Shri. Gajender Kumar Gupta v. 1. The District Collector

Petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in the cir,:umstances stated in the affidavit filed iir support of the petition, the High Court mav be pleased to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondent to initiate the action on the complaints filed by the petitioner dt. 9.4.2008, 2.6.200g, 3.6.200g, 7.6.2008, 22.8.200g, 7.10.2002 and 27 .11 .2002 pending before the p.S. Kanchanbagh. l.A. NO: 1 OF 201ti(WpMp. NO: 30129 OF 2016t Petition unoer Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the additional material papers filed along with this petition, in the interest of justice. NO oF 201 P 1 OF Petition undr3r Section 151 CPC praying that in the circr:mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pteased to extend the time for (2) months. IANO: 1OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rrray be pleased to receive additional documents i.e. 1. Copy of the judgment passed in O.S No. 149g of 2002 by the llnd Additional Junior Civil Judge, R.R. District dated on 2310112014' 2. Coptr of the judgment passed in A.S No. g2 of ZO14 by the Hon,ble lst Additional District Judge, R.R. District dated ogto6r2a1s. 3. copy of the judgment in s'c' t''lo. 109 of 2o1o passed by the vth Additionat metropolitan sessions judge (Marrira court), at Hyderabad, Dt 22t11r2010 (4) copy of Meseva receipt dated 24t10t2o17 paid by the Petitioner for conducting Survey of land in Survey No. 21 and 22, (5) Copy of fake patta Certificates in the name of family members of Respondent No.7 (Total 6 in number), (6) Copy of the judgment in C.C No.716 of 2011, passed by the of llnd Metropolitan Magistrate, at L.B. Nagar, dated 1411212018, (7) information furnished by the Respondent No.5 on 1lBl2O14 under RTI Act, more specifically mentioned in the running index in W.P No. 1119 of 2010. lA NO: 1OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to initiate Criminal action against the Respondent No. 5 and his staff under Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code making him liable for Criminal Prosecution for contravening Sections 191 to 195 of IPC in W.P. No. 1119 of 2010 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to receive the Additional Material Papers in the above Writ Petition in W.P. No. 1 1 19 of 2010 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.JAMALI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,5 & 6: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 4: SRI SRIDHAR BHUVANAGIRI, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI T.DAMODAR The Court made the following: ORDER ,j THE HONOUITABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAIUAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.l119 of 2O1O ORDER: Heard Sri K. Jamali, learned counsel on recor(l appearing for the petitioner, Sri Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, lear::ed Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l to 6, Sri r. DamodaLr, learned counsel for respondent No.7, and perused the material available on record.

2. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seekir:g to direct the respondent No:s.1 and 2 to initiate action against respoedent Nos.3 to 6 for misusinE; their official position by creating false' panchanama proceedings clated 30.12.2oos and 08.o9.2006 ;br the land admeasuring 11o Sq. Yards in sy.No.24/sz of Sultanvalva village, Champapet, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and for intentionally arresting petitioner under false case to he.lp respondent No.7 to grab petitioner's propert5r and also to a.',vard suitable compensation .l'or their negligent act, for loss and suff'erance by the petitioner and his family members.

3. It is con.tended by the petitioner that the petitioner is the absolute owner- and possessor of open plot in sy.Nos.2l and 22, situated at Pochammagadda, sultanvalva, santhosh Nagar, 2 Champapet, Ranga Reddy District, rr'aving purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 13.06.1996 uide Document No.2565 from the original pattedar Sri Penta Reddy and thereafter, constructed one room with tin shed. It is further stated that the wife of the petitioner also purchased a plot admeasuring 8O sq.yards under registered sale deed uide Document No.1042 of 1996 and constructed three-storey building in the year 1996-97 which is on the rear side of the above said plot.

4. It is further stated by the petitioner that several disputes are pending between the petitioner and respondent No.7, who allegedly tried to trespass in the subject plots of the petitioner and his wife. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.7 tried to interfere and grab the subject property of the petitioner and his wife on the strength of a fake patta certificate created by respondent No.7 in respect of the land admeasuring 110 sq.yards in Sy.No.S7, situated at Sultanvalva, Pochammagadda, Champapet, Gram Panchayat uide proceeding No.B6/83O3182 dated 10.05.1985, with the help of revenue officials, whereby the revenue officials said to have handed over the possession of the room which was said to have been locked by the petitioner in view of the said patta certificate created by respondent No.7 with the connivance of revenue officials. ,/, I 3

5. It is further stated that several criminal cases were also registered agrainst the petitioner and his son L,asing on the complaints lotiged by respondent No.7 on the file ol' Kanchanbagh Police station. subsequent to which, the petitioner was arrested on Og.06.2OO8 and remanded to judicial custody.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that after conducting investigation, a charge-sheet was also filed before the vll Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. and the same ended in acquittal uidejudgment dated 22.LL.2oLo irr sc.No.lo9 of

2010. He further contended that though it is evident from the record that the respo:edent No.7 had lodged a complaint basing on the fake patta certificale and created panchanama, the respondents-police authorities reg;istered a false case and also arrested the petitioner, despite the fact that the dispute pertaining to the subject property is purely a civil clispute, as such, the petitioner had sufl.ered hardship and the action of the police amounts to offending the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 2L and :l0o-A of the Constitution of India.

7. Respondr:nt No.2 filed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that basing on the earlier complaint lodged by respondent No.7, a case in crime No.134 of 2oo2 under sections 448, so4 and 506 of IPC was registerred against the petitioner on the 4b of Kanchanbagh 4 Police Station, Hyderabad on O7.lO.2Ol2, which was closed on

17.OL.2013 as "Civil in Nature". Similarly, another complaint filed against the petitioner in Crime No.154 of 2OO2 under Sections 354 and 509 of IPC was registered on the file of Kanchanbagh Police Station, which was also closed aS "False". However, in spite of the closure of above complaints, another complaint was lodged by respondent No.7 against the petitioner in Crime No.166 of 2008 under Sections 448, 354, 506,323 rlw 34 of IPC on the file of Kanchanbagh Police Station and subsequently, the petitioner was arrested on O9.06.2008. Further, a charge sheet was also l-rled before the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which ended in acquittal uidejudgment dated 22.ll.2OlO in SC.No.1O9 of

8. At paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is specilically stated that basing on a petition submitted by the petitioner, a detailed enquiry was called for by the then Deputy Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, from the then Assistant Commissioner of Police, Santhosh Nagar Division, wherein an enquiry report was submitted on 20.0 t.2Ol1, in which it is disclosed that the investigating officers have rightly arrested the petitioner and his son when ttre prima facie case was established against them in Crime No.166 of 2OO8. However, a perusal of the enquiry report discloses 5 /.: that, basing ,rn the very fake certilicates and the ;:evenue records created by respondent No.7, the respondents-Police aul.horities found that respondent No.7 was indeed in possession of tht: disputed land which was by virtue of possession given by revenue authorities.

9. Responclent No.1-District Collector also liled counter affidavit, stating that the disputed land neither belonged to tkre petitioner or respondent No.7 and that it falls in Sy.No.24, which is a Government Land. The alleged patta certificate in which Sy.No.S7 has been referred to has nothing to do with the land in dispute. The respondent No.1 also categorically stated that the panchanama of handing over the land to respondent No.7 is illegal. Respondent No.1 filed additiona.l counter affidavit, in which, while referring to the earlier counter filed by him, wherein it was categorica:lly stated that the DC and MRo, Saroornagar, without verifying the genuineness of the patta cerl.ificate issued, has directed the AMR,: to handover possession in the Government Land uid.e Memo No.c/6442/2oos dated 2l.08.2006 and in compliance to the men1o, the AMRI, Saroornagar, has conducted panchanama on og.o9 ",2006, without veriffing the genuineness of the patta and hantled over the possession to respondent No.7. Thus, it is stated by rerspondent No.1 in the additional counter that the officer held responsiL,le for the said illegal conduct of panchanama was one sri Ravi Kumar, AMRI, and 6 /rl i-! disciplinary action is being initiated against the said erring officers i.e., the DC & MRO and the AMRI, who were involved in the issue of handing over possession of Government land in Sy.No.24, Sultanvalva Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga. Reddy District, to respondent No.7. It is further stated that the then DC and MRO, Saroornagar, who had issued memo directing the AMRI to handover possession, has expired and that the AMRI who conducted panchanama is presently not working in the District. Hence, the then Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad, was addressed to initiate disciplinary action. 1(). Having considered the rival submissions and on a perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that the revenue officials helped respondent No.7 in creating fake patta certificates, basing on which, the officials also delivered possession of the disputed land in favour of respondent No.7. The respondents-Police authorities also, basing on such proceedings created by respondent No.7, registered a criminal case against the petitioner and his son.

11. In view of the clear findings recorded by respondent No.1 in his counter affidavit that respondent No.7 created fake certificates of patta and that the revenue officials also helped respondent No.7, this Court is of the considered opinion that the panchanama proceedings dated 30.12.2005 and 08.09.20O6 are liable to be set aside. In so far r,l i. I: !t : I ,' 7 as the prayer ::or initiating action against respondent Itlos.3 to 6, the respondent Nos.1 and 2, by way of counter alfidavits, have categorically stated that the then DC and MRO, Saroornagar, had already expire,d and in so far as the AMRI is concerned, the disciplinary enquiry has already been initiated by- r:he competent authority during the year 2Ol7 and it is informed try the learned Assistant Gove'rnment Pleader for Home that the said enquiry is still pending. So fzrr as the respondents-Police authorities a.re concerned, in the counter filed by respondent No.2, it is specilically stated that the police were acting under the bona fide faith and r-hat they were only discharging their duties, who were guided by t-he fake patta certificates anC revenue records issued/generated b.y the revenue authorities. Moreover, the allegations made by respondent No.7, which led to rr:gistration of Crime No.166 of 2008, were proved and * + accordingly, a,:harge-sheet was also laid before the cornpetent Court. Therefore, flo action can be initiated against respondents-Police authorities. L2. In view of the aforesaid, this Writ Petition is clisposed of by setting aside the panchanama proceedings dated 3(t.12.2O05 and

08.09.20O6, which were falsely created for the purpttse of helping respondent No,7. This Court is also of the opinion that the revenue officials, partir:ularly the then MRo and AMRI, exceeded their 8 {"'ii {-, jurisdiction in exercising their powers. Though the petitioner is the victim who faced hardship by virtue of such iilegal conduct of revenue authorities as well as respondent No.7 and since the police authorities were acting in bona fid"e faith, no ..such relief can be granted to initiate action against respondents-Police authorities. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to seek damages through appropriate proceedings for the undue hardship suffered due to the illegal acts of the revenue authorities and respondent No.7. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand cloged. SD/.AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR & SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY/ To Mandal, R.R. District.

1. The District collector, R.R. District at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad' 3. The lnspector of Police, P.S. Kalqhanbagh., Hyderabad. 4. ffre Sub-lnspector of Police, P S Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad' 5. The Mandal Revenue Officer / Dy. Collector cum Tahsildar, Saroornagar 6. The Revenue lnspector, Saroornagar Man.{ql, R.R' District' 7. One CC to SRI K.JAMALI, Advocate [OPUCI 8. One CC to SRI T.DAMODAR, Advocate [OPUC] f . i*o CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court-for the-State of Telangana, at f O. frirb-Cfs to Gp f On REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. IOUTI Hyderabad. [OUTI

11.Two CD Copies PSK. BS HIGH COI.JIRT DATED:221091202s ORDER WP.No.1119 of 2010 \ \ I I I I f i',5 :-;-i.ti6 q i t I' t{trt 'M t. -l- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .a * ri)f .;;r4.'Ji,tr \ / f\