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
5of 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.
10
10.1. 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.
12
10.4. 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.
18
16 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
22enter 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
