Writ Petition No. 23869 of 2019 · The High Court · 2025

Petition uncler section 151 CPC praying that in the circurlstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orcler of the learned Single Judge in WP No 23869/2019' dl.16tO7l2024, pending disposal of Appeal petition Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. VEDULA SRINIVAS, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI S. VIPLAV SIMHA REDDY Counset for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6to12: SRI B. MAYUR REDDY' SENIOR COUNSEL REP SRI MOHAMMED ABDUL WAHAB W.A. NO: 1104 OF 2024 writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal Preff€)red Against the Order Dated 16107 t2O24 Passed in W.P.No 8121 of 2O21 on the file of the High Court. Between: M.Ashok Kumar, S/o Venkatnarsaiah, Aged 51 years, Occ private employee and aqriculture, Ryo Flat No '103, Surya Residency near t iDFC Bank, Pet Bashe-erabad, Jeedimetla, MedchalDistrict ...pETlTlONI:R,A,'ELLANT The Strte of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat Hyderabad The Joint Coliector Ranga Reddy District at LakdiKaPul, Hydt:rabad The Revenue DivisionaiOfficer Chevella, Ranga Reddy District The Tahsildar, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Sved Asol-ar Hussaini. (Died) oerlr's l0to12) Sied Ahired Hussaini, 5lo t-aie Samadulla Hussaini Aged 84 years Occ a{riculturist Rl/o H no 122709130, Navodaya Colony Mehdipatnam Hyderabad 500264 TS Sayedunnisa Begum, D/o Late SamadullaHussaini, Aged 73 vears O^cc Relirec teacher, H no 34411, Phase 3, Borabanda, Hyderabad TS -Rl/o AND ,1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 Syed Azam Hussain, S/o Late^S^amadulla _Hussaini, Aged 71 years, Occ Retired Govt Servalt, HNo 192246tct4, nrif nesiO'enEv, nOalt Hainattr - 9,olony, Chandutal Bardari, HyderaOaO -'SOOZOa i5 '-' 9. lujtqba Hussaini Siddique, D7o Late Samadulla Huisaini. Aqed 47 vears. occ Private Business, Rl/o H No 81 366, A/148, Janaki Naga-r Colony, Hyderabad T S

10. Syed Adil Hussaini, S/o_Syed Asghar Hussaini, Akbar Bagh, Tolichowki, _ _ Golkonda,. Hyderabad, Telangana 11. Syed Aqil Hussaini, S/o Syed-Asghar Hussaini, Akbar Bagh, Tolichowki, - colkonda, Hyderabad, Telangana 1 2. S.Zainab Sulthana, Wo Syed Asghar Hussaini, Akbar Bagh, Tolichowki, Gorkonda, Hyderabad,reiangani ._;;;f"r"r*=."o*r."r, lA NO: 'f OF 2024 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 preased to suspend the order of the learned Single Judge in Wp No.8121t2O21, dt.16.07.2024, pending dispose of the Appeal Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. S. VIPLAV SIMHA REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1to4: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6to12: SRI B. MAYUR REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL REP SRI MOHAMMED ABDUL WAHAB The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT r- .1 ,/ (- THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF WSTICE SUJOT'PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL Nos.lO4 1AND 1104 0F 2024 COMMON JUDGMENT (per tle Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, . Regard being had to the similitude of the qtLestions involved, on the joint request of the parties, the matters were llrlalogously heard ald decided b1' this common order.

2. These intra Court appeals assail the common order dated 16.O7.202.1 pasr;ed in W.P.Nos.23869 of 2019 and al21 o! 2O2l' The pravers in the said Writ Petitions are as under: trI.P.No.23869 of 2Ol9: '...to issuc an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particula;lr, :rnc in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, decllLring the action of lht 3'' respondent in passing the impugned order in Appeal l'trc.(i /:'i83/20i8 dt.3O.8.2018 setting aside the orders passecl b',' lrc 4rir respondent in Procs No.B/7ll2OO9 dt 19 122016 ty direct ng ilrm to pass orders afresh by affording oppor:unity to all the ccn<:erned, rvhen admittedly the 4rt respondent has only implemerLteC rhe orders passed in G.O.Msl.No.1110 Re 'renue @ dt.19.8.197,: in compliance of the orders passed bv this Hon'ble Court in \I,.P.No. l)33g l2Ol2 dt. 19.1.2016, as being rllegal, arbitrar-r' tt r.til:rtera-l and unconstitutional ald consequ( )ntly set aside thc sam e. . . ' W.P.Ho.8121 of 2O2L: '...to issue :tnt rvrit, order or direction more in the nature ;f writ of Mandam'-rs cleclaring the action of the 4Lh re:;pondent herein 1'l',rhsiici:rr i;r passing the order dt.29 '10 '2O19 in case No.B l2g'.!.g,t )Ol9 in respect of land in SurveyNo 126 to an extentof Ac.1,.27 Eunr:rs situated at Chandippa village, Shankerpalll' Mandal, Ralga Recld,l District, as iltegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and against tl-le pr-ovisions of Lau'and in utter violation and disrlbeyance o[ orders in w.P No.23869 of 2Ol9 and consequently de':lare the same as i,c,i:l ab initio and further direct the respon Cents to forthwith r.:itorc thc name of the origrnal Inamdar in onlint Pahanis 2 HAC,J & RY,J wAs 1041 & 7704 0f ZOZ4 and the Dharani as per tJ.e Supplementary Sethwar and subsisting binding orders of the Honble High Court.....,,

3. The rival stand taken in these appeals by the parties and findings given in the impugned common order of learned single Judge remind us the famous idiorn ,the pot calling the kettle black'.

4. Draped in brevity, the facts as projected by the appellant are that one Ramanujamma was issued with Occupancy Rights Certificates dated 20.06.1978 basing on the claim made by her as pattedar and Samadullah Hussaini as Inamdar in respecf .of lald admeasuring Ac.l 27 guntas in Sy.No.126 of Chandippa Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Respondent Nos.S to 13 (unofhcial respondents) sought rectihcation of entries in Sethu.tar and the concerned Tahsildar rectiFred the same on

25. 11.1985. The son of Ramanujamma namely Rameswar Reddy hled an appeal under Section 5(5-B) of the Andhra pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short, RoR Act) before the Revenue Divisiona-l Officer which was allowed on

20.03.1991. Aggrieved, the unofficial respondents filed a revision before the Joint Collector which came to be dismissed on

11.12.1995. Later, Rameswar Reddy sold the subject land to M/s.Pro Agro Seed Compaly Limited and mutation was also done ? a HAC,J & RY,J wAs 1041 I LlO4 ot 2024 in its favour. l-he present appellant had purchased the subject land from said M/s.Pro Agro Seed Compaly Limited -rnder sale deed document No. 152 1/2006, dated 07 -O2.2006 Later, mutation was done in favour of the appellant on 15.lC.2007 and pattadar passbook and title deeds were also issued to hjm.

5. The uncfficia-l respondents filed W.P.No.10339 of 2Ol2 for implementing, the order of Tahsiidar dated 25.1 I .1985 by suppressing the order of Revenue Divisional Officer dated

20.O3.1gg1 and also the revisional order of Joint Colk ctot dated 1 1.12.1995. Hou''ever, the present appellant was not impleaded as a party in the said Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was r:lisposed of on 19.01.201 6, ,lirecting respondent Nos.2 to 4 there in to take steps in accorrleurce r,r'ith laq' for issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the subject lands at ttLe earliest. Pursuant thereto, the Tahsildar incorporated Samadulla-h Hussain in the revenu€ records in respect of the subject lands on

19.12.2016. Thereafter, the appellant filed W.A.No.4Ct1 of 2O1B against the order in W.P.No.1O339 of 2Ol2 atd the same was disposed of on I 0.09.2018 permitting the appellant to f ile revision under Section 9 of the RoR Act. The appellant, in fa<:t, hled an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 5(5-A) -l i i I I I 4 HAC,.' & RY.J WAs 1041 & L104 ot 2024 of the RoR Act which was allowed on 3O.Og.20lg. Consequently, the Tahsildar mutated the name of the appellant in the revenue records on 29-Lo.2or9. Aggrieved, the unofficiar respondents filed w.P.No.23869 of 2079 chalenging the order of Revenue Divisional Officer dated 30.08.2018 and W.p.No.812i of 2021 challenging the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 29.l}.2olg- The learned single Judge, vide common order dated 16.07.2024 set aside the orders impugned therein and remitted the matter back to the Special Tribunal for disposing of appeal in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the sarne, the present appeals have been filed.

6. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri S.Viplav Simha Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, fairly submits that while filing W.A.No.4Ol of 2018, the appellant had not disclosed that he had already frled appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the same was decided on 3O.Og.2O1g. The principal argument of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that the unofficial respondents herein suppressed many material facts before the learned single Judge and categorical finding in this regard is duly recorded by the learned single Judge. The judgment of the Apex Court in Amar Singh v. Union of India and / 5 HAC,j & RY,J wAs 1041 t\ L7O4 of 2c24 a^ Othersr was also considered by the learned singie Judge' In view of the said judgrnent of the Apex Court and finding of learned single Judge in the impugned order, the unofficial re spondents herein were not e:ntitled of hearing on merits. The lear.ned single Judge, despit,: taking note of binding judgment of the Apex Court, entertained the Writ Petitions, heard them on merits a:rd granted relief desired by the unofhcial respondents herein which is bad in law. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Ape;< Court in Amar Singh (s u pra).

7. Sri B.Mavr-tr Reddy, learned Senior Counsel reprer;enting Sri Mohammed .A.bdul Wahab, learned counsel for the unofhcial i respondents, sr,tbmits that the appellant is equally guilty of suppressior of nrateria-i facts. The impugned order befo re the Writ Court u.as p;asse'd at the instance of the appellart Lrerein and without impleacling the writ petitioners/ unofl-rcial respondents herein. In th,: impugned order, learned single Judge has recorded categorical findrng against the appellalt as wel1. Elecause of suppression of material fact by the appellant a1so, the present Writ Appeais are not tenable. He urged that the lealned single Judge has only set aside the impugrred order and ren'.anded the '12ott1 z scc 6s \ 6 HAC,J & RY,J WAs 1041 &71O4 of 2024 a matter back to the Special Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District for re- hearing which will not cause any prejudice to the appellant herein. More-so, when the unofhcial respondents were not heard by the Special Tribunal before passing the orders impugned before the learned Single Judge.

8. The parties have confined their arguments to the extent indicated above, We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

9. Interestingly, both the Senior Counsel for the parties fairly admitted that the hndings given about both the parties regarding suppression of material fact by the learned single Judge are indeed, correct. Thus, the pivotal question cropped up is whether the learned single Judge was justified in passing the impugned order?

10. It is apposite to reproduce certain paragraphs of the impugned order which read as under: "14. It is relevant to place on record that respondent Ito.S had approached this Court aad filed W.A.No.4O1 of 2018 with unclean hands by suppreseing the factum of flling of appeal before the RDO under the RoR Act iacluding disposal of the said appeal on 3O.O8.2O18 and invited the order from the Hon'ble Diwision Bench on 1O.G).2O18. Whereas, respondent No-5 in counter-affidavit in W.P.No.8121 of 2O2l simply averred that he is not aware of the factum of listing of W.A.No.4O1 of 2018 before the Hon'ble I I ,74: 7 HAC,J & RY,J WAs 1041 & LL04 of 2024 Division Bench and, as such, he could not intimate' about Jisposal of appeal to his counsel and the same is not acceptable unier law, as he suppressed the material fa':ts' It is also relevant to Place oa record that petitioner 15. Nos.l, 2 and 4 have also suppressed the several material facts about filing of appeal Case No'C/62O5l1986 before respondent No.3 againsi them questioning the order dated 25.i1.1985 and aliowing of the said appeal on 2O'O3'1991 and also frling of revision by them before the Joirt ttid'e Case Collector, Ranga Reddy District, No.D1l8O75/91 questioning the order dated 2O'O3'1991 and dismissal of the said revision petition on 11'ljl'1995' On the otl-"err hand, petitioner Nos. 1,2 and 4 have frled W.P.No.103:19 of 2012 seeking implementation of tlte non- existing orrler dated 25.1 1.1985 passed by the Mandal Revenr-i-e Officer, Shankarapally, and invited order in W.P.No.1O3.l9 ol 2Ol2 on lg-Ol.2016' Heace' this Crourt is of the considered view that not onlv res DOndent No.S, but also the oetitioners havea ooroached this Court with unclean hands. The settled principle of law is that the parties iean hands and Put have to approach the Writ Court with c ithout conce aling or forwartl all thc facts before the Court w suppressing materiai facts, especially when they are seeking equital;1e relief in writ jurisdiction. ln Amar Siagh v. Union of India and others2, the 16. Hon'blc r\pe:: Court held that litigant, who comes to Ct'urt and invokes writs jurisdiction, must come with clean hands and he cann:t prevaricate and take inconsistent stands because law is no1. a game of chess and equitable nature of remedy must lre governed by principle of ubeirima fdes' The Court highlighr,ed lhat such suppression of material facts ur-r-deri.,itre" the integrity of the judicial process, emp easizing the importance of transparency and truthfulness in ali interactictrs with the court. Ia K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India limited 77. and ors.3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held the jurisdiction of the Supremc Court under Article 32 and of the High Cou:'t under nriicle 2ZO of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and drscretionarl'. Prerogative writs mentioned therein ar'l issued for dorrLg substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessitrs that the petitioner approaching the writ coltrt must ' (zorr) z scc es r (2oo8)12 scc .r8l 8 HAC,J & RY,J WAs_1041 & 1,104 of 2024 come with clean hands put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppresslng anything and seek arr appropnate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant sed at the threshold without considerins the merits of the claim." facts or the tioner is be di of mi (Emphasis supptied)

11. A plain reading of aforesaid paragraphs makes it clear that the iearned single Judge has recorded findings about suppression of material facts against the unofficial respondents and appellalt both. Pertinently, the learned single Judge, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Amar Singh (supra) arid K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others4, opined that non-disclosure of relevant material facts amounts to misleading the Court and such petition ma1, be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. In Amar Singh (supra), the Apex Court opined as under: "53. Courts have, over the centuries, frowncd upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, lnitiated proceedings without fuli disclosure of facts. Courts he ld that such litieants have come with hncle an hands' and are not entitled to be heard on the merits of their r:ase

12. The similar view is taken by the Apex Court in catena of judgments (see Vijay Syal v. State of punjabs, prestige Lights (Emphasis supplied) o (zoog) rz scc +st ' 1zooa1 s scc aor 9 HAC,] & RY,] WAs 1041 & 7L04 of 2024 Ltd. v. State Bank of Indiao, Udyami Evam Khadi G,ramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of Uttar Pradeshz, Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesha and Manohar Lal lDead) By Lrs. v Ugrasene)

13. The principles flowing from the said judgments car be culled out as under: " 1 . A *,rit remedy is an equitabie one. While er ercising extraorCinary power a Writ Court certainly bear in nrind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdictior. of the Court.

2. Litigant before the Writ Court must come rvith clean hands, oleir.n heart, clean mind and clean objecr-ive. He should disclose all facts without suppressing a -rything. Litigant carrnot be allowed to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back)/ conceal other facts.

3. Supprcssion or concealment of material facts is not an advocar:r. Ir is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvrin,S or mis representa tion u'hich has no place in equitalrle and preroga t rr', jurisdiction.

4. If litigant- do es not disclose all the material facts fairlv and truiy or states them in a distorted manner and misl<:ads the the Court has inherent Dower to refuse to proceed Court, further r'vitl-r the examination of the case on merits. If Court etition on that sround. the Coult would does not reiect the p be failingl r,. its duly.

5. Such a litigant can also be dealt with for Contempt of Court f,rr zLbusing the process of the Court. " (zooz) g scc aas '(zooa) r scc soo '(zoro) z scc rr+ ',1zoto1 tt scc ssz \ \ I HAC,J & RY,J WAs 1041 & 1104 of 2024 t.

6. There is a compelling need to take a serious view in such matters to ensure purity and grace in the administration of justice.

7. The litigation in the Court of law is not a game of chess. The Court is bound to see the conduct oi party who is invoking such jurisdiction." (Emphasis supplied)

14. At the cost of repetition, the aJoresaid factual background, rival accusation about suppression of facts and hnding of the iearned single Judge reminded us about the proverb ,the pot calling tle kettle black'. What is noteworthy is that despite recording the finding about suppression of material facts. by the parties and taking note of judgments of the Apex Court in Amar Singh and K.D. Sharma (supra), learned single Judge has not recorded any finding as to why the matter should be heard on merits. Requirement of giving such linding must be treated as a pre-condition for deciding a matter of this nature. putting it differently, unless the Court records a finding that despite suppression of material facts, matter can be decided on merits for some justifiable reasons, hearing ald decision on matter on merits cannot be upheld.

15. In the instant case, the learned single Judge has not y such finding which, in our humble opinion, is a recorded an 11 HAC,J & RY,] WAs 1041 & 71-04 of 2024 \ pre-requisite 'lhe learned single Judge was required to ana)yze and decide whether despite suppression of material facts, the petition is entertainable on merits. In absence of such linding, the impugned order is set aside. The Writ Petitions are restored to their original numbers for considering the matters in t_he light of observations n-l:rde hereinabove and decide them afresh in accordance lr'ith [au,

16. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are disposed of. It is made clear that this Bench has not expressed any vieu, on me.:its.. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applicatir:ns, if any, shall stand closerl. SD/- Smt K. SHYLESHI DEPUTT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// i\,t\ .' SECTilON OFFICER To, Telanoana. Hvderabad

1. The Principal Secretary Revenue Department' Secretariat' T ! ' Hyderabad , +ii; i"i;aiJiei[or, nahsa Ruaov biit'i"t at Lakdi Ka.Pul' Hvd:rabad 5. +# h;;;il-oiui.ioniibm."i, Ctrevetta, Ransa Reddv District t?'s':',:lrorrheSrateor i.+nEla:i['""aFl"tvln?lu.Y€#,ii;519%1n""'fl 6 fi;S";ffi d#[e]lFosting Section , High Court for the State cf Telansana z 6'"""'cCi,J sRt. s. vtpLAV sIMHA REDDY, Advocate [oPU-c-l . e. i,i,iJ 6c, t"-cc Fon nEver{ue ,High court for rhe state of Telangana at s. iji';"ct t; SRt iuoHnLarrlro ABDUL wAHAB, Advocate [oF'UC] 10.Two CD CoPies Hvderabad [OUT] Hvderabad ' BM , HIGH COURT DATED:1 110212025 COMMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.1041 AND 1104OF 2024 ,4: 'i ik' ,,c ll L) li- \\ --, \, '{ '--=.. ...,. , _,1t1 .s 14 rC 10 APB ZM5 t /)r'.,., ,4'tci !,, --.-., )6 ( 7 j DISPOSING OF BOTH THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS /4 1t k