( 1 ) THE writ petition is filed by three individuals viz. , Bodupalli Sathaiah, Yata sathi Reddy and Akunuri Lakshmaiah, against the order dated 3-7-2000 passed by the Joint Collector, Nalgonda, under the A. P. Record of Rights in Land Act. The order passed by the Joint Collector, 15th respondent, was on an appeal preferred by respondents 1 to 12.

( 2 ) THE writ petition was listed for admission on 30-8-2000 and was adjourned to 4-9-2000. On 4-9-2000, the writ petition was admitted and in W. P. M. P. No. 20353 of 2000, an interim order of Status qua obtaining as on that date, was passed.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioners and respondents 1 to 12 filed W. P. M. P. No. 9278 of 2002 under Order XXII Rule 3 read with section 151 CPC praying this court to record compromise in terms of the Memorandum of Compromise. Respective counsel representing the parties, vouched for the genuinity of signatures of the parties on the memorandum of Compromise as well as its contents. Acting on the same, this court passed the following order: "during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners, on the one hand, and the respondent Nos. 1 to 12, on the other; have settled the matter among themselves, wherein the respondent nos. 1 to 12 have admitted and acquiesced in the right of the writ petitions is respect of the land in question. They have also filed a memo of compromise and requested this court to record the same. In view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent nos. 1 to 12, the writ petition is disposed of, in terms of the compromise. There shall be order as to costs. " respondents 1 to 12 in the writ petition filed w. P. M. P. NO. 352 of 2003 (W. P. M. P (SR) no. 123381 of 2002) for review of the above order dated 25-4-2002. They alleged that their thumb impressions or signatures, as the case may be, are forged and a fraud was played on the court.

( 4 ) SRI K. Govardhana Chary, learned advocate, represented respondents 1 to 12 in the writ petition. However, the review petition on their behalf was filed by another advocate Sri A. Pulla Reddy. As the matter was very serious, this court felt it proper to ascertain as to whether the thumb impressions and signatures, as the case may be, in the compromise petition were genuine or not. Therefore, respondents 1 to 12 were summoned to this court. When they complained that there is a threat to their lives, police protection was accorded.

( 5 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 12 appeared before this court and denied their having put their thumb impressions or signatures on the compromise petition or the vakalat filed therein. On a comparison of the thumb impressions and signatures of respondents 1 to 12 taken from them in the court, and those in the compromise petition and vakalat filed by Sri Govardhana Chary, this court prima facie felt that the allegations of respondents 1 to 12 are true. With a view to reach a definite conclusion in the matter, this court passed on order on 30-12-2002, directing the additional Director General of Police, CID, to cause an enquiry into the matter and submit report as to the genuinity or otherwise of the thumb impressions or signatures, as the case may be, on the compromise petition and the vakalat.

( 6 ) IN compliance with the directions issued by this court, the Additional Director General of Police, CID submitted a report dated 19-6-2003, wherein it was pointed out that the signatures and thumb impressions of respondents 1 to 12 were forged. It was stated that during the course of enquiry, the writ petitioners have reported that the signatures of respondents 1 to 12 were secured by one shankar Reddy. Copies of the report were made available to the respective advocates representing various parties. Learned advocates have filed their affidavits disowning their role in the acts of forgery.

( 7 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that the material available on record is sufficient to hold that fraud has be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document