Dismissed

Gaddam Anil Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Apr 2022WP/17900/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging police interference with land possession, the Telangana High Court dismissed the petition as dismissed as the petitioner came before the Court with unclean hands by suppressing material facts regarding prior proceedings and Supreme Court status quo orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs made; pending miscellaneous applications held closed.

Gaddam Anil Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J urisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENIY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 17900 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Gaddam Anil Reddy, S/o. Laxma Reddy,^{Aged 53 years, Occ. Business,Fi'/o.} H.No. 1 0-417, Vijayanagar Colony, Pothireddypalle,^{Medak Chowrasta,Sanga} Reddy District, T6langbna State^-500 295. Presently^{residing at JubileeHills'} Hyderabad.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department' Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad.

¶12

The Deputy Commissioner^{of Police, Cyberabad.}

¶13

The Assistant Commissioner^{of Police, Madhapur, CyberabadDistrict}

¶14

The Station House Officer,^{Gachibowli Police Station' CyberabadDistrict.}

¶15

Telangana State Waqf^{Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer,Razak} Manzil, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶16

The lnspector Auditor, Wakfs,^{HyderabadDistrict.}

¶17

KMR Estates and Builders^{Pvt. Ltd.,havingits office at Plot No.3B, ParkView} - Enctave, IVlanovikas Nagar, Bowenpally, Secunderabad' rep. by its Managing Director, Sri K.Madhava^{Reddy, S/o.late Gal Reddy, Occ; Business}

¶18

M.Sudha^(Alias T.Sridevi),^{W/o.T.LaxmaReddy,Occ: Business,Rl/o.Plot} No.aA, Park View Enclavb,^{t\rlanovikas Nagar, Bowenpally, Secunderabad'}

¶19

(RRs 8 & 9 are impleaded as^per Court Order^{daled20.04.2022 in l.A No'3 of} 2022)

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filedtherewith, the High court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order or orders more^{particularly one in the nature of writ} of Mandamus holding^{the arbitrary illegal actionof the Sth Respondent sHo,}

¶22

Gachibowli Police Station in interfering with the possession of the Petitoner and civil disputes in Land admeasuring Ac.5.01 gts., in Sy.No.80, Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, of which the Petitioner is the Lessee vide Lease Deed dt. 1211012021 from the Lessor Dargah Hazarth Salare-Haulia represented by Mutavalli Sultan Ahsan-ud-Dowla as arbitrary, illegal, violative of the Petitioner's Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner under Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and to consequently direct the Respondents in particular 5th Respondent herein not to interfere with the possession or enter civil disputes of Petitioner's in land admeasuring Ac.5.01 gts., in Sy.No.B0, Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in the interest of^justice.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct Sth Respondent SHO, Gachibowli not to interfere in civil dispute including possession of the Petitioner in land admeasuring Ac.5.01 gts., in Sy.No.80, Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of^justice.

¶25

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 5th Respondent, SHO, Gachibowli, who has got no jurisdiction of the subject land, not to interfere with the possession of the Petitioner including any civil disputes of the Petitioner with third parties in land admeasuring Ac.5.01 gts., in Sy.No.80, Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in the interest of^justice.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.VENUGOPAL, Sr.Counsel rep. SRI B.MAYUR REDDY

¶28

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR HOME

¶29

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.6 & 7: SRI ABU AKRAM

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 & 9: SRI M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR,

¶31

Sr. Counsel rep. SRI SRINIVAS RAO PACHWA

¶32

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶33

!-_:---

¶34

.I'IIE HON'BI,E SI{T. JUSTIC[ LALTTHA KANNEGANTI

¶35

WRIT PETITION No.17900 of 2022

¶36

OIIDER:

¶37

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 5'r'^respondent Station House Officer, Cachibowli Police Station in^{interferingwith the} possession of the petitioner and civil disputes in land admeasuring^Ac.5.01 guntas in Survey No.80, Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal,^Ranga Reddy District, for which the petitioner is a lessee, vide^{lease deeddated} 12J0.2021 from the lessor-Dargah Hazarth Salar-e-Haulia,^{representedby} Mutavalli Sultan Ahsan-ud-Dowla,^as arbitrary^{and illegal}

¶38

Mr.P.Venugopal, learned senior counsel, representing^Mr.B.Mayur Reddy, learned counsel ibr the petitioner, submitted^{that WakfInstitution} Dargah Hazafih Salar-e-Haulia represented by^{MutavalliSultan Ahsan-ud-} Dowla situated at Survey No.80,^{HafeezpetVillage, Serilingampally} Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, comprising of^{propertyadmeasuring} Ac. 140.00 gts. is registeled as Muntakab dated^{13.12.2013.On24.07.2015} the Mutavalli has made a representation to^{the revenue authoritiesto} demarcate and survey the land and when^{they have failedto do so, he filed} W.P.No.34686 of 2016 belbre this Court and^{this Courl by order dated} 26.10.2016 has directed the revenue authorities to consider^the

¶39

¶40

LK,
\'l . l-'lfrl t,fl ir

¶41

representation of Mutavalli and also survey the land witliin four weeks. Thereatter, demarcation has becn done. As per the said demarcation ol the survey, it is clear that an extent of Ac.5.0l guntas leased out to the petitioner from larger extent of Ac. 140.20 gts belonging to the Dargah and falls within survey No.80 of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is submitted that Mutavalli of the said Dargah filed W.P.No.44578 of 2018 before this Court quesrioning the action of Miyapur Police Station in seeking to interfere with the ownership of the said Dargah and on24.12.2018, this Court, while recording the submission of Sub Inspector, Miyapur Police Station, that they are not interfering with the ownership and possession of the Dargah and not interfering with the civil disputes unless the same is permissible in accordance with law, the said writ petition was disposed of. It is submitted by the learned counsel that certain third parties viz., R.Subadra Reddy and others, interfering with the possession of the petitioner on the pretext that an extent of Ac.5.0l guntas lies in Survey Nos.86 and 87 of Ko,dapur village and they have also tried to trespassed into the land. A complaint was lodged by the petitioner and the same .vas registered as Crime No.1g5 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 44i and427 read,with 34 Ipc and Section 52-A of Wakf Act. It is submitted that on 03.04.2022 and 04.04.2022, the 5,h

¶42

LK. J W.P.No.l7900 0f2022

¶43

¶44

¶45

respondent-Station House Officer, Gachibowli Police Station, repeatedly trespassed into the land and intellering^with the^{possessionand enjoyment} of the petitioner. Petitioner^{was also informedby the 5th respondent} regarding the survey conducted by the revenue^{authorities pursuant to the} order of this Court in W.P.No.34686^{of 2016 and alsoinformed that he has} filed O.S.No. 15 of 2022 before the^{TelanganaState WakfTribunal,} Hyderabad, seeking injunction^{against the interferencein the leased} premises and also obtained temporary injunction^{in I.A.No.l33 of 2022 in} O.S.No.15 of 2022, by order^{dated 15.03.2022. It is submittedthat the} respondent police at the behest of the^{unofficialrespondent are interfering} with the civil disputes. Hence, the^{petitioner is constrained to approachthis} Court.

¶46

Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar,^{learned seniorcounsel,representing} Sri Srinivas Rao Pachwa,^{learned counsel, who frled impleadpetition on} behalf of KMR Estates and^{Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another, defendant Nos.2} and 6 in O.S.No.l5 of 2022 and^{submitted that all the proceedingsthat are} filed along with the writ^{petitionwere alreadyset aside by a DivisionBench} of this Court in W.P.No.20707^{of 2018 and batch, wherein the Division} Bench has held that the landⁱⁿ Suwey^{No'80 is not a Wakf land.The Wakf} Board lias carried this matter to^{the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the}

¶47

¶48

IK,
W.P No 17900 o12022

¶49

Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted an order of status quo for a period of six weeks, which was not extended thereafter. It is also submitted that the petitioner has filed a suit after the orders passed by this court and after the stotus quo orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court. The petitioner has filed suit by mentioning all the wrong addresses and obtained an ex parte injunction. It is submitted that the order passed by this cour.t is not suspended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶50

Learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the implead petitioners, submitted that the writ petitioner has come before this court with suppression of material facts and with unclean hands, as such, he is not entitled for any relief under Article 226 of the constitution of India. It is aiso submitted that the suit was filed basing on the lease deed, which is on Rs.100 stamp paper and,that the said document can onry be looked into lbr collateral purpose. Further, pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon,ble Supreme court, a survey was conducted on 12.05.2021, wherein it is categorically mentioned that the survey of Kondapur village prevails over Hafeezpet Village and the existing physical possession is tallying with Kondapur village map and tippons. Learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner in collusion with the wakf Board, who is a party to the writ petition as well to the SLp, now to get over all the proceedings has

¶51

LK, J W.P.No.l7900 of2022

¶52

¶53

approached the Wakf Tribunal^{and obtained interim orderby suppressing} several material factors has come before^{this Court.Hence, the petitioneris} not entitled for any relief as sought by^him.

¶54

On the other hand,^{learned counselfor the writ petitioner,by way of} additional affidavit and also^{a counterto the implead petition, submitted} several documents including^{the orderof the Apex Court. It is submitted} that the learned senior counsel for^{the petitioner that the petitioner is not} aware of the proceedings,^{as he is a lesseeand he is not a party to those} proceedings. It is also submitted that^{the writ petitionerhas not stated in his} affidavit about the status^{quo orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court} and he has not come before^{this Court with suppressionof facts. It is} submitted that the^{petitioneris in possessionof the propertyas a lessee.} Whatever the^question 'of title^{and other things, a person, who is in} possession of the property, cannot be dispossessed^{without followingdue} process of law. Admittedly,^{petitioner is in possessionof the propertyand} respondent police cannot^{interfere with the civil disputes, cannothigh} handedly interfere with his^{possession and cannot dispossess the petitioner.}

¶55

Sri Abu Akrarn, learned^{Standing Counsel appearing for the Wakf} Board, submitted that the^{propertybetongsto Wakf Board. The petitioner}

¶56

¶57

LN,
W P.No.17900 o12022

¶58

is in possession of the property. When there is an interference and high handedly respondent police trying to interfere at the behest of unofficiat respondents, the petitioner has come up before this Court by filing the present writ petition for protection of Wakf Board property.

¶59

In this writ petition, the writ petitioner has questioned the action of the 5th respondent in interfering with the petitioner's possession. As he is in possession of the property by way of a lease deed executed by the Wakf Board and the Division Bench of this Court held not Wakf property and the matter is carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'bte Supreme Court directed the parties to maintain status quo and admittedl y that status qtto orders are not extended by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶60

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the interim

¶61

order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not confined to six weeks only it is observed that notice is returnable in six weeks.

¶62

g. This Court is not able to appreciate the said contention. A perusal of the orders reveals that Apex Court ordered notice returnable in six weeks. In the meantime, status quo is directed to be maintained and hence the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is for a period of six weeks.

¶63

LK, J W.P.No.l7900 of2022

¶64

¶65

Admittedly, none of these^{factorswere statedby the petitioner in the} writ affidavit nor they were^{broughtto the notice of this Court. This Court} is not able to appreciate the^{contention of the petitionerthat he is not aware} of the fact that the^{matter went to the Hon'ble SupremeCourt.The} petitioner has filed several^{proceedings, which were set aside by the} Division Bench and^{when he is aware of all these proceedings,this Courtis} not able to believe that the^{petitioneris not awareof the orderspassedby} the Dirlision Bench as^{well as the orderpassed by the Hon'bleSupreme} Court. When the^{implead petitionerhas subrnittedbefore this Court about} the division Bench order^{and the order of the Apex Court, then an} additional atlldavit^{is t'iled.Hence, the person,whohascome before this} Court with suppression^{of material facts, is not entitled for any relief'}

¶66

The remedy available^{to the petitioners underArticle 226 of the} Constitution of India^is a^{equitable remedy and the petitioner is expected to} approach the Court with^{cleanhandsby disclosingall the facts' The} petitioners have taken different^{standsbeforedifferentForums. It appears} from the conduct that^{petitioners have no respect to the rule of law'}

¶67

An applicant who^{does not come with candid facts and clean freest} cannot hold a writ of^{the Court with 'soiled hands' suppression or}

¶68

LK. w.P.No.l7900 of2022

¶69

¶70

concealment of material is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If ttre applicant does not disclose all the rnaterial facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court. (Kensington Income Tax Commrst)

¶71

If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commissioners 1977 2 SCC 431 is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts, and^'clean breast' cannot hold a writ of the Courl with^'soiled hands'. Suppression or concealment of rnater.ial facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, rnanipulation, maneuver ing or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative j urisdiction. lf the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states then.r in a distorted manner and misleads the Cour-t, the Courl has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the '^{(tgrz) r KB 486} =^{116 LT136 (cA)}

¶72

LK, J W.P.No.l7900 of2022

¶73

¶74

rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of Courl for abusing the process of the Court.^(K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and others2)

¶75

For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e.,^'Satya' (truth) and^{'Ahimsa'(non-violence).} Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the^people to ingrain these vaiues in^their daily life. Truth constituted an integral^part ofjustice delivery system^which was in vogue in pre-independence era and the^people used to^{feel proud to} tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences.^{However,post-} independence period has seen drastic changes in our^{value system. The} materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and the^quest for^personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not^hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation^{and suppressionof facts in} the court proceedings. In last 40^years, a^{new creed of litigants has cropped} up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any^{respect for truth. They} shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical^{means for achieving their} goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of^litigants,

¶76

'?^{(2008) 12 scc481}

¶77

¶78

W.P.No.l?9t10 o12022

¶79

the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain ofjustice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. (Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others3)

¶80

It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special ieave made under Article 136 o_f the Constitution, care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue and misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements offact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the appeal rhe Supreme Courl is satisfied that the rnaterial statements made by the appellant in his application for special leave are inaccurate and rnisleading, and the respondent is entitled to contend that the appellant may have obtained special leave from the Supreme Court on the strength of what he characterizes as misrepresentations of facts contained in the petition for special leave, the Supreme Court may come to the conclusion that in such a 3 lzoro; z scc r r+

¶81

LK, J W.P.No.17900 of2022

¶82

¶83

case special leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked. (Hari Narain v. Badri Dasa)

¶84

In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such^{jurisdiction.} If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant mateiials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. - The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.^(Prestige Lights Ltd. V. SB15)

¶85

17 . The^jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Courl under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an

¶86

o AIR 1963 sc 1558 5 (2007) 8 scc 449

¶87

¶88

W.P.No.l7900 o1 2022

¶89

appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayshree and others v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and others (2009) 3 SCC 141. (K.D. Sharma v. SAIL6)

¶90

This Court in Prestige Lights Ltd. V. State Bank of Indial has held that a prerogative remedy is not available as a matter of course. In exerclsing extraordinary power, a writ court would indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party which is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the courl, the court rnay disn.riss the action without adjudicating the matter. It was held thus:

¶91

*33. It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Ovel and above, a court of law is also a court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the parl

¶92

6 lzooa; rz scc +er

¶93

,1 .)

¶94

LK, J W.P.No.l7900 of2022

¶95

i t

¶96

I I

¶97

of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ courl may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter."

¶98

In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others, it was held thus:

¶99

"34. The^jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under^Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial^justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ couft must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the^petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. (K.Jayaram and others v. Bangalore Development Authority and othersT)

¶100

The discretion exercised by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary.^While exercising the extraordinary power, the Courl shall necessarily bear^{in mind} the conduct of the parties. A litigant is bound to disclose all relevant^facts '^{202LSCC OnLineSC1194}

),4

W.P.No.l?900 of2022

If he holds some material facts to gain advantage, he is guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the other side. The conduct of the petitioners in this case is nothing but playing fraud on the Court as well on the other side. If these kind of litigants are not eradicated, the result would be that the citizen will lose faith in the justice delivery system and also would ruin the rule of law

¶106

In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner, who has come before this court with unclean hands with suppression of material f-actors, is not entitled for any relief from this Court.

¶107

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶108

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶109

SD/.T.SRINIVAS ASSSTSTANTREGISTRAR ,//TRUECOpy//

¶110

To,

¶111

sEcTtoN drrrcen

¶112

One CC to SRt B.tVAyUR REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl

¶113

One CC to SRt ABU AKRAM, Advocate ropubt

¶114

One CC to SRt SR|N|VAS RAO PACHWA, nOrfcate IOPUCI

¶115

Two CCs to the Gp for Home, High Court ior. tf," Strt" of ielingana. [OUfl 5. Two C.D. Copies.Two C.D. Copies.Copies.

¶116

Two C.D. Copies.Two C.D. Copies.Copies.

¶117

One Spare Copy. MRC SB

.rt

HIGH^GOURT

DATED:20^lO4l2O22

ORDER

WP.No.17900 of 2022

t
1 H t: 14 14:
c
2 't
L) 0 tJuli ru f
PATC LS

¶124

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶125

¶126

Gaddam Anil Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaddam Anil Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Shaik Abdul Shakir Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Mr.Srikanth Vattikuti Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Chinnamaneni Sridhar Rao Vs State of Telangana

M/s. Csk Realtors Limited Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Dhravath Lakshmi Banjara Vs the State of Telangana

C.Yadagiri Reddy Vs The state of Telangana and 4 others