Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gummala Thirupal Reddy vs Juturu Raghunatha Reddy on 12 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL No.428 of 2023
(Through physical mode)
Gummala Thirupal Reddy,
S/o. G.Satya Kamalakar Reddy,
Aged about 63 years, R/o.H.No.42/528-3,
NGO Colony, Opp: Karnataka Bank,
Kadapa City.
..Appellant
Versus
Juturu Raghunatha Reddy,
S/o. Lakshminarayana Reddy,
Aged about 63 years, Ex-Z.P.T.C. Member,
R/o. D.No.39/650, Pakeerupalli Road,
Chinna Chowk, Kadapa City and others.
...Respondents
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt:12.05.2023
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
In this intra Court appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters
Patent, respondent No.5 in W.P.No.6352 of 2015 has called in question
the order dated 13.12.2022 passed by the learned single Judge
directing respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Kadapa, Y.S.R. Kadapa District
to immediately act upon the complaint raised by the writ petitioner and
to initiate the criminal action against respondent No.5 therein, who is
the appellant before us.
HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.No.428 of 2023
2. The parties in the writ appeal will be referred to as they are
arrayed in the writ petition before the learned single Judge.
3. The writ petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land to an
extent of Ac.3.66 cents in S.No.603 to 605 and 611 of Ukkayapalem
Village, Kadapa Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. After demise of his
father, his name is also mutated in the revenue records. However,
respondent No.5 obtained pattadar passbooks by playing fraud on the
revenue officials by filing forged documents vide proceedings dated
15.06.2005. The writ petitioner has preferred an appeal before the
Revenue Divisional Officer (for short "R.D.O."), Kadapa against the
proceedings dated 15.06.2005. Basing on the same, the R.D.O. issued
notice to respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 challenged the said notice
by preferring W.P.No.556 of 2005, which was disposed of directing
respondent No.5 to raise his objections before the R.D.O. In the
enquiry, the then Tahsildar, Kadapa issued notice to respondent No.5
and others to appear before him, which was again challenged in
W.P.No.19102 of 2005 by respondent No.5. The writ petitioner has
preferred W.P.No.19844 of 2005 challenging the pattadar passbooks
issued in favour of respondent No.5 vide proceedings dated
15.06.2005. The Tahsildar filed counter affidavit in W.P.No.19102 of
2005 stating that he would initiate criminal action against respondent
No.5.
HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.No.428 of 2023
4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that despite the statement
made in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.19102 of 2005, the
Tahsildar has not initiated any action against respondent No.5.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that merely on
the basis of the statement made in the counter filed by the Tahsildar, a
direction cannot be issued for initiating criminal action against the
appellant. He would submit that the statement made in the counter
affidavit filed in W.P.No.19102 of 2005 cannot be taken to be
prima facie proof of commission of fraud. It is also argued that the
Tahsildar has not given opportunity of hearing to the appellant before
reaching to the conclusion of commission of fraud. Therefore, for this
reason also, the direction issued by the learned single Judge deserves
to be set aside.
6. This Court would have accepted the plea raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant. However, the matter does not rest solely on
the statement made by the Tahsildar in his counter affidavit filed in
W.P.No.19102 of 2005.
7. In the common order passed by the erstwhile High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in W.P.Nos.19102 and 19844 of 2005, a finding was
recorded to the following effect.
"The writ petition filed by G.Tirupala Reddy being
W.P.No.19102 of 2005 is therefore must be dismissed, as the
HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.No.428 of 2023
petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. He has
approached this Court by relying on a forged document for which the
District Collector, R.D.O., and M.R.O., are contemplating criminal
action against G.Tirupala Reddy. In view of the categorical
averments made by the present M.R.O. that Ref.No.1389/2004 dated
15.06.2005 is a forged one, which does not form part of the record
of the MRO, Kadapa, the same cannot be given any legal effect."
8. In view of the above, it appears that the statement made in the
counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar in W.P.No.19102 of 2005 was
accepted by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh and relying
upon the said statement, it was observed that the District Collector,
R.D.O. and M.R.O. are contemplating criminal action against G.Tirupala
Reddy, who is the appellant before us. The erstwhile High Court of
Andhra Pradesh also accepted the statement of the revenue officials to
the effect that Ref.No.1389/2004 dated 15.06.2005 is a forged one.
9. In view of the previous order passed in W.P.No.19102 of 2005,
the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
learned single Judge has passed the impugned order basing upon the
statement made in the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar in
W.P.No.19102 of 2005 is not correct. It may be true that the learned
single Judge has not referred to the order passed in W.P.No.19102 of
2005. However, since the copy of the order passed in W.P.No.19102 of
2005 is placed in the record of the writ appeal, this Court cannot
ignore the same.
HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.No.428 of 2023
10. In any case, if a criminal action is initiated against the appellant,
he would get an opportunity to defend himself. Therefore, it is not a fit
case for interference in this intra Court appeal.
11. The appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No
costs. All pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
Ksp
