Telangana High Court
A. Anitha vs The State Of Telangana on 23 April, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 8221 of 2024
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed praying this Court to declare the action of respondent No.4 in interfering with the civil disputes pending between the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 8 and pressurizing her for giving up her right, title and possession of the agricultural land in Sy.No.309 part admeasuring Ac.6.14 guntas, situated at Janwada Village and Grampanchayat, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy district in favour of the unofficial Respondents herein and frequently calling the Petitioner and her husband to the P.S. Shankarpally, Chevella as illegal and arbitrary and for other appropriate reliefs.
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.6.14 guntas, situated in Sy.No.309 part of Janwada Village and Grampanchayat, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy district, having purchased the same through registered sale deed bearing document No.8795 of 1996, dated 31.10.1996. It is the 2 CVBR, J Wp_8221_2024 further case of the petitioner that when respondent Nos.5 to 8 herein have illegally interfered with her peaceful possession over the subject property, she was constrained to file a suit for injunction simplicitor vide O.S.No.48 of 2004 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella. It is the further case of the petitioner that said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree, dated 08.12.2009 and aggrieved by the same, respondent Nos.5 to 8 herein, who are the defendants in the said suit, have filed A.S.No.3 of 2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Vikarabad and the same is pending. It is the further case of the petitioner that challenging the mutation proceedings over the subject property the petitioner also preferred R.O.R. Appeal under Section 5 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh Records in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short "the Act, 1971) vide case No.C/589/2010 and the same was allowed in favour of the petitioner. Questioning the same, respondent No.5 herein filed a revision under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 before the Joint Collector (II) Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad and the revisional 3 CVBR, J Wp_8221_2024 authority vide its order, dated 03.07.2014 in Case No.D1/681/2011, confirmed the orders passed in appeal No.C/589/2010, dated 11.11.2010. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that at the instance of respondent Nos.5 to 8, respondent No.3 is interfering with the civil disputes and calling the petitioner and her husband to the police station and forcing them to enter into a compromise/ settlement with respondent Nos.5 to 8 as per the terms dictated by them.
3. Considered the submissions of Sri Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that respondent No.4 is not having any power or authority to interfere into the civil disputes pending between the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 8.
5. Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 contended that earlier the petitioner filed 4 CVBR, J Wp_8221_2024 W.P.No.10263 of 2021 seeking very same relief alleging that at the instance of respondent Nos.5 to 8 herein, respondent No.4 is interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner. The relief in W.P.No.10263 of 2021 is as follows:-
"...to issue Writ or order direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and declaring the action of Respondent No.5 is interfering with the civil disputes and also encouraging Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to construct the compound wall in the petitioner's property i.e., the agriculture land admeasuring Ac.06.01 1/guntas in Sy.No.309 situated at Janawada Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal and consequently further direct Respondent No.5 to take action against Respondent Nos.6 and 7 for the complaints dated 18/2/2021 and 27/2/2021 given by the petitioner against Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 for their illegal construction of compound wall and also damaged fencing and kaddies over the property of the Petitioner as per law pending disposal of the main writ petition..."
6. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking the following relief:-
"...to issue any Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus 5 CVBR, J Wp_8221_2024 declaring the actions of the Respondents more particularly Respondent No.4 in interfering with the civil disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos.5 to 8 herein and pressurizing the Petitioner for giving up her right, title and possession of the agricultural land in Sy.No.309 part admeasuring Ac.6.14 guntas, situated at Janwada Village and Grampanchayat, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy district in favour of the unofficial Respondents herein and frequently calling the Petitioner and her husband to the P.S. Shankarpally, Chevella thereby illegally interfering with the life and liberty of the Petitioner as being illegal and arbitrary apart from being violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India..."
7. On careful examination of the reliefs sought in W.P.No.10263 of 2021 and in the present writ petition, they are one and the same. In the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition, the petitioner has not stated about the pendency of W.P.No.10263 of 2021 except stating that respondent Nos.5 to 8 are interfering with her possession and she has suppressed the fact of filing of the earlier writ petition and pending of the same before this Court. Since the petitioner has not disclosed the filing of 6 CVBR, J Wp_8221_2024 earlier W.P.No.10263 of 2021 seeking the very same relief, the petitioner has to be non-suited on the ground of suppression of material facts. The petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and she has also abused the process of law.
8. It is well-settled that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. It is also settled that a litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to the litigation. If the litigant withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over the other side then the litigant would be guilty of playing fraud with the Court as well as with the opposite parties which cannot be countenanced. Therefore, the litigant is not entitled for the extraordinary, equitable and discretionary relief.
7
CVBR, J Wp_8221_2024
9. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim.
10. In view of the settled principles of law and the petitioner has suppressed the pendency of W.P.No.10263 of 2021 filed for the very same relief against very same respondents, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.
11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to the Telangana High Court Advocates Association, Hyderabad, within a period of four (04) weeks from today and file a receipt before the Registry. 8
CVBR, J Wp_8221_2024
12. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY 23.04.2024 gkv