Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 969
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.LAKSHMAN, J.
Vadthya Ramulu - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secreatary, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad and others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.20909 of 2025
Decided On : 17-10-2025
For the Petitioner: Dr. Vijayalakshmi, Ld.counsel.
For the Respondents:Sri T. Rajinikanth Reddy, Ld. Additional Advocate General, Ld. Govt.Pleader, Sri D. Narender Naik, Standing Counsel, Sri Vadeendra Joshi, Ld. Counsel.
Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 grants discretion to appoint a commission only when a definite public interest is established; mere allegations do not suffice for judicial intervention.
Headnote:(A) Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 - Section 3 - Writ petition seeking appointment of a Commission of Inquiry regarding alleged fraudulent land transactions - Petitioner claims ownership of land, backed by gift settlement deed, but fails to produce sale deed for earlier acquisition - Court finds no public importance or enforceable right justifying inquiry, emphasizing that appointment is an executive discretion - Petition dismissed for lack of locus standi. (Paras 30-52)
(B) Legal standing in Writ Jurisdiction - Petitioner must establish specific legal rights to compel an authority under Article 226 - Judicial restraint applies to matters of discretion regarding appointments of inquiry commissions; courts cannot mandate unless public interest is clear. (Paras 26-29, 50)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged fraudulent land transactions involving his inherited land. He presented various documents, including a gift deed, but discrepancies regarding land extent and ownership were noted. He sought the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry citing a public land scam, but failed to prove claims of right or public necessity.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner lacked sufficient legal grounds to compel the appointment of an inquiry commission, and disputes regarding land ownership and rights were civil in nature, not invoking public importance as required under Section 3.
Issues: The main issues included whether the appointment of a commission is warranted given the allegations and whether the petitioner has the legal standing to compel such an inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appropriate Government has the discretion to appoint a Commission of Inquiry only if a 'definite matter of public importance' exists, which was not met in this case. The petitioner must establish a legal basis for the requested inquiry as per the statutory provisions.
Result: Writ petition dismissed with pending miscellaneous applications closed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's land ownership and illegal transactions (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. fraudulent land document mutations (Para 8 , 9 , 42 , 43) |
| 3. maintainability of writ petition against government discretion (Para 10 , 30) |
| 4. discretionary power of government in appointing inquiries (Para 12 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 31) |
| 5. discrepancies in the petitioner's claims (Para 36 , 40 , 46) |
| 6. writ petition dismissed (Para 51 , 52) |
ORDER :
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Heard Dr. Vijayalakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T. Rajinikanth Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6, Learned Govt.Pleader for Home, Sri D.Narender Naik, Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No.8, Sri Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.9 to 12.
2. The petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac 10-17 guntas in Sy.Nos. 194 and 195 situated at Nagaram Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. According to him, his father late Sri Jamala, belongs to Scheduled Tribe (ST) Community, purchased the above said land from the original owner Sri Nawab Mohd. Haji Khan in the year 1964. During the lifetime, his father had executed a registered gift settlement deed vide document No.23750 of 2019, dated 08.10.2019 in favour of the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Ac.5.00 guntas out of Ac.10.17guntas. Since then, he is in physical possession and enjoyment of the said property. There is standing crop in the said property. His name was also entered in the revenue record. E-pattadar passbook and title deed was also issued in his favour. His father died on 07.10.2020.
3. While the petitioner carrying on agricultural operations, Sri K. Chavli and others interfered with his possession over the subject property. Therefore, he has filed a suit in O.S. No.724 of 2022 against the said K.Chavli and others for permanent injunction. Along with the said suit, he has also filed I.A.No.881 of 2022 seeking temporary injunction. Vide order dated 30.04.2024, learned XI Additional District Judge, at Ranga Reddy District, vide order dated 30.04.2024, dismissed the said petition. Therefore, he has preferred an appeal vide CMA No.452 of 2024. Vide order dated 28.11.2024, the same was allowed granting injunction in favour of the petitioner till disposal of the suit.
4. Later the suit was transferred to the Additional District Court, Ibrahimpatnam and re-numbered as O.S. 730 of 2024 and the same is pending. Despite the injunction order dated 28.11.2024 granted in C.M.A No.452 of 2024, the defendant in the said suit interfered with the possession of the petitioner over the suit scheduled property. Therefore, he has filed I.A. No 441 of 2025 seeking police aid against 6th respondent. Vide order dated 01.05.2025, the trial Court granted police aid to the petitioner. The same has not been implemented by the police authorities. Therefore, he has filed writ petition vide W.P.No.15537 of 2025 seeking a direction to the police to implement the said order by providing police aid.
5. It is alleged by the petitioner herein that Respondent Nos. 9 to 11, with the help of respondent No.14, got mutated their names fraudulently and also obtained pattadar passbooks. On verification, it is found that their names are not mutated in manual revenue records, but the names of respondent Nos. 9 to 11 appears on online records. The petitioner and others whose names are recorded in manual and online pahanies, have not sold the said land to anyone, much less to respondent Nos.1 to 11. 5th respondent, without any valid title and documents, mutated the names of unofficial respondents Nos.9 to 11 under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act,1971 (for short, ‘the ROR Act’). Respondent No.8 and 10, based upon the fraudulent mutation appears to have sold the land to respondent No.13 under sale deeds bearing document Nos. 1432 and 1435 of 2021 dated 08.07.2021. Respondent No.9 sold an
