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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
