JUDGMENT : K. Lakshman, J. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Order dated 30-04-2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.150 of 2001, in so far as learned Single Judge, denied relief sought by the appellants i.e., direction to the Government to restore agricultural property admeasuring Ac.09-06 gts., in Sy.No.117 and 121 (old) and 124, 128/2 (new) assigned in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 along with house property bearing Door.No.1-42, in Sy.No.117 and 121 (New Survey Nos.124 and 128/2) of Burugupally Village, Mominpet Mandal, Rangareddy District, Writ Appeal No.711 of 2008 is filed by the Writ Petitioners. 2. Likewise, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Order dated 30-04-2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.150 of 2001, wherein the learned Single Judge, directed the respondents No.1 to 3 to re-deliver the land admeasuring Ac.2-19 gts., in Sy.No.128 to the Writ Petitioners, Writ Appeal No.911 of 2008 is filed by respondents Nos.1 to 3 in the said Writ Petition. 3. Heard Sri. S. Sriramachandra Murthy, learned Counsel for the Appellants in W.A.No.711 of 2008, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue in W.A.No.911 of 2008 for appellants and Sri. C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 in W.A.No.711 of 2008. 4. W.A.M.P.No.1 of 2018 in W.A.No.711 of 2008 is filed to bring the petitioner therein as appellant No.3 in Appeal. Having satisfied with the reasons and also considering the Death Certificate dated 21-06-2016 issued by the Executive Officer, Ravulapally Kalan Grampanchayath, Shankarpally Mandal, Rangareddy District, showing the Date of Death of first petitioner i.e., K. Anjaiah as 18-04-2016, this Application is ordered. FACTS: 5. K. Anjaiah and K. Narahari, sons of Sri. K. Rama Goud, have filed Writ Petition No.150 of 2021, initially, seeking a direction to respondents therein forthwith hand over to the petitioners land admeasuring Ac.11.26 gts., along with the house property bearing Door.No.1-42, in Sy.No.117 and 121 (New Survey Nos.124 and 128/2) of Burugupally Village, Mominpet Mandal, Rangareddy District. Thereafter, they have filed an application in W.P.M.P.No.8870 of 2008 seeking to amend the prayer and the same was allowed. Thus the Writ Petitioners have sought to declare the alleged auction and purchasing an extent of Ac.14.21 gts and a house in Sy.Nos.117 and 121 (New Sy.Nos.124 and 128/2) situated at Burugupalli Village, Mominpet Mandal, Rangareddy District, for an appalling low rate of Rs.60/- belonging to the petitioners? Thus the Writ Petitioners have sought to declare the alleged auction and purchasing an extent of Ac.14.21 gts and a house in Sy.Nos.117 and 121 (New Sy.Nos.124 and 128/2) situated at Burugupalli Village, Mominpet Mandal, Rangareddy District, for an appalling low rate of Rs.60/- belonging to the petitioners? father, while he holds Ac.11.26 gts., as per Revenue Records, without following the mandatory provisions, and assigning the same to respondent Nos.5 and 6, as illegal and they also sought consequential direction to the respondents to re-deliver the possession of Ac.11.26 gts along with house property in Sy.Nos.117 and 121 (New Sy.Nos.124 and 128/2) situated at Burugupalli Village, Mominpet Mandal, Rangareddy District, by cancelling the assignment. 6. The parties are referred as they arrayed in the Writ Petition, for the sake of convenience. 7. The Writ Petitioners? father Sri. Rama Goud is the absolute owner and possessor of Ac.11.25 gts. of agricultural land in Sy.Nos.117 and 121 (new Sy.Nos.124 and 128/2) and a house bearing Door No.1-42, Burugupalli Village, Mominpet Mandal, Rangareddy District. He was an Excise Contractor. He had toddy contract of Marpally Kalan Village of Marpally Mandal for 1367 fasli, corresponding year of 1957-58, and he had mortgaged the above said agricultural land and house properties as security for payment of rentals in respect of the said toddy shop. He fell arrears of rentals to the Government to a tune of Rs.3,393/- and therefore, the Government initiated Recovery Proceedings under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 for the sale of the mortgaged property, and recovery of the said amount. 8. Perusal of the record would reveal that the first auction was conducted in 1958 for a sum of Rs.2,725/-, but the auction purchaser failed to pay the auction amount and therefore, after six years, it was decided to conduct auction the said properties fixing the upset price of Rs.5,000/- for the agricultural property and Rs.2,000/- for the house property. The Auction Notification dated 04-05-1964 was published on 25-04-1964 fixing the date of auction of said property on 29-07-1964 and auction was conducted on the said date. 9. The said agricultural land was auctioned for Rs.925/- in the name of one Sayanna and the house property was auctioned for Rs.1,800/- in the name of one Ramaiah, but the highest bidders were not credited the bid amounts. 9. The said agricultural land was auctioned for Rs.925/- in the name of one Sayanna and the house property was auctioned for Rs.1,800/- in the name of one Ramaiah, but the highest bidders were not credited the bid amounts. Hence the said auction was cancelled and the properties were again notified for auction, as no one came forward to purchase the above said properties, the Government by invoking Board Standing Order No.45 purchased agricultural land for Rs.10/- and house property for Rs.50/-, for total amount of Rs.60/- the Government purchased entire property. 10. Perusal of the record would further reveal that Writ Petitioners have specifically contended that their father owned land admeasuring Ac.11.25 gts and even though auction was conducted in respect of land admeasuring Ac.14.58 gts and sale certificate was also issued for the said extent of land admeasuring Ac.14-58 gts., No notice was served on the petitioners. 11. The Writ Petitioners have filed the above said Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.150 of 2001 challenging the said auction on the following grounds : i. No notice was issued to the petitioners i.e., legal heirs of the said Rama Goud defaulter, and owner and possessor of the said property. ii. Even though auction was conducted in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.14-58 gts., even Sale Certificate was also showing the said fact, the petitioners are not aware of the said auction and also the sale, as they are minors by that time. iii. Entire auction was held in violation of the procedure laid down under Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 and principle laid down by the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India in catenae of decisions. iv. The Board of Revenue Standing Orders are not having any statutory effect and respondent authorities cannot invoke the same. vi. The petitioners have cleared the entire excise arrears of Rs.3,400/- vide Challan No.0006773 dated 30-03-1996 paid at State Bank of Hyderabad, Gruhakalpa Branch, Hyderabad. vii. The Government came up with the proposal to write off the interest, penalties, if the principal amount is paid. viii. The Government cannot assign the land admeasuring Ac.04-03 gts., in Sy.No.124, and an extent of Ac.05-03 gts. in Sy.No.128 in favour of respondent No.5 therein i.e., G. Gnaneswar, an Ex-Serviceman, leaving the balance of Ac.02-09 gts under the possession of Government. viii. The Government cannot assign the land admeasuring Ac.04-03 gts., in Sy.No.124, and an extent of Ac.05-03 gts. in Sy.No.128 in favour of respondent No.5 therein i.e., G. Gnaneswar, an Ex-Serviceman, leaving the balance of Ac.02-09 gts under the possession of Government. With the said submissions, the petitioners sought to declare the entire auction as illegal and for consequential reliefs as stated supra. 12. The said Writ Petition was opposed by the official respondents on the following grounds : i. Sri. K. Rama Goud, father of the petitioners fell excise arrears of Rs.3,393/-, therefore, the Government has initiated Revenue Recovery Proceedings for recovery of said excise arrears. They have issued auction notice and auction was conducted and the highest bidders have not paid the entire sale consideration, therefore, they have cancelled the auction and by invoking Board Standing Order No.45, the Government has purchased agricultural land for Rs.10/- and house property for Rs.50/-, for total amount of Rs.60/-. ii. The land admeasuring Ac.04-03 gts., in Sy.No.124, and land admeasuring Ac.05-03 gts., in Sy.No.128 was assigned in favour of respondent No.5 G. Gnaneswar, an Ex-Serviceman, leaving the balance of Ac.02-09 gts under the possession of Government. iii. The petitioners have cleared the entire excise arrears of Rs.3,400/- vide Challan No.0006773 dated 30-03-1996 and the Government came up with the proposal to write off the interest, penalties if the principal amount is paid. iv. The Assistant Commissioner of Excise addressed a Letter dated 05-03-1997 in proceedings No.C3/17346/58, informing the possession of the lands in question and also to submit copies of the connected papers. v. The second petitioner K. Narahari, filed W.P.No.9485/1995 with similar relief and the said Writ Petition was dismissed on 09-09-1997 by the Division Bench. 13. Therefore, the present Writ Proceedings operates as Res-judicata, and the Writ Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition with abnormal delay and the same is barred by limitation. The respondents have conducted auction by following the procedure laid down under law. 14. The learned Single Judge vide Order dated 30-04-2008 allowed the said Writ Petition No.150 of 2001 in part, with following findings : i. The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has not explained the delay properly in questioning the auction of the said properties in 1965, auctioned was conducted more than 30 years ago cannot be set aside after lapse of so many years. ii. ii. The second petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.32928 of 2007 seeking permission of the Court to delete the second petitioner as he is not necessary or proper party to the Writ Petition and the same was allowed. iii. Perusal of the Judgment of Division Bench in W.P.No.9485 of 1995, dated 09.09.1997 goes to show that the Government made a representation before the Division Bench stating that the Government secured the lands and the house by bidding one rupee excess of the amount due. In those circumstances, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition. But the said statement made before the Division Bench is factually incorrect as the Government did not secure the said lands for one rupee more than the arrears as the arrears amount was Rs.3,393/- and if one rupee is added the Government bid should have been Rs.3,394/-. But the record actually goes to show that the Government secured the said properties for a sum of Rs.60/- only. iv. In view of the above stated factual aspect, more particularly, misrepresentation made by the Government, the same Judgment cannot be operated as res-judicata to the present Writ Petition. The second petitioner came to know the fraud played by the Government only in the year 1995 and he has questioned the said auction in the year 1995. v. The Government Pleader has produced entire records which goes to show that retention of the said properties of the defaulter in auction for a paltry sum of Rs.60/- is contrary to the procedure laid down under Revenue Recovery Act, the Government could not have purchased the said property in less than the upset price or less than the arrears of amount. However, as an extent of Ac.9.06 gts. was already assigned in favour of the respondent No.5 therein and the assignment was not at all questioned, and no notice was served on respondent No.5, the said assignment already made in 1979 cannot be interfered with. vi. The petitioners have paid the entire arrears of amount. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled at least for redelivery of the remaining land to an extent of Ac.2.19 gts., which is said to be in the possession of the Government. The respondents No.1 to 3 were directed to re-deliver the remaining land to an extent of Ac.2.19 gts., in Sy.No.128 to the Writ Petitioners. 15. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled at least for redelivery of the remaining land to an extent of Ac.2.19 gts., which is said to be in the possession of the Government. The respondents No.1 to 3 were directed to re-deliver the remaining land to an extent of Ac.2.19 gts., in Sy.No.128 to the Writ Petitioners. 15. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANTS IN W.A.No.711 of 2008 : i. Writ Petition is not barred by limitation. ii. Doctrine of Res-judicata will not operate and the learned Single Judge has given a specific finding to the said effect. iii. There is no challenge to the said finding given by the learned Single Judge, on limitation and Res-judicata by Appellants in W.A.No.911 of 2008, respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.A.No.711 of 2008. iv. The respondents? authorities have played fraud and the said contentions were not considered by the learned Single Judge. v. The respondents have not followed procedure laid down under Board of Revenue Standing Order No.45 and procedure laid down under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1984, more particularly, Section 36 of the Act. vi. The Standing Orders are not having any statutory force. vii. The learned Single Judge, having came to a conclusion that the Writ Petitioners herein have paid entire arrears amounts, no notice was issued, respondents No.1 to 3 have played fraud, they were directed to re-deliver the possession in respect of remaining land. viii. The finding of the learned Single Judge that as an extent of Ac.9.06 gts. was already assigned in favour of respondent No.5 therein and the assignment was not at all questioned and no notice was served on respondent No.5, the said assignment already made in 1979 cannot be interfered with, are perversed not based on actual facts and law. They are also contrary to the law laid down by the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India. ix. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the contention of the petitioners that fraud vitiates everything. The learned Single Judge though came to a conclusion that respondents have played fraud and obtained Judgment in W.P.No.9485 of 1995 dated 09-09-1997, erred in directing respondents Nos.1 to 3 to re-deliver possession in respect of only Ac.02-09 gts., instead of entire land. x. There is a suppression of fact by the respondents. The said facts were not considered by the learned Single Judge Court. xi. x. There is a suppression of fact by the respondents. The said facts were not considered by the learned Single Judge Court. xi. Learned counsel for the Appellants has placed reliance on several Judgments which will be dealt with contextually, in the following paragraphs. 16. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS NOs.1 to 3 & 6 in W.A.No.711 of 2008 AND APPELLANTS in W.A.No.911 OF 2008 : i. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri. C.V.R. Rudra Prasasd, learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 would submit that the respondents No.1 to 3/appellants in W.A.No.911 of 2008 have followed the entire procedure laid down under law while conducting auction. They have rightly assigned above said extent of land to respondent No.6, the said assignment was not challenged, there are laches, there is delay in filing the Writ Petition. Questing the auction in W.P.No.150 of 2001 operates as Res-judicata and the learned Single Judge has considered the said fact in the impugned order. However, the learned Single Judge erroneously directed the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to re-deliver the possession of balance land to an extent of Ac.2.19 gts. in Sy.No.128 to the petitioners herein. With the said submissions, both of them prayed to dismiss W.A.No.711 of 2008 and to allow W.A.No.911 of 2008. 17. In view of the rival submissions, the undisputed facts are as follows : i. Sri. K. Rama Goud, father of the Writ Petitioners was the absolute owner of Ac.11.25 gts. of agricultural land in Sy.Nos.117 and 121 (new Sy.Nos.124 and 128/2) and a house bearing Door No.1-42, Burugupalli Village, Mominpet Mandal, Rangareddy District. ii. He fell arrears in respect of toddy contract of Marpally Kalan Village of Marpally Mandal for 1367 fasli, corresponding year of 1957-58 and mortgaged the above said agricultural land and house properties as security for payment of rentals for the said toddy shop. iii. He also fell arrears of rentals to the Government to a tune of Rs.3,393/- to the Government and the official respondents have initiated Recovery Proceedings under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 for the sale of the mortgaged property. iv. First auction was conducted in 1958, for a sum of Rs.2,725/-, but the auction purchaser failed to pay said amount. v. Six years thereafter, the official respondents have fixed upset price of Rs.5,000/- for the agricultural property and Rs.2,000/- for the house property. vi. iv. First auction was conducted in 1958, for a sum of Rs.2,725/-, but the auction purchaser failed to pay said amount. v. Six years thereafter, the official respondents have fixed upset price of Rs.5,000/- for the agricultural property and Rs.2,000/- for the house property. vi. The Auction Notification dated 04-05-1964 was published on 25-04-1964 and auction was conducted on 29-07-1964 and the said agricultural land was auctioned for Rs.925/- in the name of one Sayanna and the house property was auctioned for Rs.1,800/- in the name of one Ramaiah. But they have not credited the said amounts within stipulated time, the said auction was cancelled and the properties were again notified for auction. vii. The land admeasuring Ac.04-03 gts., in Sy.No.124 and land admeasuring Ac.05-03 gts. in Sy.No.128 was assigned to respondent No.5 Sri. G. Gnaneswar, Ex-Serviceman, leaving the balance of Ac.02-09 gts under the possession of Government. viii. The respondent No.5 and his son have sold land admeasuring Ac.05-03 gts., in favour of the respondent No.6 herein vide Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.812 of 2008 dated 15-02-2008. 18. It is relevant to note that the respondents No.4 and 5 were set ex-parte in W.P.No.150 of 2001 even in the present Writ Appeals, despite service of notice there is no representation on their behalf. 19. In view of the above said undisputed facts, and also rival submissions, this Court will consider the contentions of that parties. LIMITATION, RESJUDICATA AND FRAUD: 20. The above stated facts would reveal that second auction was conducted on 29-07-1964 and the same was not materialized. The official respondents are claiming that the Government had purchased the subject properties under a Sale Certificate No.345/58/D5, in the auction held on 25-07-1964. 21. According to the Writ Petitioners, they came to know about the said auctions etc., only when the Assistant Commissioner of Excise addressed a Letter dated 05-03-1997 in proceedings No.C3/17346/58 to the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned requesting him to furnish the details with regard to the possession of the above lands along with records. They have also paid the entire excise arrears of Rs.3,400/- vide Challan No.0006773 dated 30-03-1996. Therefore, according to them, there is suppression of the fact and the respondents have played fraud. 22. They have also paid the entire excise arrears of Rs.3,400/- vide Challan No.0006773 dated 30-03-1996. Therefore, according to them, there is suppression of the fact and the respondents have played fraud. 22. Perusal of the Order dated 09-09-1997 in W.P.No.9485 of 1995 would reveal that the said Writ Petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that the petitioner has not explained the delay properly. During the course of submissions, the official respondents have not brought to the notice of the Division Bench with regard to the auction and assignment etc., 23. The second petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.32928 of 2007 in W.P.No.9485 of 1995 seeking permission to delete his name as not necessary or proper party to the Writ Petition and the same was allowed, and the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. The learned Single Judge considered the said facts. The official respondents are claiming that they have retained entire property for a sum of Rs.60/-. 24. The learned Single Judge gave a specific finding that the proceedings in W.P.No.150 of 2001 in the impugned Order that the dismissal of W.P.No.9485 of 1995 will not operate as Res-judicata to the proceedings in W.P.No.150 of 2001 since the Writ Petition was dismissed by Division Bench on the statement made before it, which is factually incorrect. It is relevant to note that there is no challenge to the said finding by the official respondents/appellants in W.A.No.911 of 2008. ENTRIES IN THE REVENUE RECORDS: 25. In the counter filed by the first and second respondent in W.P.No.150 of 2001, it was contended by them that subject property was ?bought in? by the Government in view of the fact that there were no bidders on account of combination among the ryots and Kharij Khatha entries in the relevant records of the Revenue Department, as per the procedure. Even the said fact was also mentioned by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Rangareddy District, in the counter filed in W.P.No.9485 of 1995. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the said entries. There is no dispute with regard to the assignment of land admeasuring Ac.09-06 gts., in favour of the respondent No.5 in the year 1979. 26. Even the said fact was also mentioned by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Rangareddy District, in the counter filed in W.P.No.9485 of 1995. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the said entries. There is no dispute with regard to the assignment of land admeasuring Ac.09-06 gts., in favour of the respondent No.5 in the year 1979. 26. Perusal of record would reveal that the name of the said Rama Goud was there in the revenue records both in the pattadar and possessor columns till 1973. In the counter filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 in W.P.No.150 of 2001, they have filed proceedings issued by Tahsildar, Vikarabad which shows that there was change of entries in the revenue records. It is mentioned as ?Ain Kami? in the Jamabandi and as ?Kharij Khata?. In view of the same, it is relevant to note that ?Ain? means the property actually existing, specific sum or value, the most precious or substantial part of the property. ?Kamia? means as one kind of ?Bandhak Kamia? is one, who is a slave only until he can repay the money advanced to him for his services, till such time the money is paid, the land will not be released. ?Karij Zama? means as extra collections and miscellaneous items of revenue. ?Kharij Khata? means government land i.e., ceiling surplus land. The said entries in the revenue record is contrary to the record, arbitrary and illegal. They are not based on actual facts. 27. Record also would reveal that official respondents are claiming that the Government has purchased the entire subject property for Rs.60/- i.e, Rs.50/- towards agricultural land and Rs.10 towards house property. They have not paid the said amount to the Excise Department towards rental arrears of late. K. Rama Goud. However, the Excise Officials have permitted the petitioners herein to pay the said arrears and also issued challan to the petitioner herein and they have paid an amount of Rs.3,400/- towards arrears by Challan No.0006773 dated 30-03-1996 paid at State Bank of Hyderabad, Gruhakalpa Branch, Hyderabad. Thus the Excise Department permitted the petitioners to pay the said arrears and accepted the said deposit. 28. The said facts would reveal that the Revenue Department has not paid the said amount of Rs.60/- to the Excise Department by way of transfer. Thus the Excise Department permitted the petitioners to pay the said arrears and accepted the said deposit. 28. The said facts would reveal that the Revenue Department has not paid the said amount of Rs.60/- to the Excise Department by way of transfer. May be with the said reason, the Excise Department has allowed/permitted the petitioner herein to pay the same amount by way of Challan. Thereafter the Excise Department has decided to write off the arrears and therefore, vide proceedings dated 08-11-1982 requested the Tahsildar to send write off arrears. 29. The Assistant Commissioner of Excise addressed a Letter dated 05-03-1997 in proceedings No.C3/17346/58 to the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned requesting him to furnish the details with regard to the possession of the above lands along with records. 30. In the counters filed by the respondents, they have admitted that the said Rama Goud, father of the petitioners have mortgaged the above said properties i.e., land admeasuring Ac.04-03 gts., in Sy.No.124 and land admeasuring Ac.07-22 gts., in Sy.No.128 and also tiled house bearing No.1-42 of Burugupally Village, Mominpet Mandal, Rangareddy District. Therefore, the entries were made after 31-03-1973, the date on which the Tahsildar, Vikarabad issued proceedings to change the entries. In view of the same, the official respondents cannot contend that the Writ Petition is barred by limitation. SUPPRESSION OF FACTS: 31. In the counter filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 in W.P.No.150 of 2001, they have suppressed certain facts i.e., conducting of auction twice i.e., in the year 1958, 29-07-1964 and thereafter, fixing of upset price for an amount of Rs.5,000/- for agricultural property and an amount of Rs.2,000/- for house property. In the first auction conducted in the year 1958, a sum of Rs.2,725/- was the price offered by the highest bidder. Six years thereafter, the official respondents have fixed the upset price and conducted auction on 29-07-1964. The agricultural land was auctioned for Rs.925/- and house property was auctioned for Rs.1,800/- and the highest bidders have not paid the said amount within stipulated period of time and the said auction was cancelled. The properties were again notified for auction. The date of third auction is not mentioned in the counter filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 in W.P.No.150 of 2001, fixation of nominal prices is also not mentioned. 32. The properties were again notified for auction. The date of third auction is not mentioned in the counter filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 in W.P.No.150 of 2001, fixation of nominal prices is also not mentioned. 32. Though the father of the petitioners have mortgaged the land admeasuring Ac.11-25 gts., and house property, there is no explanation from the official respondents with regard to conducting of auction for land admeasuring Ac.14-58 gts.,. It is relevant to note that one acre of land is equal to 40 guntas. There can?t be Ac.14-58 gts., and it should be Ac.15-18 gts., Thus, the description of extent of land is also wrongly mentioned. The said fact was also mentioned in the sale certificate. But there is no explanation, muchless plausible explanation from the official respondents with regard to the said discrepancy. Excise Department Officials have issued Proceedings dated 17-05-1982, 04-06-1982, 08-11-1982 writing off arrears. 33. The said facts were suppressed by the respondents in their counters filed in W.P.No.9485 of 1995 and W.P.No.150 of 2001. Thus, there is clear suppression of facts by the official respondents. As stated above, the official respondents have fixed upset prices for land property as Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- for house property. In the auction conducted in the year 1958, the property was auctioned for Rs.2,725/- and after second auction on 29-07-1964, the land property was auctioned for Rs.925/- in favour of Sayanna and house property was auctioned for Rs.1,800/- in the name of Ramaiah. However, they have not paid the prices within stipulated time and the auction was cancelled. There is no explanation, muchless plausible explanation from the official respondents with regard to the purchase of entire subject property for Rs.60/- i.e., Rs.50/- for agricultural land and Rs.10/- for house property i.e., ?nominal price?. The said amount of Rs.60/- is much less than the bid amount in respect of first auction conducted in the year 1958 and the second auction conducted on 29-07-1964. 34. It is relevant to note that in the impugned order, the learned Single Judge specifically mentioned that he has gone through the entire original record furnished by the learned Government Pleader. 35. Perusal of the same, in the impugned Order, learned Single Judge has mentioned that the second auction was conducted on 29-07-1964, pursuant to the auction notification dated 04-05-1964, published on 29-05-1964. 35. Perusal of the same, in the impugned Order, learned Single Judge has mentioned that the second auction was conducted on 29-07-1964, pursuant to the auction notification dated 04-05-1964, published on 29-05-1964. Whereas in the Sale certificate, the date of auction was mentioned as 25-07-1964 and in the Proceedings dated 12-08-2003 issued by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Rangareddy District also it is mentioned that since no bidder came forward, the properties were taken as ?bought in? lands on 25-07-1964 as per the provisions of Board of Revenue Standing Order No.45 for a nominal sum of Rs.60/-, the same was confirmed and a sale certificate under Section 38 of Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 was also issued by the District Collector vide Proceedings No.17346/58/D5 dated 13-07-1965. 36. Though the notification for second auction dated 04-05-1964, was published on 29-05-1964 and auction was conducted on 29-07-1964, in the sale certificate the public auction was mentioned as 25-07-1964. There is no explanation with regard to the said discrepancy from the official respondents. 37. Board of Revenue Standing Order No.45 deals with buying in lands for Government, and Clause-I deals with general procedure, which is as follows : ?In cases of revenue sales when there is good reason to suspect combination to prevent the realisation of the full value of the land, an officer who is authorised by the Collector and who is not the auction conducting officer shall bid on behalf of Government upto an amount not exceeding 50% of the estimated value of the land or an amount equal to the arrears or revenue plus expenses, whichever is less, and purchase the property on behalf of the Government as the highest bidder. But in case of any other bidder in the auction making a bid in excess of 50% of the estimated value of the land or an amount equal to the arrears of revenue plus expenses, the officer bidding on behalf of the Government shall cease to take part in the auction. When land is brought in the Government the certificate should be issued in the name of the Government. (Para (1) of Board of Standing Order No.45 is substituted as per G.O.Ms.No.1041, Revenue, dated 16-09-1976).? 38. When land is brought in the Government the certificate should be issued in the name of the Government. (Para (1) of Board of Standing Order No.45 is substituted as per G.O.Ms.No.1041, Revenue, dated 16-09-1976).? 38. Moreover, Clause-I of Board of Standing Order No.45 says that in cases of revenue sales when there is good reason to suspect combination to prevent the realisation of the full value of the land, an officer who is authorised by the Collector and who is not the auction conducting officer shall bid on behalf of Government upto an amount not exceeding 50% of the estimated value of the land or an amount equal to the arrears or revenue plus expenses, whichever is less, and purchase the property on behalf of the Government as the highest bidder. 39. It also says that in case of any other bidder in the auction making a bid in excess of 50% of the estimated value of the land or an amount equal to the arrears of revenue plus expenses, the officer bidding on behalf of the Government shall cease to take part in the auction. When land is brought in the Government the certificate should be issued in the name of the Government. 40. As discussed supra, the official respondents are claiming that after cancellation of second auction, by invoking Board of Revenue Standing Order No.45, the Government has purchased the agricultural land for Rs.10/- and house property for Rs.50/-, for a total amount of Rs.60/-. 41. In view of the same, it is relevant to discuss with regard to the procedure to be followed under Board of Revenue Standing Order and the character of the Board of Revenue Standing Order. In Telangana area, the Board of Revenue was constituted under the Hyderabad Board of Revenue Regulation 1358 fasli. It became the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, at the time of formation of Andhra Pradesh State there were two Boards of Revenue, one functioning in Telangana area and another in Andhra Pradesh area. After formation of Andhra Pradesh State, the Government acting under Section 122 of the States Reorganization Act, issued G.O.Ms.No.1250 (Revenue Department) dated 03-07-1957 specifying among the other things, the Board of Revenue functioning in Andhra Pradesh area immediately before 01-11-1956 as the Competent Authority to exercise the functions exercisable under Hyderabad Board of Revenue Regulation 1358 fasli. After formation of Andhra Pradesh State, the Government acting under Section 122 of the States Reorganization Act, issued G.O.Ms.No.1250 (Revenue Department) dated 03-07-1957 specifying among the other things, the Board of Revenue functioning in Andhra Pradesh area immediately before 01-11-1956 as the Competent Authority to exercise the functions exercisable under Hyderabad Board of Revenue Regulation 1358 fasli. Thus, one Board of Revenue came into existence to entire State of Andhra Pradesh. 42. As the time passed by various departments entrusted with developmental activities sprang up, with the result that the importance of the Revenue Department as also the Board of Revenue started diminishing, the Government thought that in the context of the present day administration the Board of Revenue is rather out of tune. The Government appointed a One Man Committee headed by Sri. S.R. Kaiwar, I.C.S., (Retired) to examine the proposal to abolish the Board of Revenue in all its aspects. 43. The Government, after careful examination of the Report submitted by the said Committee abolished the Board of Revenue by the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue (Replacement by Commissioners) Act, 1977. The Government appointed the Commissioners as Independent Heads of Departments. Now, the Commissioners exercise various powers under the Board?s Standing Orders and therefore, wherever there is a reference to Board in the Board?s Standing Orders it should be understood as a reference to the concerned Commissioner. 44. The Board?s Standing Orders are a mixture tracing their origin to various rules as also executive instructions. Under Madras Act 3 of 1895 power is conferred on the Board to make rules on various matters with the approval of the Government after previous publication. Several Boards? Standing Orders have come into existence in this manner. 45. That apart, the Government have been issuing various Government Orders on various aspects concerning the Revenue administration and these Government Orders, also have been incorporated in the Board?s Standing Orders. The result, therefore, is that it is not possible to say with certainty that the Board?s Standing Orders are either statutory or non-statutory orders. 46. In Katta Rattamma and others Vs. The result, therefore, is that it is not possible to say with certainty that the Board?s Standing Orders are either statutory or non-statutory orders. 46. In Katta Rattamma and others Vs. Gannamaneni Kotaiah and others, (1975) II An.W.R 122 the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad had an occasion to deal with this aspect of statutory nature of the Board of Standing Orders, and it was held that the Board of Standing Orders are both statutory and non-statutory depending upon the Government whether they are issued under statue or whether they are issued in the form of Government Order, by the Government in exercise their Executive Power to issue instructions under Article 162 of Constitution of India. 47. In Pasupuleti Krishna Murthy Vs. Annadasu Bapanayya and others, (1956) ALT 566 the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad has held as follows : ??.The instructions issued by the Government regulating the grants of lands to political sufferers do not confer rights enforceable in a Court of Law and the propriety of the decision of the Darkhast Authority acting within the scope of its Powers cannot be questioned by the Civil Courts. Even if the decision did not strictly conform to the instructions, a Civil Court cannot set it aside on that ground.? 48. The similar question fell for consideration before the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India, in respect of Police Standing Orders, in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Venugopal, AIR (1964) SC Page No.33 on examination of facts of the case, including the Police Standing Orders, it was held by the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India that the Police Standing Orders are a mixture. Some of the Police Orders are issued under the Madras District Police Act, 1859 and some of them are mere incorporations of the instructions issued by the Government in various Government Orders. 49. The Hon?ble Supreme Court of India further held that Police Standing Order No.145 which was not issued under the Madras District Police Act but was issued by the Home Department do not have the force of law. It is only non-statutory in character and as such it is not authority of law. The said Supreme Court decision applies equally to Board?s Standing Orders also. 50. It is only non-statutory in character and as such it is not authority of law. The said Supreme Court decision applies equally to Board?s Standing Orders also. 50. The Hon?ble Supreme Court of India referring to the principle laid down by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Katta Rattamma?s decision cited supra, held that the origin of Board?s Standing Orders has, therefore, to be examined to find out whether it is statutory or non-statutory. 51. It is also relevant to note that Hon?ble Apex Court in The Tahasildar, Taluk Office, Thanjore and others Vs. G. Thambidurai and another, (2017) 12 SCC 642 held that Revenue Standing Orders under Tamilnadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 are binding and enforceable. 52. In view of the above said law, perusal of the Board Standing Order No.45 would reveal that the same was not issued under any statutory and it was issued only in the form of Government Order, by the Government in exercise of its Executive Powers to issue instructions under Article 162 of Constitution of India. Therefore, according to this Court, the Board of Standing Order No.45 is not having any statutory force. It is only an Executive instruction. Therefore, the official respondents cannot claim that they have invoked the Board of Standing Order No.45 and the Government has purchased the agricultural land and house property for a nominal amount of Rs.60/-. Moreover they have not followed the procedure laid under the said Board of Standing Order No.45. 53. As discussed supra, the official respondents have not even followed the said procedure of Clause-I of Board of Standing Order No.45. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the action of the official respondents in purchasing the subject property for a nominal amount of Rs.60/- is in violation of the said procedure. 54. Section 36 of Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 deals with Procedure in sale of immovable property, and the same is extracted below : In the sale of immovable property under this Act the following rules shall be observed:? I. The sale shall be by public auction to the highest bidder. The time and place of sale shall be fixed by the Collector of the district in which the property is situated, or other officer empowered by the Collector in that behalf. The time may be either previous to or after the expiration of the fasli year. II. I. The sale shall be by public auction to the highest bidder. The time and place of sale shall be fixed by the Collector of the district in which the property is situated, or other officer empowered by the Collector in that behalf. The time may be either previous to or after the expiration of the fasli year. II. Previous to the sale the Collector, or other officer empowered by the Collector in that behalf, shall issue a notice thereof in English and in the language of the district, specifying the name of the defaulter; the position and extent of land and of his buildings thereon; the amount of revenue assessed on the land, or upon its different sections; the proportion of the public revenue due during the remainder of the current fasli; and the time, place, and conditions of sale. This notice shall be fixed up one month at least before the sale in the Collector?s office and in the Taluk cutcherry, in the nearest police station-house, and on some conspicuous part of the land. III. A sum of money equal to fifteen per cent of the price of the land shall be deposited by the purchaser in the hands of the Collector, or other officer empowered by the Collector in that behalf, at the time of the purchase, and where the remainder of the purchase-money may not be paid within thirty days, the money so deposited shall be liable to forfeiture. IV. Where the purchaser may refuse or omit to deposit the said sum of money, or to complete the payment of the remaining purchase-money, the property shall be resold at the expense and hazard of such purchaser, and the amount of all loss or expense which may attend such refusal or omission shall be recoverable from such purchaser in the same manner as arrears of public revenue. Where the lands may, on the second sale, sell for a higher price than at the first sale, the difference or increase shall be the property of him on whose account the said first sale was made. 55. Section 36-A of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 says that the provisions of the third and fourth clauses of Section 36 shall not to apply to cases where immovable property sold under this Act is purchased by the Government. 55. Section 36-A of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 says that the provisions of the third and fourth clauses of Section 36 shall not to apply to cases where immovable property sold under this Act is purchased by the Government. However, Clause-I and II of the Section 36 of the Act are mandatory i.e., public auction and notification one month before sale. 56. In view of the above discussion and perusal of the record would reveal that the official respondents have violated the said procedure laid down in toto. 57. Moreover they have fixed nominal amount at only Rs.60/-. The revenue entries is contrary to the contentions of the respondents in the counter. In the counter the respondents have stated that the entire land is assigned to respondent No.5 and the same is contrary to the entries in the revenue record. There are contradictions in the counters filed by the official respondents in W.P.No.9485 of 1995 and W.P.No.150 of 2001. In the counter filed in W.P.No.9485 of 1995, they have stated that the land to an extent of Ac.02-20 gts., in Sy.No.128 should be restored since the petitioner has cleared excise arrears of Rs.3,400/-and in the counter filed in W.P.No.150 of 2001 it is mentioned that the petitioner on their own with their interest paid dues, whereas no demand notice was issued by the Department. Thus there are contradictions in the counters filed by the official respondents. 58. Thus the respondents have suppressed several facts and played fraud on the Court and obtained Order in W.P.No.9485 of 1995 dated 09-09-1997. 59. The Hon?ble Supreme Court of India in Ramrao Jankiram Kadam Vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 827 categorically held that in an auction conducted by the Government authorities purchase of the property belongs to defaulter by Government at a nominal bid is not a sale by public auction within Section 167 of Bombay Land Revenue Code. The sale is void. No title passes to the Government. 60. It was also held that prior notice to the defaulter to make such purchase is must, in the absence of the same, the auction is null and void. 61. The sale is void. No title passes to the Government. 60. It was also held that prior notice to the defaulter to make such purchase is must, in the absence of the same, the auction is null and void. 61. The Hon?ble Apex Court further held that even where the fact that a notice is given to the petitioners that the Government desires to purchase nominally, yet that does not make such a purchase good and is ab-initio and no title would pass to the Government. 62. It is also relevant to note that by following said principle, the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Rangareddy and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Collector, Medak and others, [Order dated 24-01-1977 in W.P.No.5578 of 1975] held that sale in favour of Government for pre-determined price of Re.1/- in the absence any bidders for the realization of arrears of revenue, is not valid. It further held that in the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, there is no provision authorizing such a sale. The auction was declared as illegal. 63. As stated above, the official respondents while conducting auction did not follow the procedure laid down under Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. 64. It is also relevant to note that the Hon?ble Apex Court in Shiv Shanker Dal Mills Etc. Vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1980 SC 1037 held that : ?Where public bodies, under colour of public laws, recover people's moneys, later discovered to be erroneous levies, the dharma of the situation admits of no equivocation. There is no law of limitation, especially for public bodies, on the virtue of returning what was wrongly recovered to whom it belongs. 65. In Lazarus Estates Limited Vs. Beasley, (1956) 2 QB 702 it was held that : ?No Judgment of a Court, no Order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything". 66. In Express Newspapers Private Limited and others Vs. Union of India and another, 1986 AIR 872 the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India held that : ?Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bonafide for the end design. There is a distinction between exercise of power in good faith and misuse in bad faith. 66. In Express Newspapers Private Limited and others Vs. Union of India and another, 1986 AIR 872 the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India held that : ?Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bonafide for the end design. There is a distinction between exercise of power in good faith and misuse in bad faith. The former arises when an authority misuses its power in breach of law, say, by taking into account bona fide, and with best of intentions, some extraneous matters or by ignoring relevant matters. That would render the impugned act or order ultra vires. It would be a case of fraud on powers.? 67. The said principle was also reiterated in S. Pratap Singh vs. The State of Punjab, 1964 SC 733. 68. In Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi And Ors., 2003 (8) SCC 319 , the Hon?ble Supreme Court held that : ?Fraud vitiates all solemn acts. Fraud and justice never dwells together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person, or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of former either by word or letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentations may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application f any equitable doctrine including res-judicata. 69. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853 it was held that : ?Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. 69. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853 it was held that : ?Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree by the first court or by the highest court has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.? 70. The said principle was reiterated by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Vijay Shekhar and another Vs. Union of India and others, (2004) 5 Scale 118 . 71. The above discussion would reveal that the official respondents have obtained Order dated 09-09-1997 in W.P.No.9485 of 1995 by suppressing the facts and playing fraud on the Court. They have conducted the auction in utter violation of the procedure laid down under Section 36 of Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, and also there is fraud and fraud vitiates everything at every stage. Therefore, the official respondents cannot claim that the Writ Petition No.150 of 2001 is barred by limitation and the Order in W.P.No.9485 of 1995 dated 09-09-1997, operates as Res-judicata to the proceedings in W.P.No.150 of 2001. 72. In view of the above discussion and findings, the assignment lands in the year 1979 in favour of the respondent No.5 who in turn sold the land admeasuring Ac.05-03 gts., in favour of the respondent No.6 i.e., the Gandhi Institute of Technology and Management (GITAM) in W.A.No.711 of 2008 under Registered Sale Deed bearing No.812 of 2008 dated 05-12-2008, are illegal and the same are set aside. 73. In the present case, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" is applicable, meaning thereby, in case a foundation is removed, the superstructure falls. The said principle was also held by the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India held in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and others Vs. Ananta Saha and others, 2011 (5) SCC 142 . The said principle applies in the present case. 74. The said principle was also held by the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India held in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and others Vs. Ananta Saha and others, 2011 (5) SCC 142 . The said principle applies in the present case. 74. As discussed supra, the very auction conducted by the official respondents is illegal and in violation of procedure laid down under Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, the Sale Certificate issued by the District Collector in Proceedings No.17346/58/D5 dated 13-07-1965, subsequent assignment made by the Government in favour of the respondent No.5 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.04-03 gts., in Sy.No.124 and Ac.05-03 gts., in Sy.No.128 and subsequently the Sale by respondent No.5 in favour of the respondent No.6 in W.A.No.711 of 2008 vide Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.812 of 2008 dated 15-02-2008 are set aside. 75. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal No.711 of 2008 is allowed. 76. The respondents are directed to restore the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.09-06 gts., in Sy.No.117 and 121 (old) and 124, 128/2 (new) along with house property bearing Door.No.1-42, in Sy.No.117 and 121 (New Survey Nos.124 and 128/2) of Burugupally Village, Mominpet Mandal, Rangareddy District, along with land admeasuring Ac.2-19 gts., in Sy.No.128 to the Writ Petitioners herein. 77. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal No.911 of 2008 is dismissed. As a sequel, the Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.