Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Gudi Chandramma, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 March, 2023

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

  WRIT PETITION Nos.7114 OF 2021 AND 16496 OF 2021

COMMON ORDER:

     Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions and the

parties are same, this Court is inclined to dispose of both the

Writ Petitions by way of this common order.


     2.    Writ Petition No.7114 of 2011 is filed questioning the

notice in Ref.No.B/95/2021 dated 10.03.2021 issued by the 4th

respondent-Tahsildar directing the writ petitioner to appear

before him along with the documents, which are possessed by

her regarding the land of an extent of Acs.2.83 cents in

Sy.No.496/2 on the application/representation made by Puli

Venkata Ramana, who is arrayed as 5th respondent herein. On

the ground that once the application submitted under Section

4(1) of the Act, 1971, having exercised the power under Section

5(3 of the Act, 9171, the Tahsildar would ceases to be an

authority and the person felt aggrieved with such mutation and

issuance of the pattadar passbook and title deeds, is entitled to

avail the remedy provided under Section 5(5) of the Act, 1971,

before the 3rd respondent or to invoke the remedy available

under Section 8(2) of the Act, 1971, and hence, the Tahsildar

being a primary authority cannot review his own order which

was passed having exercised the powers conferred under Section

5(3) of the Act, 1971, and the impugned notice does contain any

provision of law and hence, prayed to set aside the impugned

notice dated 10.03.2021.

3. Writ Petition No.16496 is filed assailing the order

dated 29.07.2021 passed by the 3rd respondent-Revenue

Divisional Officer directing the petitioner herein to appear before

him on 06.08.2021 with all relevant records for conducting

survey. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition

came to be filed on the ground that as per the provisions of

Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act,

1923 (hereinafter called, „the Act, 1923) and the circular in

RC.No.N1/6543/99 dated 25.07.2001, as well as the Board

Standing Orders BSO 34-A, the 3rd respondent-Revenue

Divisional Officer, who is an appellate authority, and whereas

the Tahsildar, who is competent authority to issue such notice

for conducting survey and demarcation is casted on the

Tahsildar. Hence, the said notice is quite contrary to the above

provisions of the Act, 1923, and prayed to allow the Writ Petition

by setting aside the notice dated 29.07.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.5

filed the original patta issued in favour of the writ petitioner and

would contend that there is a dispute between the petitioner and

the unofficial respondent and the unofficial respondent has

fabricated the document which was issued in his favour and no

patta was issued in favour of the writ petitioner and therefore,

prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. Sri P.Subash, learned Government Pleader for

Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, filed counter and

would contend that the land in Sy.No.496 consists of an extent

of Acs.4.36 cents of C.Polimerapalli of Chinnamandem Mandal,

is classified as dotted land (A.W.D.) and the land was subdivided

as Sy.No.496/1 in an extent of Acs.1.53 cents and Sy.No.496/2

of an extent of Acs.2.83 cents in the year 1972 and the land in

Sy.No.496/2 in an extent of Acs.2.83 cents was assigned in the

name of Puli Lakshmanna, vide DKT No.784/88 dated

31.07.1978 as per the entries made in Performa-I register and

after death of the original pattadar Puli Lakshmanna EPPB was

issued to his son, viz., Puli Venkata Ramana, vide 1B Khata

No.170 and the same was uploaded in the web land and it was

digitally signed. It is further contended that on the application

made by Puli Venkata Ramana for conducting of survey, the

Mandal Surveyor has visited the land and reported that Sri Puli

Venkata Ramana having possessed over the land in Sy.No.496/2

in an extent of Acs.1.98 cents and Smt. Gudi Chandramma

(petitioner herein) having possession in an extent of Ac.0.85

cents and after survey, the DKT pattadar Sri Puli Venkata

Ramana has approached the 4th respondent on 05.03.2021 and

submitted a representation reporting that out of Acs.2.83 cents

of land in Sy.No.496/2 of C.Polimerapalli village,

Chinnamandem Mandal was originally assigned in the name of

his father Puli Lakshmanna and at present, Ac.0.85 cents of

land was occupied by Smt. Gudi Chandramma, wife of

Chinnapureddy unauthorized by and requested for handing over

the land to him. It is further contended that the notice was

issued to both parties, vide Office Ref.No.B/95/2021 dated

10.03.2021, to submit their documents as evidence to prove

their title and right over the land and aggrieved by the said

notice, the W.P.No.7114 of 2021 is filed on the ground that the

respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioner herein in an

extent of Acs.1.02 cents. It is further asserted that in response

to the notice issued by the Mandal Surveyor on 10.03.2021, the

son of the writ petitioner, viz., Gudi Chenna Krishna Reddy

attended the office and submitted one photocopy of D-Form

Patta showing DKT No.127/1408 dated 28.06.1999 and on

verification of the said DKT patta, it clearly allude that the

columns of the pattadar name and extent of land are tampered

with by overwriting and he also submitted a copy of manual

pattadar passbook for the land in Sy.No.297/6 of an extent of

Acs.1.02 cents, Sy.No.499/1 of an extent of Acs.4.07 cents and

Sy.No.472/2 of an extent of Acs.1.02 cents total an extent of

Acs.6.33 cents was entered in the said passbook, vide khata

No.194 and the land entered in the said pattadar passbook is

government land. It is further contended that as per the facts

explained in the above DKT patta is fake, forged and fabricated

and not emanated from the office of the Tahsildar,

Chinnamandem, the son of the unofficial respondent herein

made a representation in Meeseva for ascertaining the facts of

the case and the unofficial respondent herein also raised several

petitions before the higher Revenue Officials for redressal of his

grievance and thereafter the Mandal Surveyor has visited the

land and reported that out of Acs.2.83 cents in Sy.No.496/2 an

extent of Ac.0.85 cents was occupied by the writ petitioner with

the help of fake DKT patta and fake pattadar passbook and the

total extent of land involved in the pattadar passbook of an

extent of Acs.6.33 cents is also government land and the

petitioner herein got the pattadar passbook only on

misrepresentation of fact through the then Tahsildar of

Chinnamandem and a report was sent to the Revenue Divisional

Officer seeking cancellation of the fake pattadar passbook and

hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

6. This Court, vide orders dated 22.02.2023, directed

the petitioner herein to produce original pattadar passbook, but

the writ petitioner is unable to produce the DKT patta and

pattadar passbook issued in her favour. Hence, this Court

presumes that the documents which are filed along with the Writ

Petition are forged and fake documents. On perusing the DKT

patta as well as the pattadar passbook filed by the writ

petitioner, it is visible to the naked eye that there are

interpolations and changes in the survey numbers as well as the

name of the writ petitioner in the documents. Hence, the

contention raised by the respondents shall be presumed to be

correct. Hence, the petitioner has not approached the Court

with clean hands.

7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner

vehemently contends that the issue in the present case is that

the Revenue Divisional Officer is not the competent authority to

issue notice for conducting survey as he being the appellate

authority and pleaded to set aside the impugned order. Apart

from the aforesaid apparent lack of jurisdiction and the

impugned orders being contrary to the provisions of law, the

orders have been passed in patent breach of principles of natural

justice.

8. Learned Government Pleader relies on a judgment in

S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath1, and states that 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. It is held by the Hon‟ble Apex

Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Digambar 2 that the

blameworthy conduct of a person in approaching a Court of

equity for obtaining discretionary relief disentitles him for grant

of such relief. The only case of the respondents is that the writ

petitioner had made certain alterations and fabrications in the

document and has not come to the Court with clean hands and

is guilty of fraud and forgery, he should not be given any relief

ordinarily.

10. Answering the issue, the learned Government Pleader

would contend that the person who comes with clean hands,

such provision is applicable and the petitioner herein, who

played fraud and forgery, cannot raise such contention, who

(1994) 1 SCC 1

1995 AIR 1991

came to the Court with unclean hands. Admittedly the

petitioner had come to court with a forged document, that in a

case in which the petitioner has not come with clean hands and

is guilty of fraud and forgery, he should not be given any relief

ordinarily. The petitioner has approached this Court with

unclean hands with clear motive to take advantage of non-

existent documents filed by her.

11. It is a settled legal position that the litigant, who

approaches the Court, is bound to disclose all material facts and

produce all the documents, which are relevant to the litigation,

and, if he withholds or files any documents with alterations and

forgery in order to gain advantage then he would be guilty of

playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party. But

a part of the document filed and relied upon by the petitioner is

concededly not genuine. The petitioner wanted to use it in

support of its case and has vouchsafed its veracity on affidavit.

The petitioner approached the Court for grant of a discretionary

relief basing on a false document. The petitioner wanted to take

advantage of unfair means for getting a discretionary order from

the Court. For this reason it has to be held that it is one of such

cases where it will be unfair and unjust to allow the petitioner to

use those documents to his advantage which it got by unfair

means and which are not genuine."

12. In a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the

case of Smt. Suraj Kumari v. District Judge, Mirzapur3, following

the judgment in Banwari v. State of U.P.4, alluded that to take

care of the situation that extraordinary jurisdiction should not

be allowed to be misused and in cases where the

High Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner

has approached the Court with unclean hands, or has filed

a writ petition stating facts, which are false, the petitioner must

visit with penal consequences. This is necessary to check the

misuse of this extraordinary jurisdiction so that every citizen

should take a caution that extraordinary jurisdiction of the

High Court, cannot be allowed to be misused. It is necessary that

a person should approach the Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution, stating all the facts in his knowledge, which are

AIR 1991 All 91

1974 ALJ 958

necessary for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of

the Court and should not try to mislead the Court by making

any false statement, or circumventing or concealing the

necessary facts, if the High Court finds that either a false

statement has been made by the petitioner or he has come

with unclean hands i.e. by suppressing the material facts, the

High Court should suitably penal such a person.

13. Learned Government Pleader relies in a judgment of

the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Chandra Shashi vs Anil

Kumar Verma5. As per the said judgment, "Forged and fabricated

document amounts to contempt" And relevant para reads as

follows:

"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

(1995) 1 SCC 421

document was apparently to deceive the court; the intention to defraud is writ large. Anil Kumar is, therefore, guilty of contempt."

14. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner

herein filed a fake and fabricated DKT Patta and made alteration

in pattadar pass book. Hence, this Court only indicates to

respondents that they are always at liberty to initiate appropriate

action against the writ petitioner, if they intended to do so on

putting notice and given an opportunity to defend his case. At

the outset, but for not approaching the Court with clean hands,

the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and accordingly, writ

petitions fail and stand dismissed.

15. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petitions.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.