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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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:
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
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.
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.
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
(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.
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.
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
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.
AIR 2021 SC 5423
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,
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
(1995) 1 SCC 421
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.:
"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
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
1995 Supp (2) SCC 130
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
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
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
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. 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 /
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
(2004) 1 SCC 769
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
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
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
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.
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.
2001(3) ALT 243
(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
(2004) 1 SCC 287
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
