Telangana High Court
Mohammad Yahiya Qureshi vs The State Of Telangana on 14 December, 2023
* THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
+ Writ Petition No.7859 of 2023
% 14.12.2023
# Between:
Mohammad Yahiya Qureshi Petitioner
Vs.
State of Telangana, Rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration &
Urban Development Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad & others.
Respondents
! Counsel for petitioners : Mr. Vedula Venkatramana
^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr.B.S.Prsad,
Learned Advocate General
Government Pleader for MA & UD
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1 AIR 2021 SC 5423
2 (1995) 1 SCC 421
3 1995 Supp (2) 5 SCC 130
4 (2004) 1 SCC 769
5 2001 (3) ALT 243
6 (2004) 1 SCC 287
2
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Writ Petition No.7859 of 2023
ORDER:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri JusticeN.V.Shravan Kumar) In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a declaration that the action of respondents in interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the land measuring Acs.7.31 guntas, Acs.10.07 guntas and Acs.12.34 guntas of survey NoS.725/21, 725/33 and 725/24 of Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject land') is without any authority of law and the same is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner has sought a direction that the respondents be directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra.
2. As per the averments of the petition, the petitioner claims to be son of late Mohammed Farooq Qureshi, who succeeded to the subject land. It is pleaded in the petition 3 that father of the petitioner, namely late Mohammed Farooq Qureshi was issued a sale certificate on 27.01.1968 in Application No.104 of 1060 in Application No.335 of 1962 in C.S.No.7 of 1955. It is averred that father of the petitioner was the owner and in possession of the subject land on the strength of the sale certificate dated 27.01.1968.
3. The vast extent of land measuring Ac.216 - 02 gts was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of establishment of truck terminal-cum-wholesale market. Thereupon, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act', for brevity) was issued on 05.01.1987 and an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was conducted. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 19.01.1988. It is the case of the petitioner that neither any notice was issued to his father or others and an award was passed on 12.01.1990 by the Land Acquisition Officer.
4. It has further been pleaded that on the death of his father, the petitioner succeeded to the subject land and his 4 name has been mutated in the revenue records. It has also been pleaded that till the date of filing of the petition, respondents have not issued any notice either to the petitioner or to his father as directed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.12.1998 passed in W.P.No.35966 of 1997. A typed copy of the aforesaid order has been annexed with the writ petition as Ex.P.2.
5. It has also been pleaded that when the respondents tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property in the month of March, 2021, the petitioner filed a writ petition, namely W.P.No.5418 of 2021 which was disposed of by an order dated 04.03.2022 with liberty to the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) that in case it finds violation on the part of the petitioner with regard to subject land, the respondents shall be at liberty to initiate action against the petitioner by following procedure of law.
6. Despite the aforesaid order dated 04.03.2021, the respondents interfered with the possession of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has filed contempt 5 case, namely C.C.No.334 of 2023 for violation of the interim order dated 04.03.2021.
7. In the aforesaid factual background, the following relief in the writ petition has been prayed:
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring action of the respondents in interfering with petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property admeasuring Ac.7.31 gts in Sy.No.725/21, Ac.10.07 gts in Sy.No.725/23 and Ac.12.34 gts in Sy.No.725/24 situated at Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Rangareddy District, without therebeing any authority and without following due procedure of law as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and also violation of Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property admeasuring Ac.7.31 gts in Sy.No.725/21, Ac.10.07 gts in Sy.No.725/23 and Ac.12.34 gts in Sy.No.725/24 situated at Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Rangareddy District, without following due process of law and to pass such other order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.6
8. A Bench of this Court granted an interim order on 28.03.2023 directing the parties to maintain status quo. The petitioner has filed contempt case, namely C.C.No.816 of 2023 for violation of order of status quo dated 28.03.2023. HMDA has also filed contempt case, namely C.C.No.925 of 2023 alleging violation of order of status quo by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is raising constructions over the subject land.
9. In the aforesaid factual background, this writ petition as well as three contempt cases arises for consideration.
10. Mr.Vedula Venkatramana, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relief claimed in the writ petition is based on sale certificate dated 27.01.1968 issued in favour of the petitioner. It is also submitted that from sethwar and continuous pahanis from 1959 upto 1992, the name of the father of the petitioner has been recorded as pattadar and in possession of the subject land. It is further submitted that the name of the father of the petitioner has continued to be recorded in the 7 pahanis upto the year 2007 and the father of the petitioner was in possession of the subject land till his death i.e., in July, 2007. The respondents have no authority in law to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject land without taking recourse to law.
11. It is also pointed out that a notice dated 14.03.2023 was issued to the petitioner by HMDA, in which he was asked to vacate the premises. Reference to the notice, which was issued to the petitioner, has been made in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit. In paragraph 11 of the additional counter affidavit dated 12.10.2023, the HMDA has made a prayer that the possession of subject land be restored to them. Therefore, it is evident that the HMDA is not in possession of the subject land.
12. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that one of the aggrieved persons in the said Land Acquisition Award in C.S.No.7 of 1958 viz., Nawab Mohd.Vajhee Uddin Khan preferred an application in Appln.No.342 of 1992 in C.S.No.7 of 1958 with a prayer to 8 invalidate the land acquisition proceedings in respect of total land admeasuring Ac.216.02 gts which is inclusive of the present subject land and in the certified copy of the order the date of the order was wrongly typed as 04.09.1990 instead of 04.09.1992 and that the certified copy of the order along with the cause title suffered a typographical mistake but however, order along with the cause title was available in the Registry of this Court. The certified copy of the Award was issued by the Registry, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. As per the said order, the entire L.A. Award No.1 of 1990dated 12.01.1990 were quashed and liberty was given to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings and a finding has been recorded that the physical possession of the said land and the entire land under acquisition were never taken and the respondents (including HUDA) were directed not to interfere without following due process of law.
13. The Estate Officer of respondent No.2 who has filed counter on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5, would submit that the petitioner who claims to be an absolute owner and possessor of the aforesaid mentioned land 9 purchased under sale certificate dated 27.04.1968 issued pursuant to the order passed in Appln.No.335 of 1962 in C.S.No.7 of 1958. It is further submitted that they were not aware of such litigation filed by way of W.P.No.35966 of 1997 or any such order passed by the High Court and the authenticity of such claims of litigation and the order passed therein is questionable and hence requires verification of the records maintained by the Registry of this Court. It is further submitted that the information pertaining to W.P.No.35966 of 1997 as mentioned and relied on by the petitioner to justify his claim on the subject property is also not available in online repository of Case Status Information maintained by this Court in the official website. The copy application for obtaining judgment dated 28.12.1998 in W.P.No.35966 of 1997 vide C.D.No.10804/2023 dated 21.08.2003 is pending reference from the Registry of this Court.
14. It is submitted that the authenticity of the document relied on by the petitioner submits is clouded in suspicious and prays that this Court to call documents from the concerned. It is further submitted that the land in 10 Sy.No.725/21, 725/23 and 725/24 to an total extent of Ac.32 - 14 gts was acquired by Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (now Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (for short 'HMDA' hereinafter)) in the year 1990 by payment of compensation and by following the procedure as prescribed under the applicable law and that since then, the lands remained in possession and enjoyment of HMDA. It is further submitted that the genuineness, authenticity of the document furnished by the petitioner including the Court orders, sale certificate and pahanis is questionable and hence requires detailed investigation.
15. It is submitted that an extent of land admeasuring Ac.181 - 00 gts covered in Sy.No.661, 662, 721, 725 etc., of Shamshabad village and mandal was acquired by HMDA in File No.L.A./84/86 for the purpose of Truck Terminal cum whole sale market by duly following procedure under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and after passing the award, the possession of land was taken over by HMDA on 23.04.1990 and since then HMDA is in continuous possession of the same. In the Land 11 Acquisition Award passed on 12.01.1990, it is stated that to the claimants of the land in Sy.No.725/21, 725/23 and 725/24, compensation was paid to them for the acquisition of land. Thereafter, for enhancement of the compensation, the matter was referred to the Principal District Judge, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad and the said Court has enhanced the compensation. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer had preferred an appeal against the enhanced compensation and the appeal was allowed by reducing the compensation. Aggrieved over the same, a Special Leave Petition was preferred before the Apex Court and the same was dismissed on 17.01.2011.
16. It is submitted that the validity of the acquisition proceedings was upheld by the Apex Court and at this juncture, petitioner cannot claim right over the said lands. It is further submitted that from the maps of the subject lands downloaded from Google Earth ranging from 2021 - 2023, it is evident that till March, 2023 there were no structures at all on the subject lands and from then, till the date of filing of the additional counter, there have been significant development on the subject lands in gross 12 violation of the exparte interim order dated 20.03.2023 passed in the present writ petition and that the petitioner is in continuous violation of the orders passed by this Court and had carried out significant construction activities in the subject lands and that the petitioner is an illegal encroacher of subject lands which are duly acquired by HMDA.
17. As regards entries in the Revenue Records, it is submitted that at no instance the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records as the said lands belong to HMDA. It is further submitted that the authenticity of the Pahanis enclosed by the petitioner in Writ Petition is questionable and it is significantly different from the official copy available in the revenue records and neither the name of the petitioner nor the individual from whom petitioner is claiming to have allegedly received the property through succession was not found in the revenue records and subsequent to the acquisition award and conducting of panchanama, the revenue records reflect HMDA as owner and possessor of the subject land and the same is also reflecting in the Dharani Portal in the category 13 of "Prohibited Property List" in the name of "other department lands".
18. As regards PTIN numbers as referred by the petitioner on the subject property, it is submitted that there are no online records available for the aforementioned PTIN numbers. It is further submitted that the claims made by the petitioner are questionable and that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and misleading the high Court by placing on record certain questionable data and facts and documents which have to be independently investigated. It is further submitted that on several occasions, the petitioners have attacked officials on duty for which FIRs have been lodged at the local Police Station.
19. The respondents in order to protect the property owned by the HMDA has conducted a survey for fencing the said property for avoiding illegal encroachments and as such only taken steps to protect the acquired lands. The petitioner is only making wild, baseless accusations and has not submitted any legally valid documentary evidence 14 in support of their case and thereby causing loss to the State exchequer inturn to the public and that the respondents have not interfered with any land belonging to the petitioner. On the other hand, petitioner is himself claiming his alleged title and on the basis of such documents whose authenticity is highly questionable and as such requires independent investigation and the petitioner in the garb of filing writ petitions and contempt cases, are making attempt to gradually establish his title over the property which was duly acquired by HMDA in the year 1990 itself and as such prays this Court to dismiss the writ petition.
20. The petitioner has filed reply to the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.2 to 5 and submitted that in the writ petition No.35966 of 1997, the respondents were very much party to the said writ petition and appeared before the Court and in their presence only said orders are passed and as such it is not correct to state that respondents are not aware of filing W.P.No.35966 of 1997. It is further submitted that it is not correct that HMDA has acquired the subject lands from the petitioners and since 15 they were original pattadars the payment of compensation to them does not arise and the subject land was purchased by the father of the petitioner under the sale certificate issued by this Court on payment of amount and by virtue of the same, he became absolute owner and possessor and possessor of the subject land and being claimed as the original pattadar.
21. Therefore, the acquisition of the land by HMDA does not arise and the claim that HMDA acquired the said land from the second title holder is not valid in the eye of law and would further submit that the earlier acquisition proceedings were set aside by this Court in Appln.No.342 in C.S.No.7 of 1958 dated 04.09.1992 and as such in the absence of issuance of fresh notification the respondent / authorities cannot claim title, possession over the subject land. It is further submitted that the compensation was paid to some third parties in respect of subject lands and as such will not take away rights / title / ownership which remained with the petitioner's father by virtue of sale certificate and the respondent authorities without any manner of right over the said land are interfering with the 16 petitioner possession in one way or other even after suffering the order in Appln.No.342 of 1992 in C.S.No.7 of 1958 and W.P.No.35966 of 1997 and has reiterated the submissions made in the writ petition.
22. The father of the writ petitioner who passed away in July, 2007, as per the knowledge and information available to the petitioner, had filed W.P.No.35966 of 1997 before this Court and a true copy of the order in the said writ petition was filed. Similarly, a copy of the order dated 04.09.1992 in Appln.No.342 of 1992 in C.S.No.7 of 1958 is also filed in the present writ petition, wherein a direction was given to the respondents therein i.e., District Collector not to interfere with the subject land till passing of the fresh orders by the respondents(the genuineness and the existence of this order is being disputed by the HMDA and other respondents).
23. This Court on 15.09.2023 has directed the Registry to submit a report as to whether the order dated 28.12.1998 in W.P.No.35966 of 1997 is in existence and was infact passed or not? And also directed both the 17 parties not to raise any further construction on the subject land and maintain statusquo. Thereafter, Registrar (Judicial - I) submitted a report in a sealed cover which was opened in the open Court and the report was perused. In the report, it was informed that W.P.Nos.35966 and 35970 of 1997 have not been registered. The said copy of the report was supplied to the learned counsels on record and the learned senior counsel for petitioners as well as learned Advocate General submits that the aforesaid matter has to be viewed seriously and thereby the interim order granted on 15.09.2023 was continued till the next date of hearing. Accordingly, sufficient time was given to file affidavits to the petitioners as well as the State in the light of the report submitted by Registrar (Judicial - I).
24. In the report, it is submitted that Registry has received a letter from the Advocate General, State of Telangana on 23.08.2023, wherein the certified copies of the orders in W.P.No.35966 and 35970 of 1997 were requested to be furnished, it was informed by the Registry that the record is not available and further stated that W.P.Nos.35966 and 35970 of 1997 dated 28.12.1998 are 18 filed as material papers in W.P.No.16516 of 2023 whereby petitioners are asserting rights over a prime piece of land against the interest of the State Government and appended copy of orders in the above writ petition and requested to verify the genuineness and also in the event the orders being found to be unauthenticated, appropriate action may be taken against whomever are responsible for the same.
25. Thereafter, official memorandums dated 29.08.2023 and 30.09.2023 were issued to all the Section Officers of various sections and after a detailed enquiry and after taking note of the submissions made by all the officers of various sections, it gives an impression that W.P.Nos.35966 and 35970 of 1997 have not been registered and further as reported no record was available with the Registry in W.P.No.35966 and 35970 of 1997.
26. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders passed in W.P.Nos.35966 of 1997 and 5418 of 2021 were referred in the present writ petition and submits that order copy in W.P.No.35966 of 1997 filed in this writ petition is a 19 genuine copy of the order and only that there is no seal as such petitioner cannot be claimed to have filed fabricated document.
27. He would further submit that it is a fact that Certified Copy of order in W.P.No.35966 of 1997 dated 28.12.1998 is not available in the records of the Court for the reason that no manual registers are being maintained after the introduction of computer software regarding the filing record and order copy record and that the register containing the final order in the writ petition is not traceable and the despatch register is also not available since section was shifted from one place to other.
28. He would further submit that the case of the petitioner is not solely based upon the order dated 28.12.1998 in W.P.No.35966 of 1997 and that a true copy of the order was filed along with the writ petition material papers and the same was found in court records maintained by his father at his residence. 20
29. Thereafter, the petitioner has also filed an affidavit in compliance to the order dated 29.09.2023 regarding the report filed by the Registry and would submit that the order dated 28.12.1998 in W.P.Nos.35966 and 35970 of 1997 came into his possession after the death of his father, who had filed the said writ petitions. He would further submit that petitioner produced the said order dated 28.12.1998 with a bonafide belief that the said document is authenticated and genuine and also would state that he has not indulged in any fraud, manipulation, concoction, or fabrication of any Court documents and denied the said allegations.
30. Learned senior counsel would submit that it is not stated anywhere in the report that the order dated 28.12.1998 in W.P.No.35966 of 1997 has been forged and fabricated as alleged by the respondents and that the petitioner has relied on the said order and other documents pertaining to schedule of property to establish his right, title and interest over the schedule property and that the Certified Copy of said document were being issued by the Registry even as on date. The conclusion arrived by 21 the Registry that an "impression" is given that the said writ petition was not registered was not correct and the documents have only come to his possession of the petitioner after the death of his father and the petitioner is under the bonafide belief that the said document is genuine and authenticate.
31. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 in the additional affidavit submitted that when the report was awaited from the Registry in the reply affidavit filed on 27.09.2023 copies of electricity bills, photographs of the subject land, permission letter, property tax receipts and No Objection Certificate issued by Gram Panchayat and the house site plan were filed in the reply affidavit even the said documents were covered in a shroud of doubt as the authenticity of the documents is very much questioned and thereby the petitioners have indulged in illegal action of filing forged and fabricated documents in order to establish their claim over the lands. The Estate Officer of respondent / HMDA has filed a detailed description of false / forged record filed by the petitioners and the same are discussed as under:
22
31.1. In the sale certificate dated 27.01.1968 in Application No.4 of 1960 in Application No.335 of 1962, it is submitted that said document was issued by High Court and states that the said purchaser viz.,Mohd.Shaik Khader Ali has filed an application on 21.02.1967 with a request to issue sale certificate in the said property in the name of his son and thereafter he deposited said balance amount of Rs.4,250/-along with delay fine on 19.03.1968. The petitioner has placed reliance on the sale certificate to claim absolute ownership and possession of the said land which was allegedly purchased by his father and allegedly issued pursuant to the orders of this Court. In the Remarks column, it is submitted that the certificate was issued in Appln.No.104 of 1960 which was filed two years prior to the institution of the case in which this application was filed i.e., Appln.No.335 of 1962 and that the payment of Rs.6,650/- towards sale was made almost two months post the issuance of the order which was recorded in the order. The alleged payment made on 19.03.1968 was recorded in the order dated 27.01.1968 itself. Further the order dated 27.01.1968 mentions the issuance of sale 23 certificate which was dated 27.04.1968 and also plan attached thereto itself also covered in a shroud of doubt and it is pertinent to note that both on 27.01.1968 and 27.04.1968 were falling on Saturday.
31.2. While referring to the order dated 28.12.1998 in W.P.No.35966 of 1997, it is submitted that order relied upon by the petitioner to assert that this Court had allegedly set aside Award No.1 of 1990 in File No.I.A.No.84/86 dated 12.01.1990 and allegedly remanded back to the respondents thereinfor fresh enquiry after issuance of fresh notice and after issuance of such notice, the petitioner was granted liberty to file objections and accordingly respondents were directed to pass fresh orders in accordance with law and also directed the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession till passing of fresh orders by the respondents.
31.3. In the Remarks column, the report of the Registrar (Judicial - I) was extracted stating that the orders passed in the above writ petition was not registered at all and no record of the same has been found.24
31.4. While referring to the property tax assessment notices which were relied upon by the petitioner to prove his right title and interest on the subject land, it is submitted in the Remarks column that information pertaining to these assessments are also not available on the online record on the website of the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration and the respondent authority attempted to ascertain information, the message received was "This assessment number has been deactivated" and while information for other PTINs are available and it is further submitted that when respondents enquired the Municipal Commissioner about whether any house numbers has been allotted on the said land and whether any permission for construction of compound wall or house sanctioned by the said office,the Municipal Commissioner confirmed that the authority has not issued any construction permission in Sy.No.725 of Shamshabad and there is no valid permission. A copy of the letter received from the Municipal Commissioner dated 18.08.2023 was also filed.25
31.5. The Pahanis for the year 1995 - 1996 with respect to subject land and the respondents submits in the Remarks column that District Administration of Ranga Reddy District had scanned the entire revenue records and availed a copy of the Pahani for the year 1995 - 96 for the subject lands which copy clearly reflects the name of the "Truck Terminal HUDA" as "pattadar name" in the Column No.12 and 13 wherein the information about "occupant name" name for Sy.No.725/23 is mentioned, the name of HUDA has been entered and there are several versions of pahanis which are available and one filed by the petitioner and significantly different from the original scanned copy and in the fabricated / tampered pahanis furnished by the petitioners mentioned "as per directions of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Appln.No.242/92 dated 04.09.1992"
the name of "Truck Terminal HUDA" in column Nos.12 and 13 were rounded off and the name of Mohammed Farooq Qureshi was entered and submits that petitioners has clearly forged and fabricated in as much as order dated 04.04.1990 wherein Application was numbered as Appln.No.342 of 1992 which means order was passed two 26 (2) years prior to the filing of application itself and there was no judge on the roster of "M.D.Patnyayk" as is mentioned in the order copy filed by the petitioner and the copies of pahanis for the year 2014-15 are also visibly tampered and are bogus.
31.6. With respect to electricity bills filed by the petitioner, the respondents would submit that there are several issues which highlight the non-authenticity of the said electricity bill payment receipts filed by the petitioner and it is submitted that electricity connection was obtained by furnishing those forged documents.
31.7. With respect to photos filed by the petitioner for the year 2013, 2014, 2019, 2022 and 2023 allegedly justifying the petitioner possession and enjoyment of the subject land.In the Remarks column, it is stated that the photos filed by the petitioner and the dates superimposed thereon are incorrect in as much as the Google Earth images filed in their additional counter clearly depicts that there were no structures on the land till 2023. 27
31.8. With respect to No Objection Certificate dated 20.04.2023 issued by Gram Panchayat, State of Telangana issued for current supply, in the Remarks column, it is submitted that said NOC is a forged document as it points out the existence of Telangana State in the year 2007 itself whereas the State was formed in the year 2014 and the State Government confirmed vide letter dated 04.10.2023 and no details of issuance of NOC as filed and relied upon by the petitioner could be found upon verification of Gram Panchayat Shamshabad Money Value Register. As such NOC is a forged and fabricated document.
31.9. Copies of these alleged receipts have been filed by the petitioner to assert that the petitioner was paying house tax since the year 2007 for which Gram Panchayat, Telangana Statehas issued receipts in the years 2011, 2012 and 2017 respectively. In the Remarks column, it is submitted that those receipts are clearly forged and fabricated as they mention the existence of Telangana State in the year 2007 itself when the State was formed much later in the year 2014.
28
31.10. As regards the permission certificate dated 02.07.2007 issued by Gram Panchayat Office which was relied upon by the petitioner to justify that he had valid permission of construction of house. In the Remarks column, it has been stated that said certificate was issued by the Gram Panchayat Office, Ranga Reddy District and the stamp used therein mentions Hyderabad which clearly depicts that the document is forged and fabricated certificate. It is further submitted that the receipts issued in the year 2007, 2012, 2017 and the permission certificate issued in the year 2007 are all written in the same handwriting though have been issued in the course of 10 years by different authorities and further the plan showing the alleged house construction in Sy.No.725/21, 725/23 and 725/24 filed by the petitioner has a different stamp when compared to the stamp on permission certificate.
32. The respondents submits that the petitioner by relying upon aforementioned forged, false documents are trying to mislead this Court and had successfully obtained interim orders in the nature of status quo and the petitioners are trying to encroach the land on the strength 29 of statusquo orders passed by this Court playing a serious fraud on this Court.
33. The respondents had referred to observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smriti Madan Kansagra v. Perry Kansagra 1and the relevant paragraph No.17 is extracted hereunder:
"Fraud is an extrinsic, collateral act, which vitiates the most solemn proceedings of course of justice. Lord Coke says it avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical an temporal.
...In Kerr on Fraud and Mistake, it is stated that:
In applying this rule, it matters not whether the judgment impugned has been pronounced by an inferior or by the highest court of judicature in the realm, but in all cases alike it is competent for every court, whether superior or inferior, to treat as a nullity any judgment which can be clearly shown to have been obtained by manifest fraud.
...In Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol.49, plara 265, it is acknowledged that: Courts of record or of general jurisdiction have inherent power to vacate or set aside their own judgments.1
AIR 2021 SC 5423 30 In para 269, it is further stated: Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment is a sufficient ground for opening or vacating it, even after the term at which it was rendered, provided the fraud was extrinsic and collateral to the matter tried and not a matter actually or potentially in issue in the action.
It is also stated: Fraud practised on the court is always ground for vacating the judgment, as where the court is deceived or misled as to material circumstances or its process is abused, resulting in the rendition of a udgment which would not have been given if the whole conduct of the case had been fair.
...In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v.
Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1, this Court stated that: (SCC p. 2, para 1): It is te settled proposition of law that judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non-est in the eye of the law. Such a judgment/decree--by the first court or by the highest court--has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings."
34. It is further submitted that in view of the report submitted by the Registrar (Judicial - I) of this Court, 31 which clearly specifies the non-existence of W.P.No.35966 and 35970 of 1997, on which the petitioner rests his claim and in addition to that the petitioner is misleading the Court based on false, forged, fabricated and tampered documents. The respondents would pray this Court to take strictest actions including a thorough criminal investigation against the petitioner and others involved in this matter which also amount to criminal contempt and pray this Court to take appropriate action against them.
35. Learned Advocate General has relied on various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the petitioner's act in displaying fraud with the Court by filing false and forged documents and in interfering with the administration of justice, has relied on Chandra Shasi v. Anil Kumar Verma 2 and referred to paragraph Nos. 3, 7, 8 and 14 which are extracted herein:
"3.These prefatory remarks well project the importance of the point under consideration in this suo motu contempt action taken against respondent Anil Kumar for his having filed a fabricated document to oppose the prayer of his 2 (1995) 1 SCC 421 32 wife seeking transfer of a matrimonial proceeding from Delhi to Unnao. It shall be first required to be seen whether Anil did file a fabricated document and then we shall address ourselves as to whether filing of a forged document with intention to defraud amounts to contempt of court, as this expression has been defined in Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the Act).
7. There being no decision of this Court (or for that matter of any High Court) to our knowledge on this point, the same is required to be examined as a matter of first principle. Contempt jurisdiction has been conferred on superior courts not only to preserve the majesty of law by taking appropriate action against one howsoever high he may be, if he violates court's order, but also to keep the stream of justice clear and pure (which was highlighted more than two and half centuries ago by Lord Hardwicke, L.C. in St. James's Evening Post case) so that the parties who approach the courts to receive justice do not have to wade through dirty and polluted water before entering their temples. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction was summarised as below by Lord Morris in Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd.:
33
"In an ordered community courts are established for the pacific settlement of disputes and for the maintenance of law and order. In the general interests of the community it is imperative that the authority of the courts should not be imperilled and that recourse to them should not be subject to unjustifiable interference. When such unjustifiable interference is suppressed it is not because those charged with the responsibilities of administering justice are concerned for their own dignity: it is because the very structure of ordered life is at risk if the recognised courts of the land are so flouted that their authority wanes and is supplanted."
8. To enable the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail. People would have faith in courts when they would find that (truth alone triumphs) is an achievable aim there; or (it is virtue which ends in victory) is not 34 only inscribed in emblem but really happens in the portals of courts.
14..The legal position thus is that if the publication be with intent to deceive the court or one made with an intention to defraud, the same would be contempt, as it would interfere with administration of justice. It would, in any case, tend to interfere with the same. This would definitely be so if a fabricated document is filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In the case at hand the fabricated document was apparently to deceive the court; the intention to defraud is writ large. Anil Kumar is, therefore, guilty of contempt."
36. Learned Advocate General has also relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Autar Shukla v. Arvind Shukla 3 and the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:
"8. Any interference in the course of justice, any obstruction caused in the path of those seeking justice are an affront to the majesty of law and, therefore, the conduct is punishable as contempt of court. Law of contempt is only one of many ways in which the due process of law are prevented to be 3 1995 Supp (2) SCC 130 35 perverted, hindered or thwarted to further the cause of justice. Due course of justice means not only any particular, proceeding but broad stream of administration of justice. Therefore, due course of justice used in Section 2(c) or Section 13 of the Act are of wide import and are not limited to any particular judicial proceeding. Much more wider when this Court exercises suo motu power under Article 129 of the Constitution. Due process of law is blinkered by acts or conduct of the parties to the litigation or witnesses nor generate tendency to impede or undermine the tree flow of the unsullied stream of justice by blatantly resorting, with impunity, to fabricate court proceedings to thwart fair adjudication of dispute and its resultant end. If the act complained of substantially interferes with or tends to interfere with the broad steam of administration of justice, it would be punishable under the Act. If the act complained of undermines the prestige of the court or causes hindrance in the discharge of due course of justice or tends to obstruct the course of justice or interfere with due course of justice, it is, sufficient that the conduct complained of, constitutes contempt of court an liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. It has become increasingly a tendency on the part of 36 the parties either to produce fabricated evidence as a part of the pleadings or record or to fabricate the court record itself for retarding or obstructing the course of justice or judicial proceedings to gain unfair advantage in the judicial process. This tendency to obstruct the due course of justice or tendency to undermine the dignity of the court needs to be severely dealt with to deter the persons having similar proclivity to resort to such acts or conduct. In an appropriate case, the mens rea may not be clear or may be obscure but if the act or conduct tends to undermine the dignity of the court or prejudice the party or impedes or hinder the due course of, judicial proceedings or administration of justice, it would amount to contempt of the court. The acts of the respondent in fabricating the court proceedings purported to be dated June 9, 1992, impersonating himself to be the petitioner and producing the fabricated copy of the court proceedings in the office of the Dist. Inspector of Schools thus constitute contempt of the court. It tended, to interfere with the course of justice in legal proceedings to gain unfair advantage over the petitioner and is not as innocent as pretended to be by the petitioner. Further as we have already held that he alone stands to gain by fabricating the court proceeding and 37 producing it before the authorities for his continuance as a Manager of the School, he had the necessary animus or mens rea to fabricate the court's proceedings impersonated himself to be the petitioner and produced it in the office of the Dist. Inspector of Schools. Thereby, he committed contempt of court."
37. Learned Advocate General would submit that the documents furnished by the writ petitioner are nothing but the fabrication of record and that the petitioners are playing fraud on this Court and the Registry may be directed for enquiry and further submits that a criminal complaint may be lodged as an immediate measure. He would further submit that C.S.No.7 of 1958 is a suit for partition and the sale certificate dated 27.01.1968 cannot be issued under the said proceedings. It appears that the said sale certificate has been issued by way of auctioning property admeasuring Ac.31 - 13gts in Sy.Nos.725/21, 23 and 24 situated at Shamshabad Paigah Village and as such questioned such genuineness of the sale certificate. He would further refer to the application in Appl.No.342 of 1992 dated 04.09.1992 and also questions the very 38 genuineness of the said application and submits that all these documents are fabricated for the purpose of the case.
38. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner referred to the additional counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 / HMDA where a reference was taken to the sale certificate which is in the name of the grandfather of the petitioner dated 27.01.1968 and the certified copy of the order dated 04.09.1992 in Application No.342 of 1992 in C.S.No.7 of 1958 and the order dated 28.12.1998 in W.P.No.35966 of 1997 and has submitted that the pahani patrika for the year 1995-96, by rounding off the entry of "truck terminal", the Tahsildar has recorded that the father of the petitioner i.e., Mohd. Farooq Qureshi is the owner and possessor of the subject land in Sy.No.725/21, 725/23 and 725/24,Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the change of entry is on account of order dated 04.09.1992 in Appln.No.342 of 1992. Thereafter, the respondents have not taken any steps to question the rounding of detail of "truck terminal" and the name of the father of the petitioner was restored as the owner and possessor of the subject land.
39
39. That apart, as per Sethwar and pahanies from 1959 to 1992, the father of the petitioner i.e., Mohd.Farooq Qureshi name was recorded and the same was restored in the Pahanis upto 2007 and the petitioner's father was in physical possession and enjoyment of the subject property till he died in 2007 and later petitioner was succeeded to the ownership and subject land.
40. The cause in the writ petition has arisen on 18.03.2023, when the respondents has interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner by entering into the subject land and the present writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner without following due process of law. It is further submitted that as per the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 / HMDA, he has referred to the conclusion paragraph of additional counter filed by HMDA seeking a prayer to dismiss the writ petition and all other related and restore the possession of subject land in Sy.No.725/21, 725/23 and 725/24, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to respondent No.2 / HMDA. He would mean that respondent No.2 / 40 HMDA are out of possession and sought for restoration of possession and that nothing has been said about quashing of land acquisition which culminated in Land Acquisition award No.1 of 1990 in File No.L.A.84/85 dated 12.01.1990. In view of the similar circumstances stated above, learned Senior counsel submits that there is no fraud attributable to the writ petitioners since certified copy of sale certificate and order in Appln.No.342 of 1992 dated 04.09.1992 are very much available in the Registry of High Court and certified copies are filed along with writ petition and pray that the writ petition may be allowed directing respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land without following procedure of law.
41. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case relied on Rame Gowda (died) by LRs v. M.Varadappa Naidu (died) by LRs 4 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
"8. It is thus clear that so far as the Indian law is concerned the person in peaceful 4 (2004) 1 SCC 769 41 possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession he may even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser. A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force. If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law; he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with his possession. The law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a rightful owner from using force or taking law in his own hands, and also by restoring him in possession even from the rightful owner (of course subject to the law of limitation), if the latter has dispossessed the prior possessor by use of force. In the absence of proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title. Law presumes the possession to go with the title unless rebutted. The owner of any property may prevent even by using reasonable force a trespasser from an attempted trespass, when it is in the process of being committed, or is of a flimsy character, or recurring, intermittent, stray 42 or casual in nature, or has just been committed, while the rightful owner did not have enough time to have recourse to law. In the last of he cases, the possession of the trespasser, just entered into would not be called as one acquiesced to by the true owner.
9. It is the settled possession or effective possession of a person without title which would entitle him to protect his possession even as against the true owner. The concept of settled possession and the right of the possessor to protect his possession against the owner has come to be settled by a catena of decisions.
Illustratively, we may refer to Munshi Ram and Ors. Vs. Delhi Administration reported in (1968) 2 SCR 455, Puran Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab reported in (1975) 4 SCC 518 and Ram Rattan and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1977) 1 SCC 188. The authorities need not be multiplied. In Munshi Ram &Ors.'s case (supra), it was held that no one, including the true owner, has a right to dispossess the trespasser by force if the trespasser is in settled possession of the land and in such a case unless he is evicted in the due course of law, he is entitled to defend his possession even against the rightful owner. But merely stray or even intermittent acts of trespass do not give such a 43 right against the true owner. The possession which a trespasser is entitled to defend against the rightful owner must be settled possession, extending over a sufficiently long period of time and acquiesced to by the true owner. A casual act of possession would not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner. The rightful owner may re-enter and re- instate himself provided he does not use more force than is necessary. Such entry will be viewed only as resistance to an intrusion upon his possession which has never been lost. A stray act of trespass, or a possession which has not matured into settled possession, can be obstructed or removed by the true owner even by using necessary force. In Puran Singh and Ors.case (supra), the Court clarified that it is difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule as to when the possession of a trespasser can mature into settled possession. The 'settled possession' must be (i) effective, (ii) undisturbed, and (iii) to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser. The phrase 'settled possession' does not carry any special charm or magic in it; nor is it a ritualistic formula which can be confined in a strait-jacket. An occupation of the property by a person as an agent or a servant acting at the instance of the 44 owner will not amount to actual physical possession. The court laid down the following tests which may be adopted as a working rule for determining the attributes of 'settled possession' :
i) that the trespasser must be in actual physical possession of the property over a sufficiently long period;
ii) that the possession must be to the knowledge (either express or implied) of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser and which contains an element of animus possidendi. The nature of possession of the trespasser would, however, be a matter to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case;
iii) the process of dispossession of the true owner by the trespasser must be complete and final and must be acquiesced to by the true owner; and
iv) that one of the usual tests to determine the quality of settled possession, in the case of culturable land, would be whether or not the trespasser, after having taken possession, had grown any crop. If the crop had been grown by the trespasser, then even the true owner has no right to destroy the crop grown by the trespasser and take forcible possession.45
42. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the documents in question are only copies of the copy and the same cannot be admissible unless copy is compared with the original and relied upon the decision of this Court in Badrunnisa Begum v. Mohamooda Begum 5.
43. Learned Advocate General while referring to the validity of the orders passed by the Court lacking inherent jurisdiction on the subject matter of cause has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, reported in AIR 1954 SC 340.
(ii) Dwaraka Prasad Agarwal (D) by LRs v.
B.D.Agarwal and others reported in (2003) 6 SCC 230.
(iii) Ramnik VallabhdasMadhvani v.
TarabenPravinlalMadhvani reported in (2004) 1 SCC 497.
(iv) State of Haryana v. Kartar Singh (D) by LRs.
reported in (2013) 11 SCC 375.
5 2001(3) ALT 243 46
(v) Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd., reported in (2005) 7 SCC 791.
(vi) State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar reported in (1995) 4 SCC 229.
44. Analysis and conclusion:
Learned Advocate General submits the very genuineness of the documents is in question and there are serious allegations of furnishing a fabricated document and fraud has been played on the Court to obtain orders.
45. The judgments filed by the respondents pertains to the validity of the orders passed by this Court was lacking inherent jurisdiction on the subject matter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafique Bibi v. Sayed Waliuddin 6 vide order dated 28.08.2003 held as follows:
"Two things must be clearly borne in mind. Firstly, the Court will invalidate an order only if the right remedy is sought by the right person in the right proceedings and circumstances. The order may be 'a nullity' and 'void' but these 6 (2004) 1 SCC 287 47 terms have no absolute sense; their meaning is relative, depending upon the Court's willingness to grant relief in any particular situation. If this principle of illegal relativity is borne in mind, the law can be made to operate justly and reasonably in cases where the doctrine of ultra vires, rigidly applied, would produce unacceptable results. (Administrative Law, 8th Edition, 2000, Wade and Forsyth, p. 308).
Secondly, there is a distinction between mere administrative order and the decrees of Courts, especially a superior Court. The order of a superior Court such as the High Court, must always be obeyed no matter what flaws it may be thought to contain. Thus a party who disobeys a High Court injunction is punishable for contempt of Court even though it was granted in proceedings deemed to have been irrevocably abandoned owing to the expiry of a time limit."
46. On a perusal of a copy of Application No.342 of 1992 in C.S.No.7/58 filed under Order XLI Rule 1 and Section 151 of C.P.C., challenging the Award No.1/1990 in File I.A.No.84/86 dated 12.01.1990, which was filed as material papers in the present writ petition, and the same 48 has been alleged as fabricated documents by the respondents, the said Application was disposed of on 04.09.1990 by quashing the Award dated 12.01.1990 and directing respondents not to interfere in the petitioner's land without following due process of law. It is glaring to note that the order passed in Application No.342 of 1992 was disposed of with an antedate i.e., 04.09.1990 which is fraught of glaring inconsistencies.
47. In W.P.No.35966 of 1997, which according to the report of the Registrar (Judicial - I) has not been registered and as alleged by the respondents that it is a forged and fabricated document, the said writ petition was disposed of on 20.12.1998 and in the operative portion of the order, it is submitted that Award No.1/1990 in File No.84/86 dated 12.01.1990 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the respondents for fresh enquiry and the Court directed respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's land till passing of fresh orders. In the order passed in the said writ petition dated 28.12.1998, there has been no 49 mention about the Application No.342 of 1998 in C.S.No.7/58.
48. Even otherwise, on a perusal of both the orders in Application No.342 of 1992 dated 04.09.1990 and W.P.No.35966 of 1997 dated 28.12.1998 would reveal that if the order passed in Application No.342 of 1992 was genuine and already when the Award No.1 of 1990 in File No.I.A.No.84/86 dated 12.01.1990 was quashed, there was no reason for the petitioner to file another writ petition i.e., W.P.No.35966 of 1997 praying for similar relief. Even in the said writ petition also Award No.1 of 1990 in File No.I.A.No.84/86 dated 12.01.1990 was quashed and the matter was remanded to the respondents. Neither any reasons nor any submissions were made for such discrepancy arisen in filing of such W.P.No.35966 of 1997.
49. It is pertinent to note that C.S.No.7 of 1958 is a suit for partition wherein the preliminary decree was granted on 06.04.1959 and the matter is pending for conclusion of final decree proceedings. If any person is 50 aggrieved or intents to challenge Land Acquisition proceedings, they may challenge in accordance to law but not by way of filing an Application in C.S.No.7 of 1958.
50. The documents relied upon by the petitioner are disputed as fabricated and not genuine and even in the affidavit filed by the petitioners regarding report filed by the Registry and in the reply affidavit, the petitioner except stating that they have filed the said documents with a bonafide belief that they are genuine, had not made any other submissions regarding those documents. The petitioners in their reply except reiterating their possession and title which has been alleged on the strength of the sale certificate dated 27.04.1968 issued to their father and the orders passed in W.P.No.35966 and 35970 of 1997 has not substantiated in detail with respect to the disputed documents which have been referred along with the remarks.
51. In the report submitted by Registrar (Judicial - I), it is submitted that after taking note of the submissions 51 made by various section officers, it gave an impression that the said writ petitions have not been registered and further as reported, no record is available in the Registry with respect to W.P.No.35966 and 35970 of 1997. After observing the remarks submitted by the HMDA for each and every document and considering the report of the Registrar (Judicial - I), High Court for the State of Telangana, the documents relied upon by the petitioner appears to be not genuine and as such the petitioner cannot claim any right, title and possession over the said property.
52. In view of the fact that there are serious disputed questions of fact and the genuineness of the documents, which petitioner relied as a source of title and proof of possession, the same cannot be decided on affidavits.
53. In the detailed discussion of the alleged documents / records pertaining to the sale certificate dated 27.01.1968 and as per the report submitted by Registrar (Judicial - I), W.P.Nos.35966 and 35970 of 1997 were not 52 at all registered and the same were not found. The property tax notices, Municipal Permission, the Revenue Records, the Electricity Bills, the photographs, No Objection Certificate dated 20.04.2023 issued by Gram Panchayat, Shamshabad Mandal, House Tax receipts from the year 2007 and the House Construction permission appears to be forged and fabricated as they mention the existence of State of Telangana in the year 2007 itself whereas the State of Telangana was formed later in the year 2014. Since, the respondents are disputing and objecting the very genuineness of the documents, the authenticity of these documents in question should stand alone on its own footing to prove its genuineness which requires a detailed investigation. In the case on hand, the same cannot be admitted as evidence to consider the case of the petitioners and as such prayer sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted.
54. It is pertinent to note that the writ petitioner has filed a typed copy of the order dated 04.09.1990 passed in Application No.342 of 1992. The petitioner has stated that 53 the aforesaid copy was available with his father. The typed copy of the order dated 04.09.1990 in Application No.342 of 1992 has not been supplied by the Copying Department of this Court. There is no material on record to infer that the petitioner knew that contents in the aforesaid order dated 04.09.1990 are not correct. However, he ought to have been cautious and should have ascertained the contents of the typed copy of the order dated 04.09.1990. However, a certified copy of the order dated 28.12.1990 has been supplied by the Copying Department of this High Court. It is also pertinent to note that the aforesaid documents are not the sole basis for claiming the relief in the writ petition. However, appropriate action is required to be taken on the report of the Registrar (Judicial - I) dated 27.09.2023. Let the same be placed before the Chief Justice on administrative side for suitable action.
55. For yet another reason, petitioner is not entitled to any relief. It is trite law that a person invoking the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court must approach this Court with clean hands. The petitioner in 54 this case has not approached the Court with clean hands. Therefore, we decline to exercise the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in his favour.
56. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ______________________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J 14.12.2023 Note: L.R. copy to be marked.
B/o mrm