Contributing Fuel To Fire In Mounting Pendency: Telangana High Court Imposes 1 Crore Cost On Litigant For Filing Frivolous Petitions To Grab Govt. Land

The Petitioner had approached the High Court challenging the action of the official respondents in not entertaining the sale deeds pertaining to a parcel of land.

Considering that the petitions in the present case were being continuously filed since 1989, the Single Bench of Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka said, “As of now, our judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation, hence, ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-considered claims. Litigation like the present one is contributing fuel to fire in mounting pendency, disabling the Courts to discharge the prime duty of justice dissemination.”

Advocate Kandagatla Deeraj represented the Petitioner while Government Pleader represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Petitioner claimed to be the owner and possessor of a land having acquired the same by succession. It was his case that his father acquired the said property by virtue of a registered sale deed from the legal heirs of one R. Venkatesham, who was the original possessor of the subject land. According to the petitioner, the subject land was recorded as patta land in the revenue records after a survey error was corrected by the District Collector under Section 87 of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317.

It was alleged that on the strength of the letter addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the District Collector stating that the petitioner was an encroacher of the subject land, respondents were forcibly trying to take possession of the land without following due process mandated in law. It was alleged that the land grabbers are trying to sell the land by creating bogus and fictitious documents and any documents presented by them may be brought to the notice of the undersigned. The Petitioner’s father’s name was included in the names mentioned as land grabbers.

The Petitioner submitted that his father has nothing to do with the suit or any other suit filed by their vendors after selling away the property to them. In these circumstances, the Petitioner claimed that the action of the respondents in not entertaining sale deeds executed by the petitioner for registration was an outright illegality apart from high-handed interference with his peaceful possession. The Writ Petition was thus filed on such grounds.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts and the submissions, the Bench found that the issue of declaring the vendors of the petitioner’s father as owners of the subject land was pending consideration in a Second Appeal. “Knowing fully well, petitioner with the help of land grabbers, is trying to interfere in the said matter and is filing frivolous and vexatious Writ Petitions on the basis of rank fabricated, sham and bogus documents, to grab the valuable government land”, the Bench said.

“Now, he has come up with this Writ Petition seeking the self-same relief, to the astonishment, without any whisper about the pending Writ Petitions. Petitioner, so far, could successfully manage to obtain status quo orders with regard to the subject land, by suppressing real facts”, it stated.

It was further noticed that in the counter, the Tahsildar had, in clear and categorical terms, stated that keeping in view the grave threat of encroachment posed to the land, the then Tahsildar informed the then SHO to keep strict vigil an patrolling over the said land to protect the same from being encroached by third party land grabbers. The Bench noted that the Government Pleader for Revenue raised serious concern about the conduct of the petitioner, who had been making efforts to secure orders by suppressing the fact that the land was in the custody of Revenue Department, and trying to grab the valuable land of the government worth Rs. 400 to 500 crores. “In view of the above, the Court cannot give any positive direction in favour of the petitioner to sell the land and direct the registering authorities to entertain and register the sale deeds presented by him in respect of the land”, the Bench added.

The Court mentioned, “...this Court is of the view that anyone who takes recourse to method of suppression in a court of law, is, in actuality, playing fraud upon the court, and the maxim suppressio veri, expressio falsi i.e. suppression of truth is equivalent to expression of falsehood, gets attracted since petitioner has not disclosed filing of several writ petitions concerning the subject land and dismissal of some of them. Hence, he has to be non-suited on the ground of suppression of material facts as he has not approached the court with clean hands and also abused the process of law.”

“As of now, our judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation, hence, ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-considered claims. Litigation like the present one is contributing fuel to fire in mounting pendency, disabling the Courts to discharge the prime duty of justice dissemination”, it further added.

The Bench thus dismissed the Petition with costs of Rs 1 crore to be paid by the petitioner in favour of Telangana State Legal Services Authority.

Cause Title: Venkata Rami Reddy v. The State of Telangana ( Case No.: WRIT PETITION No. 163 OF 2025)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Kandagatla Deeraj

Respondent: Government Pleader

Click here to read/download Order