Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 541 (AP)

Gudi Chandramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-03-15

TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

body2023
ORDER : Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions and the parties are same, this Court is inclined to dispose of both the Writ Petitions by way of this common order. 2. Writ Petition No.7114 of 2011 is filed questioning the notice in Ref.No.B/95/2021 dated 10.03.2021 issued by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar directing the writ petitioner to appear before him along with the documents, which are possessed by her regarding the land of an extent of Acs.2.83 cents in Sy.No.496/2 on the application/representation made by Puli Venkata Ramana, who is arrayed as 5th respondent herein. On the ground that once the application submitted under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1971, having exercised the power under Section 5(3 of the Act, 9171, the Tahsildar would ceases to be an authority and the person felt aggrieved with such mutation and issuance of the pattadar passbook and title deeds, is entitled to avail the remedy provided under Section 5(5) of the Act, 1971, before the 3rd respondent or to invoke the remedy available under Section 8(2) of the Act, 1971, and hence, the Tahsildar being a primary authority cannot review his own order which was passed having exercised the powers conferred under Section 5(3) of the Act, 1971, and the impugned notice does contain any provision of law and hence, prayed to set aside the impugned notice dated 10.03.2021. 3. Writ Petition No.16496 is filed assailing the order dated 29.07.2021 passed by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer directing the petitioner herein to appear before him on 06.08.2021 with all relevant records for conducting survey. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition came to be filed on the ground that as per the provisions of Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (hereinafter called, „the Act, 1923) and the circular in RC.No.N1/6543/99 dated 25.07.2001, as well as the Board Standing Orders BSO 34-A, the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, who is an appellate authority, and whereas the Tahsildar, who is competent authority to issue such notice for conducting survey and demarcation is casted on the Tahsildar. Hence, the said notice is quite contrary to the above provisions of the Act, 1923, and prayed to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the notice dated 29.07.2021. 4. Hence, the said notice is quite contrary to the above provisions of the Act, 1923, and prayed to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the notice dated 29.07.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.5 filed the original patta issued in favour of the writ petitioner and would contend that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the unofficial respondent and the unofficial respondent has fabricated the document which was issued in his favour and no patta was issued in favour of the writ petitioner and therefore, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. Sri P.Subash, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, filed counter and would contend that the land in Sy.No.496 consists of an extent of Acs.4.36 cents of C.Polimerapalli of Chinnamandem Mandal, is classified as dotted land (A.W.D.) and the land was subdivided as Sy.No.496/1 in an extent of Acs.1.53 cents and Sy.No.496/2 of an extent of Acs.2.83 cents in the year 1972 and the land in Sy.No.496/2 in an extent of Acs.2.83 cents was assigned in the name of Puli Lakshmanna, vide DKT No.784/88 dated 31.07.1978 as per the entries made in Performa-I register and after death of the original pattadar Puli Lakshmanna EPPB was issued to his son, viz., Puli Venkata Ramana, vide 1B Khata No.170 and the same was uploaded in the web land and it was digitally signed. It is further contended that on the application made by Puli Venkata Ramana for conducting of survey, the Mandal Surveyor has visited the land and reported that Sri Puli Venkata Ramana having possessed over the land in Sy.No.496/2 in an extent of Acs.1.98 cents and Smt. Gudi Chandramma (petitioner herein) having possession in an extent of Ac.0.85 cents and after survey, the DKT pattadar Sri Puli Venkata Ramana has approached the 4th respondent on 05.03.2021 and submitted a representation reporting that out of Acs.2.83 cents of land in Sy.No.496/2 of C.Polimerapalli village, Chinnamandem Mandal was originally assigned in the name of his father Puli Lakshmanna and at present, Ac.0.85 cents of land was occupied by Smt. Gudi Chandramma, wife of Chinnapureddy unauthorized by and requested for handing over the land to him. It is further contended that the notice was issued to both parties, vide Office Ref.No.B/95/2021 dated 10.03.2021, to submit their documents as evidence to prove their title and right over the land and aggrieved by the said notice, the W.P.No.7114 of 2021 is filed on the ground that the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioner herein in an extent of Acs.1.02 cents. It is further asserted that in response to the notice issued by the Mandal Surveyor on 10.03.2021, the son of the writ petitioner, viz., Gudi Chenna Krishna Reddy attended the office and submitted one photocopy of D-Form Patta showing DKT No.127/1408 dated 28.06.1999 and on verification of the said DKT patta, it clearly allude that the columns of the pattadar name and extent of land are tampered with by overwriting and he also submitted a copy of manual pattadar passbook for the land in Sy.No.297/6 of an extent of Acs.1.02 cents, Sy.No.499/1 of an extent of Acs.4.07 cents and Sy.No.472/2 of an extent of Acs.1.02 cents total an extent of Acs.6.33 cents was entered in the said passbook, vide khata No.194 and the land entered in the said pattadar passbook is government land. It is further contended that as per the facts explained in the above DKT patta is fake, forged and fabricated and not emanated from the office of the Tahsildar, Chinnamandem, the son of the unofficial respondent herein made a representation in Meeseva for ascertaining the facts of the case and the unofficial respondent herein also raised several petitions before the higher Revenue Officials for redressal of his grievance and thereafter the Mandal Surveyor has visited the land and reported that out of Acs.2.83 cents in Sy.No.496/2 an extent of Ac.0.85 cents was occupied by the writ petitioner with the help of fake DKT patta and fake pattadar passbook and the total extent of land involved in the pattadar passbook of an extent of Acs.6.33 cents is also government land and the petitioner herein got the pattadar passbook only on misrepresentation of fact through the then Tahsildar of Chinnamandem and a report was sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer seeking cancellation of the fake pattadar passbook and hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. 6. This Court, vide orders dated 22.02.2023, directed the petitioner herein to produce original pattadar passbook, but the writ petitioner is unable to produce the DKT patta and pattadar passbook issued in her favour. Hence, this Court presumes that the documents which are filed along with the Writ Petition are forged and fake documents. On perusing the DKT patta as well as the pattadar passbook filed by the writ petitioner, it is visible to the naked eye that there are interpolations and changes in the survey numbers as well as the name of the writ petitioner in the documents. Hence, the contention raised by the respondents shall be presumed to be correct. Hence, the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. 7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the issue in the present case is that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not the competent authority to issue notice for conducting survey as he being the appellate authority and pleaded to set aside the impugned order. Apart from the aforesaid apparent lack of jurisdiction and the impugned orders being contrary to the provisions of law, the orders have been passed in patent breach of principles of natural justice. 8. Learned Government Pleader relies on a judgment in S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 , and states that 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. It is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, 1995 AIR 1991 that the blameworthy conduct of a person in approaching a Court of equity for obtaining discretionary relief disentitles him for grant of such relief. The only case of the respondents is that the writ petitioner had made certain alterations and fabrications in the document and has not come to the Court with clean hands and is guilty of fraud and forgery, he should not be given any relief ordinarily. 10. Answering the issue, the learned Government Pleader would contend that the person who comes with clean hands, such provision is applicable and the petitioner herein, who played fraud and forgery, cannot raise such contention, who came to the Court with unclean hands. 10. Answering the issue, the learned Government Pleader would contend that the person who comes with clean hands, such provision is applicable and the petitioner herein, who played fraud and forgery, cannot raise such contention, who came to the Court with unclean hands. Admittedly the petitioner had come to court with a forged document, that in a case in which the petitioner has not come with clean hands and is guilty of fraud and forgery, he should not be given any relief ordinarily. The petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands with clear motive to take advantage of nonexistent documents filed by her. 11. It is a settled legal position that the litigant, who approaches the Court, is bound to disclose all material facts and produce all the documents, which are relevant to the litigation, and, if he withholds or files any documents with alterations and forgery in order to gain advantage then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party. But a part of the document filed and relied upon by the petitioner is concededly not genuine. The petitioner wanted to use it in support of its case and has vouchsafed its veracity on affidavit. The petitioner approached the Court for grant of a discretionary relief basing on a false document. The petitioner wanted to take advantage of unfair means for getting a discretionary order from the Court. For this reason it has to be held that it is one of such cases where it will be unfair and unjust to allow the petitioner to use those documents to his advantage which it got by unfair means and which are not genuine." 12. In a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Suraj Kumari v. District Judge, Mirzapur, AIR 1991 All 91, following the judgment in Banwari v. State of U.P., 1974 ALJ 958, alluded that to take care of the situation that extraordinary jurisdiction should not be allowed to be misused and in cases where the High Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has approached the Court with unclean hands, or has filed a writ petition stating facts, which are false, the petitioner must visit with penal consequences. This is necessary to check the misuse of this extraordinary jurisdiction so that every citizen should take a caution that extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court, cannot be allowed to be misused. It is necessary that a person should approach the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, stating all the facts in his knowledge, which are necessary for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court and should not try to mislead the Court by making any false statement, or circumventing or concealing the necessary facts, if the High Court finds that either a false statement has been made by the petitioner or he has come with unclean hands i.e. by suppressing the material facts, the High Court should suitably penal such a person. 13. Learned Government Pleader relies in a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandra Shashi vs Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421 . As per the said judgment, “Forged and fabricated document amounts to contempt” And relevant para reads as follows: "The legal position thus is that if the publication be with intent to deceive the court or one made with an intention to defraud, the same would be contempt, as it would interfere with administration of justice. It would, in any case, tend to interfere with the same. This would definitely be so if a fabricated document is filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In the case at hand the fabricated document was apparently to deceive the court; the intention to defraud is writ large. Anil Kumar is, therefore, guilty of contempt." 14. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner herein filed a fake and fabricated DKT Patta and made alteration in pattadar pass book. Hence, this Court only indicates to respondents that they are always at liberty to initiate appropriate action against the writ petitioner, if they intended to do so on putting notice and given an opportunity to defend his case. At the outset, but for not approaching the Court with clean hands, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and accordingly, writ petitions fail and stand dismissed. 15. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petitions. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.