Telangana HC Asks Registrar To File Complaint Over Allegedly Fabricated HC Order Relied On In Land Dispute Case

The Telangana High Court has directed its Registrar (Judicial) to lodge a police complaint for enquiring into alleged forgery of certain high court orders including a 37-year-old order which is stated to have been relied upon in various collateral proceedings in connection with a land dispute. 

It further directed the State Government constitute a Special Team to investigate into the proposed complaint which the court directed its Registrar to lodge, along with two earlier complaints registered in 2024 with Charminar police station so that further course of action can be taken in the matter.

The order was passed in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority and others appellants challenging the order passed by the Trial court in relation to lands located in Shamshabad village.

When the matter was taken up on March 7, the high court had "prima facie" found that the order dated dated April 29, 1988 passed in an application filed in a 1958 civil suit as well as an order passed in a 1996 writ petition were "fabricated orders of this Court". The high court had then directed the Registrar (Judicial-I) to conduct a detailed enquiry to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the aforesaid orders and submit a report.

Pursuant to this the Registrar placed a report in sealed cover before a division bench of Justice T Vinod Kumar and Justice P Sree Sudha.

On going through the report the bench in its April 10 order noted:

"it was noted that Hon'ble Sri Justice N.D. Padnaik having been elevated to Bench only on 28.12.1988, the order in Application No.533 of 1988 could not have been passed on 29.04.1988. So also the Court noted that the Writ Petition vide W.P. No.28734 of 1996 was not registered on the file of this Court. Noting the contents of the report, this Court had directed the Registrar (Judicial-I) to furnish copies of the aforesaid report to the Counsel appearing on either side for offering their objections". 

Notably, Justice Padnaik retired in 1994. 

During the hearing the senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that there could be a possibility of mentioning of wrong application number, so also with regard to the order in W.P. No. 28734 of 1996.

The court however said, "However, from the record available, it is noted that Hon'ble Sri Justice N.D. Patnaik was elevated to the bench of this Court only on 28.12.1988 and as such could not have passed the order in April, 1988. Further, from the record available with the High Court, the Writ Petition No.28734 of 1996 was also not registered in the year 1996 and thus no orders could not have been passed therein also. Thus, the orders as noted above have been fabricated". 

The court thus directed:

"Registrar (Judicial-I) is hereby directed to lodge a complaint with the concerned police authority to cause detailed enquiry into the aforesaid aspects of the matter by initiating necessary action against the concerned involved in bringing on record the fabricated and forged orders, thereby playing fraud on the Court and interfering with the administration of justice. Further, taking note of the fact that similar two complaints having been lodged earlier, this Court is of the view that the State Government should be directed to constitute a Special Team to investigate into the present complaint directed to be lodged by the Registrar (Judicial-I) along with the earlier two complaints registered vide FIR No.43 of 2024 and 176 of 2024 of Charminar police station expeditiously, so that further course of action can be taken in the matter". 

The court further said that since it has "prima facie" found the orders to be fabricated, it further directed Registrar (Judicial-I) to obtain orders from the Acting Chief Justice to issue necessary circular to all concerned officers not to act on these orders, "if relied upon in any collateral proceedings before any Court/forum, including displaying the same on the High Court website for information of general public".

It also continued its earlier status quo orders in the present case; it however granted liberty to both the appellants as well as the respondent to make a mention before the high court for listing of the appeal based on the progress of investigation. 

Background

For context, on March 7 it was brought to the high court's notice that an April 29, 1988 order "stated to have been passed" by former high court judge Justice N.D.Patnaik in Application No.533 of 1988 in Civil Suit No.7 of 1958 had been "relied upon in collateral proceedings before various forums including this Court in other Writ Petitions in relation to the land" situated at Shamshabad and (Paigah) Village, Shamshabad Mandal located in Ranga Reddy District. 

The court however had then said in its order that, Justice N.D.Patnaik had been elevated to the Bench of this Court on December 28, 1988; whereas the order in question was passed in April 1988. It had thus observed that this "casts a shadow/doubt on the correctness or otherwise of the order, notwithstanding the said order has been relied upon in subsequent proceedings". 

The court had then directed the Registrar (Judicial-I) submit a report on " i) the date when His Lordships Justice N.D.Patnaik has been elevated to the Bench of this Court; ii) whether any such order has been passed by Justice N.D.Patnaik in Application No.533 of 1988 in C.S.No.7 of 1958 on the day mentioned in the proceedings, which are filed into this Court in C.M.A.No.76 of 2025 at page 60 or any other day thereafter; (iii) whether the said order has been relied upon in any other collateral proceeding before this Court and (iv) the correctness as to the order in W.P.No.28734 of 1996 including as to number of writ petition filed in the year 1996". 

Case title: Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority & Others vs. Mohammad Taher Khan

Counsel for State: Additional Advocate General, Tera Rajinikath Reddy, Assisted by Special Government Pleader, S. Rahul Reddy, Nethan Reddy

Counsel for Respondent: Dama Seshadri Naidu, Senior Counsel, on behalf of Jyothi Eswar Gogineni.

Click Here To Read/Download Order