Gummala Thirupal Reddy vs Juturu Raghunatha Reddy & Others

Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ

In this intra Court appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, respondent No.5 in W.P.No.6352 of 2015 has called in question the order dated 13.12.2022 passed by the learned single Judge directing respondent No.4 – Tahsildar, Kadapa, Y.S.R. Kadapa District to immediately act upon the complaint raised by the writ petitioner and to initiate the criminal action against respondent No.5 therein, who is the appellant before us.

The parties in the writ appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition before the learned single Judge.

The writ petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.3.66 cents in S.No.603 to 605 and 611 of Ukkayapalem Village, Kadapa Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. After demise of his father, his name is also mutated in the revenue records. However, respondent No.5 obtained pattadar passbooks by playing fraud on the revenue officials by filing forged documents vide proceedings dated 15.06.2005. The writ petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer (for short “R.D.O.”), Kadapa against the proceedings dated 15.06.2005. Basing on the same, the R.D.O. issued notice to respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 challenged the said notice by preferring W.P.No.556 of 2005, which was disposed of directing respondent No.5 to raise his objections before the R.D.O. In the enquiry, the then Tahsildar, Kadapa issued notice to respondent No.5 and others to appear before him, which was again challenged in W.P.No.19102 of 2005 by respondent No.5. The writ petitioner has preferred W.P.No.19844 of 2005 challenging the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of respondent No.5 vide proceedings dated 15.06.2005. The Tahsildar filed counter affidavit in W.P.No.19102 of 2005 stating that he would initiate criminal action against respondent No.5.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that despite the statement made in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.19102 of 2005, the Tahsildar has not initiated any action against respondent No.5.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that merely on the basis of the statement made in the counter filed by the Tahsildar, a direction cannot be issued for initiating criminal action against the appellant. He would submit that the statement made in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.19102 of 2005 cannot be taken to be prima facie proof of commission of fraud. It is also argued that the Tahsildar has not given opportunity of hearing to the appellant before reaching to the conclusion of commission of fraud. Therefore, for this reason also, the direction issued by the learned single Judge deserves to be set aside.

This Court would have accepted the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, the matter does not rest solely on the statement made by the Tahsildar in his counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.19102 of 2005.

In the common order passed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.Nos.19102 and 19844 of 2005, a finding was recorded to the following effect.

“The writ petition filed by G.Tirupala Reddy being W.P.No.19102 of 2005 is therefore must be dismissed, as the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. He has approached this Court by relying on a forged document for which the District Collector, R.D.O., and M.R.O., are contemplating criminal action against G.Tirupala Reddy. In view of the categorical averments made by the present M.R.O. that Ref.No.1389/2004 dated 15.06.2005 is a forged one, which does not form part of the record of the MRO, Kadapa, the same cannot be given any legal effect.”

In view of the above, it appears that the statement made in the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar in W.P.No.19102 of 2005 was accepted by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh and relying upon the said statement, it was observed that the District Collector, R.D.O. and M.R.O. are contemplating criminal action against G.Tirupala Reddy, who is the appellant before us. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh also accepted the statement of the revenue officials to the effect that Ref.No.1389/2004 dated 15.06.2005 is a forged one.

In view of the previous order passed in W.P.No.19102 of 2005, the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned single Judge has passed the impugned order basing upon the statement made in the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar in W.P.No.19102 of 2005 is not correct. It may be true that the learned single Judge has not referred to the order passed in W.P.No.19102 of 2005. However, since the copy of the order passed in W.P.No.19102 of 2005 is placed in the record of the writ appeal, this Court cannot ignore the same.

In any case, if a criminal action is initiated against the appellant, he would get an opportunity to defend himself. Therefore, it is not a fit case for interference in this intra Court appeal.

The appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. All pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.