Telangana HC Orders Disciplinary Action Against Revenue Officials For Altering Land Entries In Private Party's Favour Despite Status Quo Order

The Telangana High Court has directed the State to take disciplinary action against revenue officials for altering revenue records and issuing a pattedar-passbook in favour of a respondent third party despite subsisting status quo orders which had been issued earlier. “The respondent No. 1 is directed to initiate suitable disciplinary action against the Officers, who are involved in aforesaid transaction of altering the revenue records and issuing the pattedar passbook, violating the orders dated 27.03.2014 and 24.02.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.No. 91522 of 2074” held Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy.The Court also noted, that while making the application for changing of names in the Revue Records, the disputed third party had suppressed that fact about the Court order. Moreover, by the time the application was made by the disputed third party, the order to alter existing records was set aside. None the less, suppressing this fact as well, an application for mutation was made. Noting that respondent no. 6's action was fraud and abuse of law, the high court also imposed a cost of Rs. 5 Lakh on the third party. “The respondent No.6 herein being party to W.P.No.9522 2Ol4, suppressed the facts referred above and played fraud to gain benefits over the subject property. Such action on the part of respondent No.6 is declared as mala fide, fraud, suppression of fact and sheer abuse of process of law. Therefore, respondent No.6 is directed to pay costs of Rs.5,00,O00/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad, within a period of four(O4) weeks from today and a copy of the receipt for the said payment shall be held in the Registry.”The order was passed in a Writ petition filed challenging the actions of the revenue authorities and seeking a mandamus against the change in revenue records. BackgroundThe petitioner Asian Tubes Pvt Limited claimed that it had purchased the disputed piece of land way back in 1998. The petitioner even carved out how the vendors of the petitioners came into the possession of the property and created a chain dating back to 1960. In 2014, the Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Division without issuing notice to the petitioner, ordered the mutation made in favour of the petitioner's vendors to be set aside. Challenging this, the petitioner filed a writ petition 9522 of 2014, wherein the Court directed that the entries as they were on the day of passing of the order should be maintained for a period of 3 weeks.In 2015, the Orders were extended till further orders. No plea to vacate these orders was filed.The grievance of the petitioner was that pending adjudication of W.P.Nos.9522/2014 and 9876/2014 and contrary to the status quo orders granted by this Court, the respondent No.6 in collusion with the revenue officials, created the documents and changed the entries in the revenue records. Therefore, the petitioner sought a direction to respondents to restore the entries in the revenue records in terms of the status quo orders passed by this Court and cancel the entries made in favour of respondent No.6The Mandal revenue officer, filed a counter in the matter and admitted that relying on the Deputy Collector's 2014 proceedings, the application of respondent No.6 was considered for alteration of the revenue records during the pendency of the Writ Petitions and in operation of the status quo orders passed by this Court. In 2023, when the matter was taken up, the bench yet again directed the unofficial third party not to interfere with the rights of the petitioner and directed the MRO not to entertain any sale transactions in relation to the disputed land. During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of the Bench that the order passed by the Deputy Collector is 2014, has been set aside by the Additional Collector in 2020. It was also noted by the Bench that the respondent no. 6 was part of the proceedings of 2020 and even filed objections. However, not even a flake of the same was reiterated in the pleadings. Relying on Chinnam Pandurangam vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, Satyabrata Biswas v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku, K.Jayaram and others vs. Bangalore Development Authority and other the Bench upheld that any party approach the Court must do so with clean hands, and that when a status quo order is passed by a Court, the same subsists till further orders. “In the instant case, the respondents-authorities in violation of the status quo orders dated 27.03.2014 and 24.02.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.No.9522/2014 and without issuing any notice to the petitioner or to the persons who are interested/effected and contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Chinnam Pandurangam's case (1 supra), mutated the subject property and issued Pattadar Passbook No.T05070060231 vide Khata No.60248 in favour of the respondent No.6. These things cannot take place without the support and connivance of...

Telangana HC Orders Disciplinary Action Against Revenue Officials For Altering Land Entries In Private Party's Favour Despite Status Quo Order

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags