the following order:
" The Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner died and the demise was informed to the court through memo, dated 24.07.2017. The steps to bring the legal representatives on record could not be taken up for want of instructions from legal representatives.4
The Memo is dated 24-07-2017. Hence, for the present, the Writ petition can be dismissed as abated.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed as abated. The legal representatives, if are interested, are given liberty to file petition to come on record and restore the writ prayer. No orders as to costs."
6. Subsequently, the wife of petitioner No.1 being the legal representative had taken out I.A. No. 1 of 2018 to condone the delay in preferring the petition under Order 22 Rule 9 to set aside the abetment of Writ Petition; I.A. No. 5 of 2018 to set- aside the dismissal order and I.A. No. 6 of 2018 to condone the delay in preferring the petition under Order 22 Rule 1 to add petitioner's wife to the proceedings as legal representative. These Applications were all disposed on 06.06.2022 with the following order:
" On 26.04.2022, this Court has directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to take out personal notice to respondent No. 4 through Registered post with acknowledgment due.
Today, when the matter is called, the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo of proof of service along with the return envelope.
A perusal of the envelope shows that respondent no. 4 has refused to receive the notice. Therefore, respondent no. 4 is deemed to have been served and he is set ex parte.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavits, the delay of 499 days in preferring the petition to set aside the abatement caused due to death of petitioner No. 1, and 213 days in preferring the petition to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of petitioner No. 1 is condoned, and the Writ Petition is restored to its file. The delay 5 of 559 days in preferring the petition to bring on record petitioner No. 2 as the legal representative of petitioner No. 1 is also condoned".
7. Thereafter, the wife of petitioner No.1 also died and claiming to be her legatees, the present petitioners were brought on record vide order dated 18.12.2023 in I.A. No. 3 of 2023 as Petitioners 3 and 4.
8. Heard Sri A.M. Qureshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri. P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3, Sri M.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sanjeev Gillela, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader for the 5th Respondent and perused the record.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
9. The case of original petitioner is that he purchased the total land admeasuring Acs.14.09 Guntas; in Survey No. 148/3 Acs.2.04 guntas, Survey No. 148/4 Acs. 2.18 guntas, Survey No.148/5 Acs. 2-00, Survey No. 148/6 Acs. 2.13 guntas, Survey No. 148/7 Acs. 2.29 guntas, Survey No.148/8 Acs. 2.24 guntas and Survey No. 148/9 Ac. 0.01 guntas of Chunchupalli Revenue Village and Mandal, Bhadradri - Kothagudem District, 6 Telangana through a sada sale deed dated 14.04.1959 from one Sri Nagubandi Mallaiah (non-tribe).
9.1. As the land is situated in agency area, the Special Deputy Collector, T.W. Paloncha initiated proceedings based on the report submitted by Special Deputy Tahsildar, T.W. in LTR Case No. 526 to 532 of 1994/KGM (Kothagudem) against petitioner. The said batch of cases was dismissed vide order dated 29.09.1998 with the finding that the land transfer involved in the present case took place between non tribals and tribal prior to 1970, hence Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1959 read with Regulation Act of 1/1970 would not attract for this transaction and the said order had become final. 9.2. According to petitioner, once the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector rejecting the Application for eviction has become final, fresh proceedings for eviction cannot be initiated (see Mallina Venkatarao v. District Collector, W.G. District, Eluru {2000(4) ALD 443}). Subsequently, the 4th Respondent filed LTR Case No. 27/2010/KGM claiming that he is the owner of the above said property, on the ground that the lands are falling under the schedule area and Regulation 1 of 1959 and Regulation 1 of 1970 would apply to the transaction effected by petitioner. The Special Deputy Collector 7 (TW), Paloncha passed the order 03.03.2010, against which the 4th Respondent preferred Appeal before the Additional Agent to Government, (respondent No.2) vide CMA No.11 of 2010. The 2nd Respondent allowed the Appeal on 19.11.2011 with a direction to the Tahsildar, Kothagudem to take over the subject lands evicting the persons whoever in possession and restore the subject lands to the tribal petitioner under the cover of a panchnama.
9.3. According to petitioner, in the Appeal, the 4th respondent contended that his father Maloth Vasya purchased the subject land from Nagubandi Venkata Ratnamma, W/o Nagubandi Mallaih through sada sale deed dated 29.03.1973 and he filed an unregistered document which was hit by Regulation 1/70 because at the time of purchase, lambada community was not included in the Scheduled Tribe category. It is stated, on perusal of the document dated 29.03.1973, it appears to be fake and fabricated for, on the face of it, there is a slogan 'Satyameva Jayathe' which was incorporated by the Government of India after 1980. The 4th respondent, by virtue of the void transaction, is not entitled to have a claim over the subject land. It is further stated, though the 4th respondent is not a party before the Special Deputy Collector in the above LTR 8 Cases, it was left open to him to prefer Appeal against the orders of the Special Deputy Collector, but instead of filing the same, he filed fresh case before the Special Deputy Collector in 2010.
9.4. It is also stated, against the order of the 2nd respondent, petitioner filed Revision before the 1st Respondent. Pending Revision, he is stated to have filed Writ Petition No. 32663 of 2011, wherein by order dated 13.12.2011, this Court directed the 1st respondent to dispose of the Revision within two months. In compliance with the said direction, the 1st respondent conducted enquiry. Meanwhile, petitioner is stated to have made an Application before the General Manager, Security Printing Press, Nasik Maharashtra under the Right to Information Act. Since the information sought was not furnished, he filed Writ Petition No. 40084 of 2012 seeking a direction to the General Manager Security Printing Press, Nasik to furnish the information with regard to printing slogan on the stamp paper. While the said Writ Petition is pending, the 1st respondent dismissed the Revision vide impugned G.O., directing the District Collector, Khammam / Additional Agent to Bhadrachalam to take necessary action in 9 the matter, by virtue of which, the official respondents are seeking to evict petitioner from the schedule land.
10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners would submit that LTR case filed by the 4th Respondent is not maintainable and the learned Special Deputy Collector rightly held that the order of the Special Deputy Collector (TW) dated 29.09.1998 in LTR Case Nos. 526 to 533 of 1994 established that in the document filed by petitioner, it was declared that possession of the petitioner over the schedule land is prior to the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Area Land Transfer Regulation Act, 1959 read with Regulation 1/1970. Therefore, once the jurisdiction vested with the Tribunal as the original adjudicating authority under APLRT Act 1959 read with 1/1970 was exercised in respect of the same land, this Tribunal is not vested with any power to conduct trial and dismissed the LTR filed by the 4th Respondent. It is submitted that the Additional agent to the Government considered that once the matter was adjudicated by the order of the Special Deputy Collector, there is no provision for review under the provisions of APLRT Act 1/1959 and also 1/1970 but the submissions of petitioner was not considered by the Additional Agent to the Government which allowed CMA No. 11 of 2010.
1010.1. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the question of jurisdiction was also not considered by the Government; it failed to consider that once the matter was settled on 29.09.1998, the Authority cannot reopen the matter afresh. According to learned Senior Counsel, it is well-settled that the tribe of the village need not be a complainant in the LTR cases on behalf of tribes, the competent authority is Special Deputy Tahsildar. Hence there is no need to file a complaint by the tribe in the LTR case and if any person is aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector, it is always open to him to prefer an Appeal but not to file a fresh case in the same set of facts. As per the provisions of Regulations 1/70, there is no review power given to the Special Deputy Collector (TW) or Agent to Government. In the light of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Mallina Venkatarao's case (supra), once the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector rejecting the Application for eviction, became final, fresh proceedings for eviction cannot be initiated.
10.2. It is brought to the notice of this Court that a Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with 11 similar situation in Writ Petition No. 15132 of 1999 wherein the following order is made:
" In the instant case, with regard to the same survey numbers, proceedings were already initiated under section 3(2) of the A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations, 1959 (for short the regulation) and after an enquiry, it was held that the possession of the petitioner was not an unauthorized and was not in violation of the provisions of the Regulations. It is not disputed that the said order has become final and as such it is not assailable. It is a settled law that there is no power of review in the cases arising order the A.P.S.A.L.T. Regulations, 1959. In the circumstances, the adjudication made by the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare on 10-10-1992 in S.R.No. 1232 of 1990 cannot be reopened by any proceedings under the Regulations. Even an appeal cannot be filed as long time has elapsed, since the date of passing of the said orders. As such, it is held that no action can be taken against the petitioner for evicting him under the provisions of the Regulations.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs."
10.3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the issue involved is, before 29-09-1998, whether the transaction is attracted by Regulation 1/1959 read with Regulation 1/1970. The issue of valid transaction or the transaction is prohibited, as per the Stamps and Registration Act and the same is legal or not is not the subject matter of the earlier litigation and the same cannot be subject matter to this writ petition and in view of the ratio laid down in the above said Writ Petition by the Division Bench, the order in LTR Case Nos. 525 to 532 of 1994/KGM(Kothagudem) cannot be reopened.
1210.4. It is contended, the 1st Respondent also failed to take into consideration the submission made by petitioner and relied on the document which was not filed before the Special Deputy Collector and also failed to note that there is no provision in Regulation 1/1959 for reconsideration and review of the orders passed in the Regulations in the same matter.
11. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri M.S. Prasad appearing for the 4th Respondent, based on the averments in the counter, would submit that Writ Petition was filed against the concurrent finding of the Additional Agent to the Government dated 19.11.2011 and the Government in C.M.A.No.11 of 2010, Government in G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 15-02-2013 and the same is misconceived. The Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Areas) Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 and its Amendment 1 of 1970 was enacted to prevent settlement of non-tribes in the scheduled areas. The said Regulation has been enacted by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh under V Schedule of the Constitution which got notwithstanding effect over any other law. Section 3 of the said Regulation provides that all the lands situated in Agency Tracks shall be presumed to be the lands of Scheduled Tribes unless contra is proved. The burden of proving the same lies on non-tribes but not on the tribes. 13 11.1. It is settled principle of law that the principle of res judicata is not applicable to Section 3. It is also fact that Lambadas were declared as Scheduled Tribes in 1976 under Article 342 of the Constitution, hence, purchase of properties by Lambadas after Regulation came into force is not in contravention of Section 3 of the Regulation. Keeping in view of the above law, the orders passed by the Additional Agent to the Government was confirmed by the Government.
11.2. Learned Senior counsel also submits that the 4th respondent preferred Appeal to the Additional Agent to the Government vide CMA No. 11 of 2010 against the dismissal orders passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Bhadrachalam in LTR case No. 27/2010 KGM and after perusal of the record, the Additional Agent to the Government allowed the Appeal and the 1st respondent, after verifying the record in particular the sale deed executed in 1973 and the pahanies and other revenue records reflecting the name of Respondent No.4, passed the order on merits.
11.3. It is submitted, petitioner claimed to be President of the Housing Society and he failed to produce any document to substantiate the claim. Apart from that, petitioner filed this Writ 14 Petition not in the capacity of the President of the Housing Society, as such, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. 11.4. According to him, wife of original petitioner got impleaded herself without any authority and after her death, petitioners 3 and 4, who got impleaded, have no locus since they themselves got impleaded on the ground that the deceased wife of original petitioner has given a will. In view of the above, learned Senior Counsel submits that Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
***
12. During the pendency of Writ Petition, on 10.01.2024, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that in spite of the interim stay dated 27.02.2013, the unofficial respondent went on selling the plots and buyers of the said plots had been raising construction without valid permission from the local bodies, hence, sought a direction to the District Collector to verify the records and submit a detailed report. The District Collector, therefore, appeared before this Court and to canvass the cause in public domain, to avoid further sale transaction, including bringing awareness in respect of illegal acts said to have been committed by the unofficial respondent, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits, directed 15 the District Collector to inspect the subject premises and take photographs including google maps and prepare a detailed report as to how many buildings are constructed without permission, how many transactions took place in contravention of the Agency Rules, how many buildings are under construction, how may illegal transactions have been made by the unofficial respondent in favour of purchasers, how many vacate lands are available in those survey numbers and who are responsible for the illegal acts committed by the unofficial respondent and submit the same in a sealed cover. The District Collector was also impleaded as Respondent No.5 to this Writ Petition, suo motu.
13. On 05.07.2024, since the District Collector filed a detailed report narrating the fraud played by the 4th Respondent and the illegal transfers and constructions that have come up during the pendency of this Writ Petition over the subject land, learned Special Government Pleader represented that unless petitioners implead the purchasers, this Court cannot decide the matter at this stage.
14. Learned Special Government, on 15.07.2024 submitted that he received information regarding issuance of notices to the persons who constructed houses. Therefore, he 16 was directed to inform the District Collector to file a comprehensive action taken report against those who violated law by resorting to illegal sales / construction in the subject land. In this backdrop, petitioners have taken out I.A.No. 7 of 2024 to implead Respondents 6 to 131 to the Writ Petition and the said Application was ordered on 30.07.2024 and accordingly, notices were issued to the impleaded respondents. Sofar as the impleaded respondents are concerned, except filing vakalat, none appears for them and no counter has been filed. Challenging the order dated 15.07.2024, the 4th respondent filed Writ Appeal No. 1057 of 2024 contending that the said order is not based on any Interlocutory Application and the relief so granted is beyond the scope of the relief prayed for in the Writ Petition. Before the Division Bench, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 submitted that main Writ Petition was abated on 06.09.2017, thereafter, without putting his client on notice, the Writ Petition was restored and impugned order was passed. In that backdrop, since the impugned order is interlocutory in nature and the main grievance of Respondent No.4 is that impugned order was passed without there being any Application and beyond the relief claimed and that he was not heard, the Writ Appeal was 17 disposed of by order dated 15.04.2025, reserving liberty to Respondent No.4 to file an Application for re-calling the impugned order and with a further prayer to rehear him for recalling/modifying the impugned order.
15. The 4th respondent therefore, had taken out I.A. No. 1 of 2025 to recall the order dated 15.07.2024. The prime contention of Respondent No.4 is that subsequent to death of original Writ Petitioner, as no timely steps were taken to bring his legal representatives on record, Writ Petition stood abated on 06.09.2017 granting liberty to the legal representatives to come on record and seek restoration. Subsequently, IA Nos.1, 5 and 6 of 2018 were filed by the 2nd petitioner for condonation of delay, substitution and restoration of Writ Petition. These Applications were allowed ex parte without notice to his (respondent N.4) counsel on record and indeed, the cause list reflected another advocate's name instead of his counsel Sri Sanjeev Gillella. Due to this serious procedural lapse, Respondent No.4 is stated to have taken objection to the order dated 06.06.2022 which restored Writ Petition to file and accordingly, filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 challenging the ex parte restoration.
1816 It is also the case of Respondent No.4 that in the interregnum, since there was no interim order, by virtue of the impugned G.O. and the order in CMA, his title was perfected and he sold parts of the subject property, legally, to other persons. Therefore, upon restoration, the said sales should not become illegal and at best, they should be subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition, contends Respondent No.4. Meantime, the 2nd petitioner also died and petitioners 3 and 4 filed an Application to come on record as her legal representatives on the basis of an unregistered Will Deed. The said Application was erroneously allowed upon the pleadings made by them; whereas, the Will Deed on which they rely, does not bequeath any property or rights to them. Therefore, the Applications for recalling/reviewing the said order of this Court is also pending adjudication.
17. Another objection taken by Respondent No.4 is that he was not issued prior notice of either the scope of inspection by the District Collector nor furnished report enabling him to file objections. According to him, the District Collector, in his report, stated that certain sadabainamas and subsequent constructions exist on the subject land, but, there is no conclusive finding that such transactions are per se illegal 19 under Agency laws and in any event, all such alleged purchasers are also Scheduled Tribe persons. Notwithstanding this, on 15.07.2024, this Court directed that action be taken against the alleged illegal sales / constructions and called for further action taken report, without hearing him and without there being any Interlocutory Application seeking such drastic directions. The said order not only goes beyond the scope of the relief sought by writ petitioner but also infringes the well-settled principle of audi alteram partem. Furthermore, the directions adversely affect the third parties belonging to Scheduled Tribe community who are not even arrayed in these proceedings. The order dated 15.07.2024 assumes that subject land was illegally transferred and that houses were illegally-constructed which overlooks the fact that Respondent No.4 belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and the purported-purchasers or allottees are also members of Scheduled Tribe. The regulatory scheme under the Agency Laws is aimed at preventing alienation of tribal lands to non-tribals. When the transactions involve tribal-to-tribal transfers, presumption of illegality lacks factual and legal basis. Thus, treating these transfers as ipso facto illegal is unsustainable, especially when the 4th respondent and other similarly-placed persons were not given chance to produce their 20 sale deeds or relevant evidence of compliance with the Agency Regulations.
18. To the said Application, petitioners 3 and 4 filed counter stating that counsel for the 4th respondent was very much present in the Court Hall at the time of passing orders in the above I.As. and this Court directed his counsel to take out personal notice. His advocate Mr. Sanjay Gillela was very much present in the court Hall as per cause list in Item No.67. Proof of service was also filed and the said case came up for hearing as Item No. 72 on 06.06.2022 on which date also, he was present in the court hall, and in support of the same, the copy of the cause list was filed which clearly reflects the name of counsel Sanjeev Gillella. The 4th respondent taking undue advantage of the mistake occurred in the order wherein the names of the previous advocates were printed including their counsel and with a mala fide intention did not get his name entered by deleting the name of his previous counsel and under the garb of the said mistake, is claiming that order was passed behind his back. The 4th respondent approached this Court based on a fake and fabricated document and even his counsel is playing fraud by misleading this Court. It is also stated, the 4th respondent has not stated the facts accurately and correctly before this 21 Court and a person, who is not bold enough to give all the facts accurately and correctly, is deemed to have approached this Court with unclean hands. Therefore, on this ground alone, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is liable to be dismissed.
19. Petitioners 2 and 3 also stated, during her life time, petitioner No.2 executed a Will in their favour, therefore, they filed implead Application stating that property devolved upon them by virtue of the Will and the said Application was allowed. In the interregnum, when the LR Application was under
consideration, writ bundle could not be traced for four years, then the 4th respondent entered into possession of the afore-
mentioned lands by producing the abetment order and the revenue authorities basing upon the said order, incorporated his name in the Revenue Records; based on which, the 4th respondent made portions of the land and also constructed house and sold them to third parties. At that point of time, these petitioners have made representations to Revenue Authorities stating that matter is pending before this Court, as such, no permission or sanction should be given to the 4th respondent either for alienation or plotting the property or for raising any structures. Further, a paper notification was also issued in local news papers cautioning the general public not to 22 enter into any transactions with him. In- spite of the same, the 4th respondent used all his influences and was hand-in-glove with Revenue officials and made gullible purchasers to purchase portions of the property and amassed large sums, without any lawful right over the property. After the writ bundle was traced, they filed reply to the counter-affidavit and also an additional affidavit bringing to the notice of this Court all the events narrated above, including the factum of fabrication of sada sale deed, Revenue Records, sale of portions of lands, construction of houses, etcetera. In the report, dated 19-02-2024, the District Collector stated that there are 96 structures existing, out of which 88 are without permission whatsoever and for 54 structures, there were no house numbers allotted and that totally 130 people have purchased portions of the said lands unregistered sada sale deeds, which are not valid documents.
20. According to petitioners 3 and 4, in 1974, the 4th respondent stated that he was in enjoyers' column, but in the list of Adangal for the year 1974 given by the District Collector, his name was not there. Hence, his statement was proved wrong. Since this Court directed to submit action taken report by order dated 15.07.2024, the District Collector proceeded with demolition of illegal construction and at that 23 juncture, the 4th respondent, alleging that without any notice, constructions were demolished, he along with other encroachers filed Writ Petition No. 24198 of 2024 wherein interim stay was granted, however, pending orders, the 4th respondent and other purchasers are continuing construction in the subject property.
21. This Court had taken into consideration the submission, in detail, and by order dated 07.07.2025, observed that in exercise of the powers vested with it under Article 226 of the constitution of India, in the interest of the public at large, a direction was issued to the Special Government Pleader, on 15.07.2024, to inform the District Collector to file a comprehensive action taken against those who violated law by resorting to illegal sales / construction in the subject land. It was also noted that normally, while drafting affidavit, petitioner(s), in the ultimate paragraph, prays to pass such order or orders that may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; in view of the same, the action of this Court, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be traversing beyond the scope of the Writ Petition. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to recall the order dated 15.07.2024 and accordingly dismissed I.A.No. 1 of 2025.
*** 24
22. In this factual backdrop, in the first and foremost, this Court desires to deal with the allegations made by the 4th respondent that I.A.Nos. 1, 5 and 6 of 2018 which were taken out to condone the delay in preferring the Petition under Order 22 Rule 9 to set aside the abetment of Writ Petition; to set aside the dismissal order and to condone the delay in preferring the Petition under Order 22 Rule 1 CPC to add original petitioner's wife to the proceedings, were ordered without notice. In this context, this Court refers to the cause list dated 06.06.2022, on which date the above mentioned Applications were ordered; it reflected the name of Sri Sanjeev Gillella. For clarity, the cause list dated 06.06.2022 is extracted hereunder: COURT No. 32
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY To be Heard on Monday the 6th day of June 2022 (After Motion List) INTERLOCUTORY (OTHER DEPARTMENTS)
72. WP 5716/2013 C.B. Ram Mohan Reddy GP for Social Welfare Khammam IA 2/2017 (WPMP Sanjeev Gillela 186597/2017) M/s Babuji Tenneti IA 1/2018 IA 2/2018 IA 3/2018 IA 4/2018 IA 5/2018 IA 6/2018 IA 1/2022
23. As could be seen from the above extracted cause list, the name of Mr. Sanjeev Gillella was printed in item No. 72 as respondent counsel, and there is no mention of respondent's 25 previous counsel Mr. P.V. Ramana, as alleged by him. Besides this, when the matter came up on 26.04.2022, the name of Mr. Sanjeev Gillela was printed in the cause list in item No. 67 as counsel for Respondent and only in the order dated 06-06-2022, passed in I.A. No. 1, 5 & 6 of 2018, name of the respondent counsel is mistakenly recorded by this court as Mr. P.V. Ramana instead of Mr. Sanjeev Gillela; The order dated 06-06-2022 was passed hearing both the parties and Mr. Sanjeev Gillella, counsel for the 4th respondent, as could be seen from the cause list filed, and he has notice of the proceedings and was very much present in the court.
24. Further, a perusal of the order dated 06.06.2022 shows that learned counsel for petitioners filed memo of proof of service along with the returned envelope which depicts that the 4th respondent 'refused to receive the notice'. Therefore, treating him to have been served, he was set ex parte. Thereafter also, as could be seen from the proceeding sheet dated 15.07.2024, in the very first paragraph, it was noted that 'heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Government Pleader for official respondents.' These facts were, admittedly, not brought to the notice of the Division 26 Bench in the Writ Appeal wherein learned Senior Counsel for appellant (respondent No.4) simply made submission that without putting learned counsel in the Writ Petition on notice, the Writ Petition was restored. In the light of the above, the contention of petitioner that he was not heard and his counsel was not put on notice cannot be countenanced.
25. Secondly, the complaint of the 4th respondent is the order dated 15.07.2024 is not based on any interlocutory Application and the relief so granted is beyond the scope of the relief prayed for. In this context, it is to be seen, against the order dated 04.03.2010 of the Special Deputy Collector that the Tribunal is not vested with any power to conduct a fresh enquiry and pass any order in respect of the same lands, the 4th respondent preferred C.M.A. No. 11 of 2010 before the Additional Agent to Government, Bhadrachalam who, according to writ petitioner, erroneously allowed the Appeal by Order dated 19.11.2011. In the C.M.A., for the first time, the 4th respondent filed a copy of Sada Sale Deed dated 29.03.1973 executed in his favour, which is a fabricated document as the stamp paper on which the sale deed was engrossed is subsequent to 1977. 'Satyameva Jayathe' with Ashoka Chakra symbol was being printed from 1977 onwards only on all the 27 Stamp Papers printed by the India Security Press, Nasik, as is evident from a reading of the Order passed by the High Court of Gujarat. Further, the Pass Book filed in the said C.M.A is not at all a readable document, but however, the appellate authority relied upon the same. The third set of documents filed is the Adangal Pahanis, which were also found to be a fabricated document, in view of the fact that there was no such record maintained by the revenue authorities.
26. In view of the serious allegations raised as to creation of false and fabricated documents including forgery of signatures of the officials and also creation of stamp papers by putting ante-date resulting in succeeding before the 2nd respondent and for the reasons stated in the order dated 10.01.2024, and at request of learned counsel for petitioners, this Court impleaded the District Collector suo motu as the 5th respondent. The District Collector submitted a detailed report on 05.07.2024 admitting the factum of illegal sales /constructions without permission from the local body. The said report was sent to respondents/petitioner and some other purchasers who purchased the property and they also entered their appearance through respective advocates. At that juncture, learned Special Government Pleader also informed the 28 Court that notices were issued to the persons who constructed houses, by the local authorities and he sought further time to file a report to that extent including the cases that are registered under the land transfer regulations.
27. Here, it is also to be seen, while issuing rule nisi, this Court by order dated 27.02.2013, prima facie, found that the plea put forward by the 4th respondent before the Special Deputy Collector was totally different from the one which he has urged before the appellate authority; the matter needs to be examined in detail, hence, there shall be interim stay as prayed for. In those circumstances, at the cost of repetition, it is to be observed that this Court duly exercising the powers vested with it under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the interest of the public at large, directed the Special Government Pleader to inform the District Collector to file a comprehensive action taken against those persons who violated the law by resorting to illegal sales / constructions in the subject matter.
28. The report further discloses that the name of the 4th respondent has been recorded as pattadar in Dharani entries based on Sada Sale deed and further, contended that all transactions have been made in the subject lands through unregistered sale deeds. Hence, the entire transactions cannot 29 be ascertained due to multiple purchasers. The report further discloses construction of illegal structures in the subject land and the officers who are to be held responsible. The report of the District Collector dated 19.02.2024, brought to the notice of this Court has startling facts of fraud, illegal sales, constructions without permissions. It is noted in the report that the 4th Respondent effected sales of the portions of the subject lands through unregistered sale deeds and the number of sales could not be verified even by the Collector since the sales are effected through unregistered sale deeds; however, number of illegal constructions could be noted by the Collector in the report. The 4th Respondent, in total disobedience of orders of this Court, sold portions of subject land, in the interregnum, to the gullible public, which is besides being contempt of this Court is unfair enrichment.
29. Learned counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that the 4th Respondent surprisingly produced a sale deed before the appellate tribunals which was not placed before the primary tribunal for consideration, which document, on the face of it, is a rank forgery as the India's national motto "Satyemeva Jayathe", a slogan and caption appearing on the document was not in vogue in 1973 and came to be incorporated on the stamp 30 papers with effect from 25-02-1977. This aspect was dealt with by the Gujarat High Court in a Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 6929 of 2016 (Malabhai Virabhai Chavda v State of Gujarat) by order dated 20-09-2016. It reads as under:
" 3. Moreover, in the communication of India Security Press, (i) it specifies that Non-judicial Stamp paper with the Slogan 'Satyamev Jayate is printed and implemented below the symbol of Ashok Chakra from 25.02.1977 and the wordings 'Gujarat' is written in Hindi language on right side, over the designs from 16.08.1967. He has also urged that, these papers could not have been of the year 1964 for various reasons and therefore this would require reinvestigation."
30. As such, the stamp paper dated 27-03-1973 on which sale deed was executed on 29-05-1979, could not have had slogan/caption of "Satyamev Jayate", which came to be printed on the stamp papers with effect from 25-02-1977. This itself shows that the sale deed relied on by the 4th Respondent to establish the ownership over the subject land is a forged document and the same is used before the lower tribunals to obtain the orders challenged under the present Writ Petition. In the words of LORD Denning "No Court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything."
31
31. That apart, the 4th respondent also strongly relied on the entry of his father's name in Pahani Patrikas of 1973 to 1976. The reply issued by Tahsildar Kothagudem, dated 25.03.2021 to the Application of petitioner for copies of the Pahanies of 1973 to 1976 recording his father's name, filed by the 4th Respondent, would show that there are no such copies available in the Tahsildar office, and this fact would force this Court to take adverse inference that even these entries showing the 4th respondent's father in possession of the subject land as early as during 1973-1976, is forged and these documents are fraudulently used before the lower tribunals. This is further evidenced by the report of the District Collector that there are no entries of the enjoyers for the years 1973 to 1976 in the Pahany Patrikas. The passbook filed by the 4th respondent in support of his contention, cannot also be looked into as it does not reflect the very name of the 4th respondent or his father and the entire passbook is blank. It is not understood how the lower tribunals have relied on these documents which are per se forged documents resulting into the orders challenged in this Writ Petition.
32. As fraud vitiates everything, the entries recorded in favor of the 4th Respondent and the orders passed by the 32 Additional Agent to the Government and the Government in Revision also cannot stand to the scrutiny of this Court, and shall have to be set aside. As noted above, the 4th respondent had taken inconsistent pleas before the lower tribunals and by playing fraud on authorities and using the forged documents as genuine, obtained the orders which are unsustainable.
33. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath 2 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
" The principle of 'finality of litigation' cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. A person who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment / decree by the first court or by the highest court has to be treated as nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.
A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. A litigant, who approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party."2
(1994) 1 SCC 1 33
34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the issue of fraud in A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P. 3 extracted supra.
35. In this context, it is to be seen as to what amounts to 'fraud'? It is a settled and non-negotiable principle of law that fraud,
- Misrepresentation, suppression of material facts or deliberate deception.
- Suppression of a vital document amounts to playing fraud on the court.
- Fraud is an act of deliberate deception intended to secure an unfair advantage.
- Fraud on a statutory or public authority stands on the same footing as fraud on the court.
- Suppression of material facts before a public authority vitiates the entire process and disentitles the petitioner from any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, and that a writ court cannot be converted into a forum to legitimise fraud or misrepresentation.
- Whether practised upon a court or upon a statutory or public authority, vitiates the entire proceeding and strikes at the very foundation of the administration of justice.
36. Further, as held by catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court -"Fraud", as is well known, vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct, either by letter words or, which includes the other person or authority to take a definite 3 (2007) 4 SCC 221 34 determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former, either by words or letter. It is also well-settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad.
37. The Hon'ble Apex Court on misrepresentation in Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi 4 held as under:
" 15. Commission of fraud on court and suppression of material facts are the core issues involved in these matters. Fraud as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together.
16. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by word or letter.
17. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud.
18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad.4
2003 (8) SCC 319 35
33. Once it is held that a judgment and decree has been obtained by practising fraud on the court, it is trite that the principles of res judicata shall not apply. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion committed a serious error in referring to the earlier orders passed by it so as to shut the doors of justice on the face of the appellant for all times to come. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgment dated 10-12-1998 cannot be sustained."
38. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the order dated 15.07.2024 is passed beyond the scope of the Writ Petition and the contention of learned counsel for Respondent No.4 is rejected ***
39. Coming to the merits of the matter, from a perusal of the material and the arguments of learned counsel on either side, it is evident that original writ petitioner, during his lifetime, had purchased Acs.14.09 guntas in Survey Nos. 148/3 to 148/9 in 1959, much prior to coming into force of Regulation 1 of 1970, and was in continuous possession, paying land revenue. The vendor of petitioner himself invoked Regulation 1 of 1970 in LTR Case Nos.525, 527, 529, 530, 531 and 532 of 1994/KGM, which were dismissed by order dated 29.09.1998, holding that Regulation 1 of 1970 had no application. The said order attained finality. In 2010, Respondent No.4 again initiated 36 proceedings in LTR Case No.27 of 2010/KGM, which was dismissed on 04.03.2010 for lack of jurisdiction.
40. However, the Appellate Authority allowed C.M.A.No.11 of 2010 by order dated 19.11.2011, relying upon fabricated documents, including the so-called Sada Sale Deed dated 29.03.1973. In view of the discussion supra, this Court is of the opinion that Revision before the Government was also dismissed by G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 15.02.2013, without proper consideration.
41. During pendency of the Writ Petition, Respondent No.4 illegally obtained mutations, made alienations under unregistered documents and facilitated unauthorized constructions. The District Collector's report dated 19.02.2024 also revealed a large-scale illegal constructions and alienations involving 130 purchasers, as stated supra. The report further shows that all alienations are made based on unregistered sadabainamas and constructions are undertaken without obtaining any permission. It is further reported that the officers concerned are responsible for these alienations / constructions and the District Collector named those officers in the report. Also, in his usual fairness, Sri M.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the 4th respondent, on instructions from the 37 Advocate on record, admitted that the 4th respondent committed mischief so far as creation of documents is concerned. This Court places on record appreciation for the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel.
42. In view of the foregoing discussion, in conclusion, this Court finds that Regulation 1 of 1970 has no retrospective application to a transaction of the year 1959 and that the issue stood concluded by the final order dated 29.09.1998. The appellate and revisional orders suffer from jurisdictional error and perversity. Consequently, all alienations made based on unregistered sadabainamas and constructions made without securing any permission are held to be illegal and void and Writ Petition therefore, deserves to be allowed, in the considered opinion of this Court.
43. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 15.02.2013 and the order dated 19.11.2011 in C.M.A.No.11 of 2010. Consequently, mutations / alienations are declared illegal. So far as the illegal constructions are concerned, it is open for respondent authorities to take action in accordance with law. The District Collector is directed to take appropriate action for correction of revenue records. Petitioners are also at liberty to 38 proceed against unofficial respondent No.4 in accordance with both civil and criminal law, if they so desire.
44. So far as the impleaded respondents are concerned, though a paper publication was issued by petitioners not to make purchase with regard to the subject property, the impleaded respondents purchased the same without permission. Hence, they cannot claim to be bona fide purchasers for value and consideration. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Subhash Chand v. The Financial Commissioner Revenue (judgment dated 24.12.2008 in L.P.A.No. 184 of 2004), after considering the judgments relied on by appellants therein in Damodar Dass v. Joginder Singh (LPA No. 181 of 1972), Division Bench Judgments reported in The State of Haryana v. Smt. Savitri Devi (1986 PLJ 656), Shangara Singh v. Financial Commissioner (1993 PLJ 712), Single Bench judgments reported in Kali Ram v. Union of India (1976 Revenue Law Reporter 438), Rattan Singh v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana (1978 Revenue Law Reporter 242), Achhar Singh v. The State of Punjab (1979 Revenue Law Reporter 360), the judgments relied on by respondents in Jote Singh (died) by L.Rs. v. Ram Das Mahto (AIR 1966 SC 2773), 39 Ramrao Jankiram Kadam v. State of Bombay (AIR 1963 SC
827), Kashmir Singh v. Panchayhat Samiti, Ferozpur (2004) 6 SCC 207), Shankar v. Daooji Misir (AIR 1931 Privy Council
118), Kanhiya Lal Minor through his mother Mt. Raj Raji v. Deep Chand (AIR 1947 Lahore 199 (Division Bench), Shamsher Chand v.Bakhshi Mehr Chand (AIR 1947 Lahore 147 (Full Bench)), Gurcharan Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board (AIR 1989 Punjab 127), Gurcharan Singh v. Roori Alias Jito (1984 PLR 68), Jagar v. Mst. Chhoto (1963 Current Law Journal 425), Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (dead) by LRs. (2007) 2 SCC 404; Full Bench judgment in Balwant Kaur v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Punjab (1963 Punjab Law Reporter 1141), judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pala Singh (deceased) by LRs. V. Union of India (1987 (Supp) SCC 2012), Nitin Gupta v. State of Meghalaya (2005) 13 SCC
686), S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRS v. Jagannath (dead) by LRs. (AIR 1994 SC 853), Commissioner of Customs, Kandla v. Essar Oil Ltd. (2004) 11 SCC 364), Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley {(1956) 1 All ER 341}, Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat (2008 (3) PLR 458 (SC), held that after allotment in favour of vendors of appellants is cancelled, they cannot claim to be bona fide purchasers for 40 value and consideration. The only remedy available for them, assuming the appellants to be purchasers for consideration, is to sue their vendors for recovery of sale consideration.
45. In view of the above judgment, since the document created / fabricated by Respondent No.4 is held to be by playing fraud, as stated supra, the impleaded respondents are at liberty to proceed against him in accordance with both civil and criminal law. No costs.
46. Miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed, with no order as to costs.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 22nd April 2026 ksld