Telangana High Court
Venkata Rami Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 18 March, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 163 OF 2025
O R D E R:
Indian society has long been founded upon the
fundamental value of "truth" (Satya), a concept that transcends
mere honesty to embody a profound adherence to
righteousness, authenticity, and moral integrity. Satya is one of
the cardinal principles of Indian philosophy, enshrined in texts
such as the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, and the teachings
of great Indian leaders like Mahatma Gandhi. In its essence,
truth in Indian society is not just about speaking factual words
but about living in harmony with the universal laws of justice,
ethics, and moral conduct. It represents the pursuit of the
highest reality, aligning one's actions, thoughts, and words with
the divine order and moral law. The significance of Satya is seen
in the importance it holds in everyday life. From the ancient
scriptures to the cultural practices, the commitment to truth
has been the cornerstone of Indian ethics. In the modern
context, the reverence for Satya remains integral in ensuring the
integrity of social, legal, and political systems, reinforcing the
importance of truth in upholding justice, human dignity, and
collective progress. This case depicts a classic example how
such a cherished basic value by Indian Society for centuries has
been put under carpet by petitioner.
2. Coming to the facts of the case, petitioner claims to
be the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.9.11
guntas in Survey Nos. 310/1 and 310/2 (old Survey No.
19/140) (T.S.No. 28/1 and 28/2) situated at Kandikal Village,
Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District having acquired the
same by succession. It is his case that his father Sri
Pattabhiram Reddy acquired the said property by virtue of
registered sale deed dated 30.07.1980 from the legal heirs of
Sri R. Venkatesham, who was the original pattadar and
possessor of subject land. According to petitioner, subject land
was recorded as patta land in the revenue records after a survey
error was corrected by the District Collector under Section 87 of
the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 F, since, originally, it
was wrongly recorded as Abadi, however, the same was not
implemented in the Town Survey Records, by deleting the
classification of land, of Kandikal Village, Ward No. 274, Black-
A to F and the same was published vide Gazette notification
which was issued prior to correction of proceedings and the
same is being continued till date in spite of the direction to
delete it way back in 1979 and 1982. Subsequently, subject
land was also surveyed and boundaries were fixed by the
Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad
District.
While the matter stood thus, on the strength of the
letter addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the District
Collector stating that petitioner is an encroacher of subject land,
respondents are trying to forcibly take possession of the land
without following due process mandated in law. Respondent-
Tahsildar had also addressed a letter to the Sub-Registrar,
Azampura stating that subject land is classified as 'G Abadi' to
the extent of 32024 square meters and also included in
prohibitory register. There is a dispute between the 3rd parties
and the government and various court cases have been filed
claiming Survey Nos. 23, 310/1 and 310/2 and orders are in
favour of the government in O.S.No. 227 of 1989 dated
04.03.1998. Further, land grabbers are trying to sell the above-
mentioned land by creating bogus and fictitious documents and
any documents presented by them may be brought to the notice
of the undersigned. Petitioner's father's name was included in
the names mentioned as land grabbers. Petitioner submits that
his father has nothing to do with the suit or any other suit filed
by their vendors after selling away the property to them. In
these circumstances, the action of respondents in not
entertaining sale deeds executed by petitioner for registration is
an outright illegality apart from high-handed interference with
his peaceful possession, claims petitioner. Hence, the Writ
Petition.
3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Vedula Venkata
Ramana appearing on behalf of Sri K. Dheeraj, learned counsel
for petitioner, reiterating the averments made in the affidavit,
submits that in the absence of a notification issued under
Section 22-A of the Registration Act, no government officer is
authorised to address the registration authorities not to
entertain and register the sale deeds in respect of particular
parcel of land on account of pendency of civil cases. According
to learned Senior Counsel, as long as petitioner has title and
unless and until the State obtains a decree for declaration of
title, it cannot disable the petitioner from enjoying the property
in view of Article 300-A of the Constitution.
4. The 6th respondent - Tahsildar, on the contrary,
states that R. Srisailam and others filed O.S.No. 227 of 1989 on
the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Courts,
Hyderabad against government for declaring them as owners in
respect of subject land which was dismissed on 04.03.1998
holding that plaintiffs failed to establish their title, possession
and enjoyment over the property. Unsuccessfully, A.S.No. 147
of 1998 was filed before the XIII Additional Chief Judge, City
Civil Courts, Hyderabad. Review Petition along with I.A.No. 190
of 2002 for condonation of delay was filed and the said
Application was also dismissed on 07.07.2003. Aggrieved
thereby, R. Srisailam and others preferred C.R.P.No. 4674 of
2003 which was also dismissed on 02.07.2004. Finally, the
litigation is pending in Second Appeal No. 1250 of 2010,
wherein interim injunction was granted restraining respondents
from interfering with lawful possession of petitioners therein
over the subject land.
It is stated, New Survey Nos. 310/1 and 310/2 were
assigned to subject land in 1981 by issuing supplementary
sethwar, wherein 310/1 was recorded as Abadi and 310/2 in
the name of R. Venkatesham as per the orders of the then
District Collector, Hyderabad, which were issued in accordance
with the proceedings of the then Commissioner, Survey
Settlement and Land Records, but the same have not been
implemented in the revenue records of Kandikal Village and the
same is subject matter of consideration in Second Appeal. As
per revenue records, last Survey No. is 309/1 to 309/5,
Kandikal Village was covered by Town Survey and the subject
land was assigned T.S.No. 28, recorded as 'Uppuguda Abadi' at
Col.No.10 and 'G. Abadi' at Col.No. 20 to an extent of 32624 sq.
meters and the same was implemented from 1982-83. The Town
Survey Numbers have superseded the survey numbers and the
Town Survey Records are in force now, as such, the subject
land is a government land and the same has been included in
the land bank. Thereafter, upon a Review Petition dated
17.03.1981 filed by R.Mahendra, S/o R. Venkatesham,
proceedings were issued by the competent authority
Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records dated
26.05.1982 to make corrections in TSLR by sub-dividing T.S.No.
28 into 28/1 and 28/2 and the said issue is subject matter of
consideration in Second Appeal.
It is stated further that when petitioner and his
father started interfering with the subject land from 01.12.2022
onwards, the Tahsildar, Bandlaguda complained to the then
SHO, Bhavani Nagar who booked FIR against D.P. Reddy and
others for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 353 read with
34 IPC. Additional Collector, Hyderabad also addressed letter
dated 09.02.2023 to the then SHO, Bhavani Nagar to set up
night picketing point in the said land bank Parcel No. 243.
Further, upon the complaint of the Tahsildar vide letter dated
21.07.2023, FIR was registered against father of petitioner and
his henchmen under Sections 447 and 427 IPC. Keeping in view
the hypersensitivity of the area, round-the-clock picket of armed
reserved force personnel was set up to maintain peace.
This respondent has mentioned the writ petitions
filed by petitioner and his father against the government; they
are: 1) Writ Petition No. 45561 of 2022 for issuing pattadar pass
book with respect to the subject land, filed on 20.12.2022,
withdrawn on 09.03.2023, Writ Petition No. 6087 of 2023 for
rectification of entries in revenue records (TSLR), filed on
28.02.2023, withdrawn on 20.12.2024, 3) Writ Petition No.
9732 of 2023 against Irrigation Department along with Revenue
Department not to interfere with the property, filed on
10.04.2023 and withdrawn on 19.12.2024, 4) Writ Petition No.
19809 of 2023 filed on 24.07.2023 after FIR was registered
against petitioner and his father, disposed on 27.12.2023.
Simultaneously, Writ Petition No. 10606 of 2023 was filed by
third party Enumala Yesudas through un-registered GPA
holder. Petitioner herein now filed Writ Petition No. 36539 and
35670 of 2024 against Revenue Department and GHMC,
suppressing the above-stated cases and obtained status quo
orders.
5. The 8th respondent - Sub-Registrar, Azampura
stated in the counter that Tahsildars are designated as Joint
Sub-Registrar and authorised to register the agricultural
properties vide G.O.Ms. No. 118, dated 28.10.2020 and the
Sub-Registrars are not authorised to register the agricultural
properties except non-agricultural properties; now the Tahsildar
can only register the agricultural lands. It is also stated that
Section 22-A of the Registration Act prohibits registration of (a)
"Documents creating to transfer of immovable property, the
alienation or transfer of which is prohibited under any Statute
of the State or Central Government" The properties covered
under section (a) to (d) does not require any notification, as
alleged by the petitioners. The subject property falls under
section 22-A (a) (i), hence communicated is valid.
6. Impleaded Respondents 10 and 11 filed counter. In
addition to the averments made by the 6th respondent, it is
stated that unconcerned land grabbers, who are, in no way,
connected with subject land, went to the maximum extent of
filing frivolous Writ Petitions by annexing the proceedings
belonging to them and by tampering the same, likewise,
petitioner and his father used them in filing the Writ Petitions.
It is stated, on 21.07.2023, FIR No. 102 of 2023 was registered
against father of petitioner and his henchmen under Sections
447 and 427 IPC. Further, FIR No.109 of 2023, dated
11.08.2023 was registered for the offences under section 147,
148, 523, 506 R/w. 149 against Pattabhi Rami Reddy and 8
others including petitioner and a charge-sheet was also filed
wherein the Respondent No.11 is the Complainant. Thereafter,
petitioner and his father refrained from making illegal attempts
of encroachment in the subject land. Further, petitioner filed
O.S No.695 of 2024 on the file of the VII Senior Civil Judge, City
Civil Courts, Hyderabad seeking perpetual injunction with
respect to subject land against family members of these
respondents by creating false cause of action, over the subject
property ie TS no.28, Unfortunately, ex-parte injunction was
granted on 12. 12.2024 and we received summons and we are
reserving our right to contest the same by filing a detailed
counter and necessary records. Immediately, after ex parte
Injunction was granted in favour of Petitioner, the Writ petitions
relied in O.S. No. 695 of 2024 i.e. Writ Petition No. 6087 of 2023
and Writ Petition No. 9732 of 2023 have been withdrawn on
20.12.2023, 19.12.2023 respectively. Such frivolous suits are
filed abusing the process of law, suppressing the material and
relevant facts to obtain favourable orders, thereby to grab the
subject land and also multiply the litigation. It is pertinent to
mention that by taking the undue advantage of the ex parte
order obtained by the Petitioner in O.S. No. 695 of 2024, he is
trying to encroach upon the property by dispossessing us high
handedly. As such, impleaded respondents were constrained to
file Writ Petition No. 1140 of 2025, seeking police protection
pursuant to the orders passed in SAMP No.2693 of 2010 in S.A.
No.1250 of 2010, as there is imminent danger of dispossession
in the hands of the Petitioner herein and his henchmen, at any
time, may approach the subject property to usurp the same. In
which event, the very filing of the suit, Appeal as well as the
Second Appeal would be frustrated. Taking cue from the earlier
filed Writ Petitions by his father, by creating a false cause of
action of threat of dispossession from subject land by Revenue
Department and this time further from other Official
Respondents of various Government Departments, petitioner
filed Writ Petitions No. 35670 and 36539 of 2024, in which
these respondents filed Implead petition.
It is stated that these respondents are in possession
of subject land from ages and are raising standing crops i.e.
para-grass, rearing cattle by erecting cow sheds and also
worshipping our family deity Maisamma, wherein the temple is
amidst the subject land and there are also two water ponds to
fetch water for the Cattle and farm needs and we are solely
dependent on the said land for our livelihood.
7. Heard learned Government Pleaders for Roads &
Buildings, Revenue, Stamps & Registration and Sri
M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel on behalf of
Respondents 10 and 11. All the learned counsel, in one voice,
submit that unable to obtain any favourable orders as desired
from this Court, Pattabhi Rami Reddy and later his son ie.
petitioner indulged in 'Forum shopping' by approaching different
Benches for the same relief by making a minor change in the
prayer clause of the petition and substituting some Official
Respondents for others with a view to confer jurisdiction on a
particular Court, although the prayers are apparently different,
the core issue in each petition is centered round the not to
interfere orders against the Revenue Department. It is also
submitted that petitioner suppressed the material facts of filing
different Writ Petitions in the affidavit filed in support of this
Writ Petition. In that regard, learned counsel relied on the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kusha Duruka v.
State of Odisha 1, K. Jayaram v. Bangalore Development
(2024) 4 SCC 432
Authority 2, Agnigundala Venakta Ranga Rao v. Indukuru
Ramachandra Reddy 3.
8. From the narration of facts and the arguments
advanced by learned counsel on either side, it is palpably clear
that initially, vendors of petitioner's father instituted O.S.No.
227 of 1989 to declare them as possessors of subject land which
was dismissed on 04.03.1998; Appeal, Review Petition filed and
Civil Revision Petition arising out of the said order received the
same fate. Ultimately, the lis landed before this Court in Second
Appeal No. 1250 of 2010 wherein injunction order was passed
restraining respondents from interfering with the subject land.
Pendente lite, FIRs. were booked against petitioner's father and
his henchmen; petitioner and / or his father filed Writ Petition
No. 45561 of 2022 for issuing pattadar pass book with respect
to the subject land, on 20.12.2022, withdrew the same on
09.03.2023, Writ Petition No. 6087 of 2023 for rectification of
entries in revenue records (TSLR), filed on 28.02.2023, which
was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.12.2024, 3) Writ Petition No.
9732 of 2023 against Irrigation and Revenue Departments not
to interfere with the property, filed on 10.04.2023 which was
dismissed as withdrawn on 19.12.2024, 4) Writ Petition No.
(2022) 12 SCC 815
(2017) 7 SCC 694
19809 of 2023 filed on 24.07.2023 after FIR was registered
against petitioner and his father, disposed on 27.12.2023.
Simultaneously, Writ Petition No. 10606 of 2023 was filed by
third party Enumala Yesudas through un-registered GPA
holder. Petitioner now filed Writ Petition No. 36539 of 2024 and
35670 of 2024 against Revenue Department and GHMC,
suppressing the above-stated cases and obtained status quo
orders and both the said Writ Petitions are pending wherein the
Tahsildar filed counters bringing-forth the cases filed by
petitioner. The said counters are placed before this Court for
perusal. Now, he has come up with this Writ Petition seeking
the self-same relief, to the astonishment, without any whisper
about the pending Writ Petitions. Petitioner, so far, could
successfully manage to obtain status quo orders with regard to
the subject land, by suppressing real facts.
9. During the hearing, on 08.01.2025, based on the
written instructions obtained from the Tahsildar, Bandlaguda
Tehsil, learned Government Pleaders for Revenue and Roads &
Buildings submitted that title dispute is pending as regards the
subject property between R. Vekatesham (died) per legal
representatives R. Prakash and five others and the government
and petitioner approached this Court with false and concocted
story and trying to obtain interim orders so as to change the
nature of government land and to knock away the valuable
property and that petitioner suppressed the factum of filing Writ
Petitions No. 45561 of 2022 and 6087 of 2023 by his father and
both the Writ Petitions were withdrawn on 09.03.2023 and
20.12.2024 respectively, this Court directed the Registry not to
permit petitioner to withdraw this Writ Petition.
10. 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 petitioner approaching the writ Court must come with
clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without
concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state
all facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds
some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over
the other side, then he would be guilty of playing fraud with the
Court as well as the opposite party which cannot be
countenanced. In exercising extraordinary power, a writ court
would indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party which is
invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full
facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of
misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without
adjudicating the matter.
11. In R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner 4,
it has been held that 'an applicant who does not come with
candid facts and 'clean breast' cannot hold a writ of the court
with 'soiled hands'. Suppression or concealment of material
facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation,
manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in
equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not
disclose all the material facts fairly ad truly but states them in a
distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has
inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse
of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed
further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court
does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be
failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt
with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court'.
12. In K. Jayaram's case (supra), it has been held
that in order to check multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to
the same subject-matter and more importantly, to stop the
menace of soliciting consistent orders through different judicial
forums by suppressing material facts either by remaining silent
(1917) 1 KB 486
or by making misleading statements in the pleadings in order to
escape the liability of making a false statement, the parties have
to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigations
either past or present concerning any part of the subject matter
of dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according to
parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings or court litigations
were or are pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their
pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in
accordance with law.
13. In view of the above and also in view of several
precedents set by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to
suppression of facts, this Court is of the view that anyone who
takes recourse to method of suppression in a court of law, is, in
actuality, playing fraud upon the court, and the maxim
suppressio veri, expressio falsi i.e. suppression of truth is
equivalent to expression of falsehood, gets attracted since
petitioner has not disclosed filing of several writ petitions
concerning the subject land and dismissal of some of them.
Hence, he has to be non-suited on the ground of suppression of
material facts as he has not approached the court with clean
hands and also abused the process of law.
14. Here, it is worth noting that 'the stream of
administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that
purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of
the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required
to be well-taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's
environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and
to the satisfaction of all concerned. Anyone who takes recourse
to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if
anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with
the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be
properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done,
but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which
shake the faith of people in the system of administration of
justice (see Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma {(1995) 1
SCC 421}.
15. As of now, our judicial system is grossly afflicted
with frivolous litigation, hence, ways and means need to be
evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession
towards senseless and ill-considered claims. Litigation like the
present one is contributing fuel to fire in mounting pendency,
disabling the Courts to discharge the prime duty of justice
dissemination. One needs to keep in mind that there is an
innocent sufferer on the other side of every irresponsible and
senseless claim. This Court expresses its dissatisfaction on the
unbecoming conduct of petitioner in wasting judicial time by
filing cases suppressing the facts. It is a well-known fact that
there is huge pendency of cases and pressure on Judges in
disposing of such cases is enormous. Genuine litigation is not
getting the attention of the Courts by this type of frivolous
litigation.
16. Further, on merits, it is to be seen that the issue of
declaring the vendors of petitioner's father as owners of the
subject land is pending consideration in Second Appeal No.
1250 of 2010. Knowing fully well, petitioner with the help of
land grabbers, is trying to interfere in the said matter and is
filing frivolous and vexatious Writ Petitions on the basis of rank
fabricated, sham and bogus documents, to grab the valuable
government land. In the counter, the Tahsildar had, in clear
and categorical terms, stated that keeping in view the grave
threat of encroachment posed to T.S.No. 28, the then Tahsildar
addressed letter dated 15.09.2022 to the then SHO, Bhavani
Nagar P.S. to keep strict vigil an patrolling over the said land so
as to protect the same from being encroached by third party
land grabbers and also letter dated 15.06.2024 to the SHO,
Santhosh Nagar. According to respondents, neither petitioner
nor his father do have any right, interest, title or possession
over the subject land and claiming the land on the basis of
fabricated document No. 9050 of 1980 dated 30.07.1980 on
Survey Nos. 3109/1 and 310/2, non-existent at the point of
time and filed Writ Petitions No. 35670 and 36539 of 2024
against the Revenue Department seeking not to interfere with
the possession over the subject property. It is also to be noticed
here that learned Government Pleader for Revenue raises
serious concern with regard to the conduct of petitioner who
has been making efforts to secure orders by suppressing the
fact that land is in the custody of Revenue Department, and
trying to grab the valuable land of the government worth Rs.
400 to 500 crores. In view of the above, this Court cannot give
any positive direction in favour of petitioner to sell the land and
direct the registering authorities to entertain and register the
sale deeds presented by him in respect of the land.
17. At this stage, learned Government Pleader for
Revenue as well as learned counsel for impleaded Respondents
10 and 11 submit that during the pendency of this Writ Petition,
again, petitioner approached this Court as well as civil Court
and obtained status quo orders. This conduct of petitioner not
only undermines the integrity of the judicial process but also
leads to an abuse of legal remedies, causing unnecessary
burden on the Courts. Hence, it is imperative, in the interests of
justice, to dismiss the Writ Petition with exemplary costs.
18. The Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed with costs
of Rs. One crore to be paid by petitioner in favour of Telangana
State Legal Services Authority on or before 10.04.2025. If this
direction is not complied with, Registrar (Judicial-I) is directed
to list this Writ Petition on 11.04.2025 without fail.
19. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
18th March 2025
ksld
