IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 5716 OF 2013

22.04.2026 Between:

Karri Koteswara Rao (died) & another ….. Petitioners And The Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & others.

….. Respondents

O R D E R:

Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant : Fraud and Justice never dwell together.

Fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent : Fraud and deceit ought to benefit none.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the issue of fraud in A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P., (2007) 4 SCC 221 wherein it was held as under:

“ 25. It has been said: fraud and justice never dwell together (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant); or fraud and deceit ought to benefit none (fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent).

26. Fraud may be defined as an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing some unfair or undeserved benefit by taking undue advantage of another. In fraud one gains at the loss of another. Even most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud. Fraud is thus an extrinsic collateral act which vitiates all judicial acts, whether in rem or in personam. The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be stretched to the extent of an absurdity that it can be utilized as an engine of oppression by dishonest and fraudulent litigants.

39. The above principle, however, is subject to the exception of fraud. Once it is established that the order was obtained by a successful party by practising or playing fraud, it is vitiated. Such order cannot be held legal. valid or in consonance with law. It is non-existent and non-est and cannot be allowed to stand. This is the fundamental principle of law and needs no further elaboration. Therefore, it has been said that a judgment, decree or order obtained by fraud has to be treated as a nullity, whether by the court of first instance or by the final court and it has to be treated as non est by every court, superior or inferior."

***

2. This a classic case of fraud played not only by Respondent No.4 on the revenue authorities, original petitioner, innocent purchasers encouraging them to make illegal construction but also the Advocate on record on his behalf who made false statements. However, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view for the present with a stern caution to learned counsel for Respondent No.4, to be cautious and diligent while filing affidavits and making submissions before the Court. The fraudulent intention of Respondent No.4 is visible to the naked eye as he produced the stamp paper dated 27.03.1973 which was released / printed by the Press on 25.02.1977. The below paragraphs establish the mind of the Court as to why such an opinion has been drawn in this case.

3. Original Petitioner (petitioner No.1) filed this Writ Petition seeking to delete the proceedings of the 1^st respondent – Tribal Department in G.O.Ms.No. 13, Social Welfare (LTR2) Department, dated 15.02.2013 confirming the order passed by the Additional Agent to Govt. and Project Officer-ITDA, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District in CMA No. 11 of 2010 dated 19.11.2011.

4. At the stage of admission, on

27.02.2013, the following order has been passed:

" Prima facie this court finds that the plea put forward by the 4^th Respondent before the Special Deputy Collector was totally different from the one, which he has urged before the appellate authority. The matter needs to be examined in detail.

There shall be interim stay, as prayed for."

5. Thereafter, original petitioner No.1 was stated to have died and in view of the same, this Court passed the following order:

" The Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner died and the demise was informed to the court through memo, dated 24.07.2017. The steps to bring the legal representatives on record could not be taken up for want of instructions from legal representatives.

The Memo is dated 24-07-2017. Hence, for the p