Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 18001

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J
Ittina Properties Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 15962 OF 2016

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Avinash Desai, Kopal Sharraf
For the Respondents: P. Sreedhar Reddy

Fraud vitiates everything; fabricated documents cannot form the basis of any right, title, or interest, even if subsequent registered sale deeds exist. A person must come to court with clean hands.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Transfer of Property Act - Principle of Nemo dat quod non habet - Fraud - Legal maxim Fraus omnia corrumpit - Principles of finality of litigation subject to exception of fraud - Doctrine of estoppel and promissory estoppel - Disputed questions of fact not to be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

(B) Fraud - Effect on judgments, decrees, and orders - Fraud vitiates everything, no statutory protection, limitation period, or constitutional provision can shield an act executed via fraud - A judgment, decree, or order obtained by fraud is non-est and treated as nullity by every court. (Paras 25, 26, 39)

(C) Title - Revenue entries do not create title, interest, or possession - A person cannot transfer a better title than what he has (Nemo dat quod non habet). (Para 13)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner No.1, a private limited company, purchased land measuring Acs.15-00 in Survey Nos. 41/12, 41/13, and 41/14 of Khanamet Village under registered sale deeds dated 16.02.2006, claiming that the lands were assigned to Ex-Servicemen and that final patta certificates dated 05.01.1972 and 23.04.1973 were issued. The State contended that those patta certificates were bogus because the office of Tahsildar, Rajendranagar, whose seal was affixed, was established only in 1978, whereas at the relevant time the office of Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk existed. The State further alleged that proceedings under the ROR Act were issued by a "Recording Officer" not competent to do so, and that the author was not the Tahsildar. The subject land in Survey No. 41/14 (Acs.180-13 gts.) was partly allotted to APIIC (Acs.75-00) and HMDA (Acs.105-13 gts.).

Findings of Court:
The patta certificates produced by the petitioners are fake and fabricated on the face of the record, as the office seal of Tahsildar, Rajendranagar could not have existed in 1972/1973. The petitioners failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of those certificates. Consequently, the predecessors-in-title had no right, title, or interest in the subject land, and, applying the principle of Nemo dat quod non habet, the petitioners could not acquire any title through the registered sale deeds. The claim based on fabricated documents amounts to abuse of process of the court. The court also noted that the lands were not assigned to Ex-Servicemen but to landless poor persons, and that the proceedings under the ROR Act were issued by an incompetent authority.

Issues: (i) Whether the patta certificates relied upon by the petitioners were true, genuine, and validly issued by the competent authority; (ii) What are the consequences if the certificates are found to be fabricated.

Ratio Decidendi: Once it is established that the foundational documents (patta certificates) are bogus and fabricated, the entire chain of title built upon them collapses. The principle of finality of litigation cannot shield an act executed via fraud. A person who comes to court must come with clean hands; a case based on falsehood has no right to approach the court and can be summarily thrown out at any stage. The court has a duty to ensure that public property is not converted into private property by unscrupulous elements.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.5,00,000/- payable to the CM Relief Fund, Telangana. All implead applications dismissed. Directed the Director General of Police, Telangana to constitute a Special Investigation Team headed by an IPS officer of Additional Commissioner cadre to investigate the fabrication of documents and involvement of officials. (Paras 24, 25, 26, 27)

Table of Content
1. fraud vitiates everything, including statutory protections. (Para 1)
2. petitioners' claim based on patta certificates and ex-servicemen assignment. (Para 2)
3. state contends patta certificates are bogus; land is government property. (Para 3)
4. tsiic confirms land allotted to it; includes subject land. (Para 4)
5. petitioners rebut state's claims; assert possession and estoppel. (Para 5)
6. implead application by third parties claiming government land encroachment. (Para 6)
7. implead application by qutub shah descendant; dismissed earlier suits. (Para 7)
8. implead application by agreement purchaser; dispute over sale contract. (Para 8 , 9)
9. moot point: validity of patta certificates; involves disputed facts. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
10. patta certificates found bogus; no title passes to petitioners. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
11. court rejects reliance on prior judgments; land is government property. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
12. writ dismissed with costs; cb-cid probe ordered; implead applications dismissed. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)

O R D E R:

Fraus omnia corrumpit : Fraud corrupts / vitiates everything.

It means, ‘no statutory protection, limitation period, or constitutional provision can shield an act if it was executed via fraud. It nullifies agreements, judgments and statutory rights retroactively.

The reason why this Court has quoted the above legal maxim is:

Petitioners rest their case on the final patta certificates dated 05.01.1972, 23.04.1973 and 23.04.1973 purported to have been issued by the government through Tahsildar, Rajendranagar in favour of Syed Sab and two others in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.5.00 each in Survey Nos. 41/12, 41/13 and 41/14, Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal. Whereas the case of Respondent No.1 - State in its Revenue Department, supported by the material on record, is the said certificates are bogus, for, the office seal of Tahsildar, Rajendernagar was affixed thereon without there being any such office at the relevant period of time, as it was established in 1978; at that time, the office of Tahsildar, Hyderabad West Taluk was in existence. Further, proceedings under the ROR Act 1971 dated 05.08.1993 are not issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer/ Tahsildar, who is the amending authority under the said Act. The said proceedings were issued by the "Recording Officer", UDRI Serilingampally Mandal. It is not understandable, as to under which provision of the enactment, the said proceedings were issued, that too, by an officer under the designation of "Recording Officer". The amending authority can only be the Tahsildar. The author of the said proceedings is one P. Narsimha Rao, who was not the Tahsildar at the relevant point of time or at any point of time of Serilingampally Mandal. Therefore, on the face of it, the said proceedings are created and fabricated.

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.¹ 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 18001

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADNagesh Bheemapaka, JIttina Properties Private Limited – AppellantVersusState of Telangana – RespondentWRIT PETITION No. 15962 OF 2016

Fraud vitiates everything; fabricated documents cannot form the basis of any right, title, or interest, even if subsequent registered sale deeds exist. A person must come to court with clean hands.

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J
Ittina Properties Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 15962 OF 2016