The Andhra Pradesh High Court recalled an order disposing of two writ petitions relating to a valuable piece of land in Kakinada and has directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau to inquire into the allegations of the order being obtained by playing "fraud" on the court.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harinath N allowed the review petitions filed by Jayendra Nagar Residents Welfare Association, recalling the common order that had disposed of two writ petitions concerning a dispute over land earmarked as open space in a residential layout.

The Association claimed that the land had been gifted to the municipality for public purposes, while the writ petitioners asserted title over it.

The Court observed:

"Before parting, this Court expresses its displeasure at the way the Advocates who appeared in this matter for the writ petitioners and the respondents, leading to the passing of the order under review, have, in univocal terms, played fraud on this Court. It's the bounden duty of the advocates to assist the court in the justice delivery system. Instances of collusion, dual representation or fraud on the court can disproportionately erode this trust. As such, this Court deems it appropriate to view this incident seriously...

A suspicion arises upon verifying the above turn of events in the matter, and the manner in which the counsel appearing for the parties have conducted themselves raises a serious question of professional misconduct and a deliberate attempt to commit fraud on this Court. The Counsel appearing for the State and its instrumentalities have failed in discharging their fiduciary duty....

The conflict of interest is a concern to be enquired into. The risk of privileged information leaking across the marital relationship, even unintentionally, subsists and exists. The reasons for such conduct and the motive for playing fraud on the Court would require inquiry by a Senior Police Officer. As the property worth several crores of rupees belonging to the Kakinada Municipal Corporation was planned to be knocked off by playing fraud on this Court."

The Court said that it is not expressing any opinion on the involvement of the counsel and others in playing the fraud, it however said that the same requires a thorough inquiry by an investigating agency.

The Court's suspicion was triggered by an affidavit filed by the Kakinada Municipal Corporation in 2026 taking a stand completely opposite to the one it had taken in its counter affidavit filed in 2015. When the Commissioner of the Corporation was summoned to appear virtually and asked who had instructed him to file the affidavit, he stated that he had only recently joined and had no knowledge of the case's history or the earlier counter affidavit.

The Jayendra Nagar Residents Welfare Association was impleaded as a respondent in both writ petitions after asserting that the disputed land formed part of the open spaces earmarked for public purposes in the approved layout and had been gifted to the municipality. It stated that compound walls had already been constructed around three such open spaces, and the present dispute arose when construction of a compound wall on the fourth open space was opposed by the writ petitioners, who claimed title over the land.

The Association's counsel argued that the disputed land was a public open space whose character could not be altered through documents. It was submitted that its former counsel had conceded the writ petitioners' claim without any instructions, leading to the order under review. The property was stated to be worth nearly Rs. 15 crore, with a prevailing market rate of about Rs. 75,000 per square yard.

The Association further alleged that fraud had been played on the Court to secure the order. It also alleged collusion between the counsel for the writ petitioners and the official respondents, pointing out that the advocate who had represented the writ petitioners later appeared for the State of Andhra Pradesh as a Special Government Pleader attached to the Advocate General's Office.

Opposing the review, the writ petitioners contended that the order disclosed no error warranting review, that the Association could not disown the concessions made by its own counsel, and that, being a consent order, it was not amenable to review.

The Court then scrutinised the docket orders and vakalatnamas and found that the advocate who had represented the writ petitioners until November 2025 was later shown as appearing for the State as a Special Government Pleader, while her husband took over as counsel for the writ petitioners.

Holding that this sequence raised a serious question of professional misconduct, the Court observed that it created a risk of privileged information passing between counsel appearing on opposite sides, even unintentionally.

Allowing the review petitions, the Court recalled the earlier order and directed that the writ petitions be heard afresh on merits.

It also directed the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada, to have the matter inquired into by an officer not below the rank of Inspector General and submit a report within twelve weeks, while directing the Registrar (Judicial) to forward the complete case records to the Bureau.

The Court made no order as to costs.

Case Title: Jayendra Nagar Residents Welfare Association v. Gubbala Satyanarayana Murthy & Ors. (and connected matter)

Case Nos.: Review Petition No. 2 of 2026 in W.P. No. 11254 of 2013 and Review Petition No. 2 of 2026 in W.P. No. 13428 of 2015

Counsel for the Review Petitioner: Sri Venkat Challa

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Meka Rahul Chowdary; Sri M. Krishna Rao, Standing Counsel for the Municipality

Click Here To Read/Download Order