IMPORTANT POINT
Fraud vitiates every solemn act – Fraud and justice never dwell together and it cannot be perpetuated or saved by application of any equitable doctrine.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, CJ.—The present writ appeal is arising out of an order dated 08.11.2021, passed in W.P.No.19769 of 2021 by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the appellant/petitioner has filed the writ petition being aggrieved by an order passed by the Special Tribunal, Nalgonda in New Case No.F2/Spl.Tribunal/0264/2021 (Old Case No.F2/4244/ 2019), dated 10.07.2021 by which the order passed by the Special Tribunal in Old Case No.F2/4244/2019, dated 09.02.2021 was confirmed. The Special Tribunal by order dated 09.02.2021 has reversed the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated Nil.05.2019.

3. The facts further reveal that the appellant/petitioner came up before this Court stating that his father K. Sathi Reddy expired in the year 1970 and the appellant/petitioner, and his brother late K. Neela Reddy, who is the father of respondents 7, 9 and 10, have succeeded to the ancestral land to an extent of Acs.56.00 guntas spread over in survey Nos.143, 144, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 172, 175, 176, 187, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 201, 460 and 417 of Nomula Village, Nakrekal Mandal, Nalgonda District. The appellant/ petitioner further stated that the properties were partitioned between the appellant/petitioner and his brother late K. Neela Reddy and their names were mutated in the revenue records by the Tahsildar, Nakrekal Mandal, Nalgonda District. It has been further stated that the mother of the appellant/petitioner expired in the year 1977. The facts further reveal that the sixth respondent before this Court, Smt. Kandala Saraswathi, who is the real sister of the appellant/petitioner and late K. Neela Reddy filed an Appeal under Section 5(5) of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1977 (for short, ‘Pattadar Pass Books Act’) asserting her right on the basis of pouthi issued by the Tahsildar in the year 1970-71 and claimed a share in the property and also sought cancellation of patta granted in favour of the appellant/petitioner. The appellant/petitioner defended the appeal and resisted the claim of the sister. The Appeal preferred before the Revenue Divisional Officer was dismissed on 09.08.2019 and the sixth respondent, Smt. Kandala Saraswathi preferred a Revision under Section 9 of the Pattadar Pass Books Act in old case No.F2/4244/2019 before the Additional Collector, Nalgonda and in the light of the G.O.Ms.No.4, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 12.01.2021, the case was transferred to the Special Tribunal and was re-numbered as New case No.F2/Spl. Tribunal/0264/2021. The Special Tribunal, after going through the material on record, allowed the Revision by order dated 09.02.2021 setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda, dated nil.05.2019 with a direction to the Tahsildar to restore the patta in the name of the original pattadar Komatireddy Sathi Reddy by deleting the subsequent entries. The appellant/petitioner preferred a Review before the Special Tribunal and the Special Tribunal has dismissed the Review Petition by order dated 10.07.2021.

4. The appellant/petitioner came up before this Court stating that the Appeal preferred by his sister before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda was rightly dismissed by passing a well reasoned judgment and therefore, the Special Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority. It was also contended that the Special Tribunal has passed an order contrary to the settled proposition of law by accepting the claim of his sister as the properties were partitioned way back in the year 1977, the names of the co-parceners were mutated and therefore, the settled position has been unsettled by cryptic and non-speaking order, which amounts to colourable exercise of power and therefore, the order passed by the Special Tribunal is bad in law.

5. Another ground was raise