Telangana HC Directs Disciplinary Action Against Revenue Officer For Altering Records Despite Status-Quo Order

The Telangana High Court has ordered disciplinary action against Revenue Officer for altering revenue records and issuing Pattadar Passbook in favour of private party despite an order calling for maintenance of status-quo.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking direction to Respondents to restore the entries in the Revenue Records in terms of the status-quo orders passed by Court and cancel the entries made in favour of respondent.

The single-bench of Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy directed, "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.9522 of 2014."

The Petitioner was represented by Senior Advoacte Nalin Kumar while the Respondent was represented by Senior Advocate Vedula Srinivas.

The grievance of the Petitioner was that pending adjudication of two Writ Petitions 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 and therefore sought a direction to Respondents to restore the entries in the Revenue Records in terms of the status-quo orders and cancelling the entries made in favour of Respondent No.6.

The Court at the outset noted that it can be seen that the Court had granted an interim order directing to maintain status quo with regard to the entries made in the revenue records and thereafter, the said interim order was extended until further orders. Subsequently, the Additional Collector had set aside the orders passed by the SGDC & RDO in respect of the subject lands on the observation that revenue authorities are not competent to declare the sale deed as fraud more so after 40 years.

The Court pointed out that the Respondent No.-6 intentionally suppressed the said facts.

"Interestingly, the respondent No.6 having contested the aforesaid proceedings dated 14.08.2020, intentionally suppressed the said facts before this Court. Thereafter, submitted application vide No.RC2300006411 enclosing the orders in File No.C/260/2014 dated 07.03.2014 issued by the respondent No.3 herein (which orders are subject matters of the status quo orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.9522/2014 and annulled by the Additional Collector, Ranga Reddy District, vide Proceedings No.D1/1383/2014 dated 14.08.2020) for mutation of entries in Dharani Portal. The revenue authorities i.e, District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Division and Tahsildar, Gandipet Mandal, being parties to the W.P.No.9522/2014 and pending adjudication of the said writ petition and contrary to the status quo orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.9522 of 2014 without issuing any notice to the writ petitioner herein or other affected persons and contrary to the provisions of the ROR Act, 1971 and Rules made thereunder and law laid down by this Court in various judicial pronouncements, mutated the subject property in favour of the respondent No.6," the Court observed.

The Court stated that except denying the right and entitlement of the Petitioner, the Respondent No.6 has not stated as to when and in what proceedings, the status-quo orders granted by the Court in W.P.No.9522 of 2014 are modified or vacated.

"In the teeth of the above proceedings, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent No.6 that the revenue authorities have followed due procedure for altering the entries in the revenue records and incorporated the name of the respondent No.6 in the Dharani Portal and consequently, issued pattedar passbooks. Further, the respondent No.6 in the counter affidavit filed by him, has not stated anything about the orders passed by the Additional Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in Proceedings No.D1/1383/2014 dated 14.08.2020, even though he is a party respondent to the said proceedings," the Court observed.

The Court stated that it is settled law that when a Court issues a status quo order, it mandates that existing state of affairs be maintained until further directions are issued.

"Actions taken in violation of such orders are considered illegal and without legal effect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that any act done in contravention of a status quo order is null and void," the Court observed citing Supreme Court's judgement in Satyabrata Biswas v. Kalyan Kumar Kisk.

"All actions including the grant of sublease are clearly illegal. Admittedly, in the instant case, during the operation of the status quo orders, the respondent No.6 being party to the proceedings, maneuvered the records in a fraudulent manner and in active connivance with revenue officials corrected the entries in the revenue records incorporating his name vide Khata No.60248. It is settled law that any orders passed by the respondentauthorities during the operation of the status quo order are null and void and beneficiaries cannot claim any rights under such invalid orders and officers responsible for issuing such orders shall be subject to disciplinary proceedings for dereliction of duties and undermining the authority of this Court," the Court observed.

The Court cited Supreme Court's ruling in K.Jayaram and others vs. Bangalore Development Authority and others to re-iterate that it is imperative that party approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. 

".....that a litigant is bound to state all facts which are relevant to litigation and if he withholds some vital or relevant material in order to gain advantage over other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud with Court as well as with opposite parties which cannot be countenanced," the Court observed.

"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 the revenue authorities, who are also parties to the W.P.No.9522/2014. Therefore, the said action on the part of respondent Nos.2 to 6 not only amounts to undermining the authority of this Court but equally amounts to playing fraud. If such actions are allowed to be continued, the public will lose the confidence on the system and the Institution," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: M/s. Asian Tubes Private Limited vs. State of Telangana

Appearances:

Petitioner- Senior Advoacte Nalin Kumar, Advocate Pratusha Boppana

Respondent- Government Pleader for Revenue, Senior Advoacte Vedula Srinivas, Advocate P. Vijay Kumar

Click here to read/ download the Judgement: