ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders of the respondent No. 2 in New Case No. F2/Spl.Tribunal/0264/2021 (Old Case No. F2/4244/2019), dated 10.07.2021 confirming the orders passed by it on 09.02.2021 by reversing the orders of the respondent No. 4, dated Nil.05.2019 in Case No. B/1891/2018 as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner herein, his brother, late Komatireddy Neela Reddy and the respondent No. 6 herein are the children of one late K. Sathi Reddy, who died in the year 1970 and his wife, late Smt. Venkata Narsamma died in the year 1977. That the respondent No. 6 herein was married in the year 1985. That after the death of late Sathi Reddy, who died in the year 1970 leaving behind his widow-Venkat Narsamma and three children i.e., the petitioner, late Neela Reddy and the respondent No. 6 herein, the lands were partitioned between the two sons of late Sathi Reddy in the year 1975 and the said partition was incorporated in the revenue records. The respondent No. 6, after lapse of more than 40 years, has filed an appeal under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda, respondent No. 4 herein, seeking cancellation of Patta granted in favour of her brothers, contending that her father died intestate and as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Pouthi was granted in favour of his wife and children, including the respondent No. 6 in the year 1970-71 and the same was carried out in the Faisal Patti. The widow of Sathi Reddy died in the year 1977. However, her two brothers i.e., the petitioner herein and late Neela Reddy, by suppressing the fact that there are other legal heirs, have partitioned the subject land between themselves and got the lands mutated in their favour without notice to the respondent No 6. Neither the respondent No. 6 nor her mother was put on notice before mutating the subject land in favour of petitioner and his late brother. Therefore, she has filed the appeal before the respondent No. 4 challenging the entries made in favour of her brothers. By order, dated Nil-05-2019, the respondent No. 4 dismissed the appeal. Neither the respondent No. 6 nor her mother was put on notice before mutating the subject land in favour of petitioner and his late brother. Therefore, she has filed the appeal before the respondent No. 4 challenging the entries made in favour of her brothers. By order, dated Nil-05-2019, the respondent No. 4 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent No. 6 herein, has filed a revision in Case No. F2/Spl.Tribunal/0264/2021 (Old Case No. F2/4244/2019) under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, before the Joint Collector. Subsequently, on repealing of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, by the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 2020, the matter was transferred from the Joint Collector to the Special Tribunal i.e., the respondent No. 2 herein. The learned Tribunal, after going through the material and the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, allowed the revision by order, dated 09.02.2021 setting aside the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, date Nil-05-2019 with a direction to the Tahsildar to restore the Patta on the name of the original pattadar, Komatireddy Sathi Reddy by deleting the subsequent entries. Seeking review of the orders, dated 09.02.2021, the petitioner herein and others have filed a review petition before the learned Tribunal. However, by order, dated 10.07.2021, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the review petition upholding its earlier orders, dated 09.02.2021. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and the party-in-person, the respondent No. 6 herein. Perused the material available on record. 4. Admittedly, the respondent No. 6 is the daughter of late Sathi Reddy and the subject land stood in the name of Sathi Reddy, who died in 1970, leaving behind his wife, the petitioner, late Neela Reddy and the respondent No. 6 herein as his legal heirs. Succession was granted in favour of wife and children of late Sathi Reddy way back in the year 1970-71. The petitioner himself has filed a copy of Faisal Patti granted in 1970-71, which shows that the succession was granted in favour of widow, two sons and a daughter of late Sathi Reddy. Succession was granted in favour of wife and children of late Sathi Reddy way back in the year 1970-71. The petitioner himself has filed a copy of Faisal Patti granted in 1970-71, which shows that the succession was granted in favour of widow, two sons and a daughter of late Sathi Reddy. But, subsequently, two sons of late Sathi Reddy i.e., the petitioner herein and late Neela Reddy got partitioned the subject land between themselves and got their respective shares mutated in the revenue records without giving any share to the daughter or putting her on notice, contrary to the Pouthi already granted in the year 1970-71. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that any notice was issued to the respondent No. 6 herein before mutating the names of the petitioner and late Neela Reddy in the revenue records nor is it pleaded by the petitioner or the legal representatives of late Neela Reddy that the respondent No. 6 was put on notice before mutation was done in favour of the sons of late Sathi Reddy. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Special Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction and gone to the extent of deciding the rights of the parties under the Hindu Succession Act, which is exclusive domain of the civil Court. In view of the fact that the claim of respondent No. 6 is time barred, as the entries in the revenue records were made way back in the year 1971-72 basing on the partition between the brothers, the Special Tribunal ought not to have disturbed the long settled position, which is in subsistence for the last forty years. The learned counsel has further argued that the respondent No. 6 has claimed her share in the property by virtue of amendment made in the Hindu Succession Act, more particularly, Section 29(A)(iv) of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. It is contended that, when admittedly the respondent No. 6 was married prior to the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, she cannot take advantage of the subsequent amendment made to the Hindu Succession Act. Considering the above legal position and considering the fact that there was partition between the petitioner and his brother, late Neela Reddy, the Revenue Divisional Officer has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 6. Considering the above legal position and considering the fact that there was partition between the petitioner and his brother, late Neela Reddy, the Revenue Divisional Officer has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 6. In case, the respondent No. 6 has any grievance as to the entries in the revenue records or the partition, she ought to have approached the civil court seeking partition of the lands, but cannot maintain the appeal seeking correction of the entries made way back in the year 1971-72. Thus, the Special Tribunal, without appreciating the above facts, has erroneously allowed the revision filed by the respondent No. 6 and wrongly dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioner. 6. Per contra, the respondent No. 6, as party-in-person, has argued that upon the death of their father, Sathi Reddy, succession was granted in favour of his wife, sons i.e., the petitioner and late Neela Reddy and daughter, the respondent No. 6 herein. But, her brothers i.e., the petitioner and late Neela Reddy, got partitioned the subject land between themselves without allotting any share to her and got the lands mutated surreptitiously in their favour by playing fraud on the authorities. The vested right of the respondent No. 6 cannot not be defeated merely because the lands were mutated in favour of petitioner and late Neela Reddy by playing fraud, since fraud vitiates everything. The entries will not confer any title on the petitioner or late Neela Reddy. Mere mutation in the revenue records will not deprive the original owner of his/her legitimate right to the property and that the Special Tribunal, duly taking into consideration the above facts, has rightly passed the orders impugned in the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent No. 6 prayed for dismissal of the writ petition with costs. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Special Tribunal has gone to the extent of dividing the property as per the Hindu Succession Act, which it had no authority to do so, as it is the exclusive domain of the civil court to go into all those disputed questions of fact and render a judgment based on the evidence let in by the parties. But the Special Tribunal without taking into account that there was a partition between the brothers and that the mutation was done in their favour way back in the year 1970-71 and that the entries are in existence for the last forty years, has erroneously allowed the revision filed by the respondent No. 6. The said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner merits no consideration. Because a perusal of the impugned orders passed by the learned Tribunal shows that the learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the Faisal Patti of 1970-71, has allowed the revision setting aside the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and has directed the Tahsildar to restore the entries as they stood prior to the death of late Sathi Reddy with a further direction to take up succession proceedings. 8. Admittedly, in the present case, succession in favour of legal heirs of late Sathi Reddy was granted in the year 1970-71 and the same was recorded in the Faisal Patti. The writ petitioner himself has filed a copy of the said proceedings. When such is the case, it is not understandable as to how two sons of late Sathi Reddy can deny the share of his daughter, the respondent No. 6. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that the respondent No. 6 was put on notice before the mutation was effected in favour of petitioner and his late brother. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 6 was given any other property in lieu of her share in the subject land in the settlement, if any, or she has executed any deed of relinquishment in their favour. Admittedly, late Sathi Reddy had died in the year 1970 intestate and the learned Special Tribunal, duly taking into account the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, more particularly, Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, has merely directed the Tahsildar to restore the name of late Sathi Reddy and take up succession proceedings, but has not decided the shares of the parties, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. In Chinnam Pandurangam vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, 2007 (6) ALD 348 (FB), a Full Bench of this Court, at paras 7 and 10, has held as under : “7. 9. In Chinnam Pandurangam vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, 2007 (6) ALD 348 (FB), a Full Bench of this Court, at paras 7 and 10, has held as under : “7. The above analysis of the relevant statutory provisions shows that proviso to Section 5 (1) and Section 5(3) represent statutory embodiment of the most important facet of the rules of natural justice i.e. audi alterem partem. These provisions contemplate issue of notice to the persons likely to be affected by the action/decision of the Mandal Revenue Officer to carry out or not to carry out amendment in the Record of Rights. Section 5 (3) provides for issue of written notice to all persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment. A copy of the amendment and the notice is also required to be published in the prescribed manner. If the Legislature thought that publication of a general notice in Form-VIII will be sufficient compliance of the rules of natural justice, then there was no occasion to incorporate a specific requirement of issuing written notice to the persons whose names are entered in the Record of Rights and who are interested in or affected by the amendment and also to other person whom the recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by the amendment. 10. The issue deserves to be considered from another angle. He can do so only if a notice regarding the proposed amendment is given to him by the recording authority. It need no emphasis that the rules of natural justice are applicable in all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The rule of hearing is also applicable in purely administrative proceedings and actions where any public authority passes an order affecting the rights of any individual. The applicability of the rules of natural justice to purely administrative actions has been recognized by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. The rule of hearing is also applicable in purely administrative proceedings and actions where any public authority passes an order affecting the rights of any individual. The applicability of the rules of natural justice to purely administrative actions has been recognized by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 and has been reiterated in various judgments including those of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150 , Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 , S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, AIR 1981 SC 136 , Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818 , and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180 .” 10. Therefore, in view of the above settled legal position, once it is admitted that succession has been granted in favour of the children of late Sathi Reddy, including the respondent No. 6, the revenue authorities ought to have put her on notice before mutating the subject land in favour of the petitioner and his late brother, Neela Reddy. As seen from the record, the two sons of late Sathi Reddy have not disclosed to the revenue authorities about the fact that late Sathi Reddy had a daughter and that the she is also entitled to a share in the property. The said suppression amounts to fraud. It is well settled principle of law that fraud vitiates all solemn acts and any advantage that the party may claim on the basis of fraud has to be set aside. 11. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a judgment or decree which is obtained by fraud is to be treated as a nullity and can be questioned even in collateral proceedings. Non-disclosure of relevant material documents with a view to obtain advantage amounts to fraud. At paragraph Nos.5 and 6, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held as under : “The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. ………….. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party. 12. In Madhukar Sadbha Shivarkar v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 6 SCC 557 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that fraud vitiates the entire proceedings and can be challenged at any time. 13. Lastly, merely because the mutation entries are in existence for the last forty years, the petitioners cannot contend that the respondent No. 6 should be relegated to the civil court to pursue her remedies. In State of U.P. vs. Amar Singh, AIR 1997 SC 1534 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “It is settled law that mutation entries are only for the purpose of enabling the State to collect the land revenue from the person in possession but it does not confer any title to the land. The title would be derived from an instrument executed by the owner in favour of an alienee as per Stamp Act and registered under Registration Act. The alienees being sons and daughters-in-law, the tenure-holder remained to be the owner and holder of the land.” 14. The title would be derived from an instrument executed by the owner in favour of an alienee as per Stamp Act and registered under Registration Act. The alienees being sons and daughters-in-law, the tenure-holder remained to be the owner and holder of the land.” 14. Likewise, in Balwant Singh vs. Daulat Singh (dead) by L.Rs., AIR 1997 SC 2719 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated a similar proposition, as under : “We have already noticed that mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and those entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue.” 15. For the forgoing reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed confirming the orders of the respondent No. 2 in New Case No. F2/Spl.Tribunal/0264/2021 (Old Case No. F2/4244/2019), dated 10.07.2021 confirming the orders passed by it on 09.02.2021. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.