::1:: APHC010043692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 2588/2025 Between: 1. RENDU CHINTALA SURYA KIRAN, S/O.BABU RAO, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O.H.NO.1-3/26/13/2, PARDHASARADHI STREET, RAMARAJYA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATNAM KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATNAM KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. PENAMALURU GRAM PANCHYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHYAT SECRETARY, PENAMALURU VILLAGE, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. CH SIVA NAGESWARA RAO, S/O.RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.72-2-4, SF303, KONERU VARI STREET, PATAMAT, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring Writ the proceedings bearing Roc.No.235/2023, PTS 4(1/2), dt N01-09- 2023 of the 3RD Respondent Whereby cancelling the death certificate of V.Geetha, D/o.Satyanarayana Murthy, who died on 06-11- 2021 with registration I.D.No.D 2021-28-05460- 000-157 without hearing of the Petitioner herein who is the legatee of deceased and in violation of the orders dt 20-07-2023 in W.P.No.9778 of 2023 of this Hon'ble arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice court is apart from orders dt 20-07-2023 in W.P.No.9778 of 2023 of this Hon'ble Court and consequently set aside the same and pass....” 2. The case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent/District Panchayat Officer, by proceedings dated 01.09.2023, cancelled the death certificate of one Smt. V. Geetha, D/o. Satyanarayana Murthy, who died on 06.11.2021, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who is the legatee of the deceased. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the cousin brother of Smt. V. Geetha, who executed a Registered Will deed dated 22.10.2021 during her lifetime, 3 bequeathing her properties in his favour. Except the petitioner, there are no other legal heirs. He further submits that Smt. V. Geetha instituted O.S. No.30 of 2021 before the Court of the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, seeking for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the property pertained to land in R.S.No.404/2B, Gundala Village, Vijayawada, NTR District. The suit was filed on 27.02.2021, and she was died on 06.11.2021. Basing on the Registered Will deed, the petitioner was impleaded as one of the legatee in the said suit. Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P. No.9778 of 2023 seeking for updation of the death certificate with a digital signature. This Court, by order dated 20.07.2023, directed the 5th respondent/Gram Panchayat to issue the digitally signed death certificate within a period of (01) one week and disposed of the writ petition. However, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, without giving any opportunity of hearing, and without considering the orders of this Court dated 20.07.2023, the 3rd respondent cancelled the death certificate by issuing proceedings dated 01.09.2023, which is contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice. Hence the writ petition. 4 4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent/Gram Panchayat submits that the impugned proceedings dated 01.09.2023 were issued by the 3rd respondent/District Panchayat Officer pursuant to a report submitted by the Extension Officer, Penamaluru. It is stated that the then Panchayat Secretary, Penamaluru, had issued two death certificates bearing the same identification number and reflecting the same date of death, i.e., 06.11.2021. In view of such discrepancy, the present Panchayat Secretary, Penamaluru Mandal, who is the competent authority for registration of births and deaths, was directed to cancel the alleged death certificate issued earlier in the name of Vesta Geetha, D/o. Satyanarayana Murthy. Upon verification, the said certificate was found to be fake, and therefore, it was cancelled. 5. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent/unofficial respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the allegations in the writ petition. It is submitted that the writ affidavit is false and misleading, and that the petitioner is guilty of “suppressio veri et suggestio falsi”. The death certificate relied upon by the petitioner, purportedly issued by the Gram Panchayat, Penamaluru, 5 is a forged and fabricated document. Likewise, the Registered Will deed dated 22.10.2021 is also alleged to be forged, on the ground that the supposed testator, Vetsa Geetha, is a fictitious and non- existing person. He further submits that this Court, by order dated 23.10.2021 in W.P. Nos.15225 of 2020, 17716 of 2017, and 36899 of 2017, had already declared that no such person as Vetsa Geetha exists. He further alleges that the petitioner, in collusion with others, created forged and fabricated documents, tampered with registers maintained under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, and manipulated electronic records with the assistance of the then Panchayat Secretary. An enquiry is stated to have revealed that the entries relating to one Shaik Fathimunnisa were altered to fabricate the fictitious record of Vetsa Geetha. He further contends that the petitioner had earlier filed writ petitions before this Court by relying on forged documents and false affidavits, and that the present writ petition is yet another attempt to perpetuate fraud. It is submitted that fraud and justice cannot co-exist, and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 6. He further submits that, as per the investigation conducted by the police authorities of the States of Andhra Pradesh and 6 Telangana, and the Crime Investigation Department (CID), Andhra Pradesh, the following facts have come to light: “Vesta Geetha claims that her father vesta satyanarayana murthy had bought this property in RS.No.404/2Bm of an extent of 5400 square yards by way of sale deed No.823/1987 dated 23.02.1987 registered at Sub-registrar office, Vijayawada. In the year 1986 in the sub registrar office documents were burnt in arson during V.Ranga’s death agitation. Taking this as advantage, V.Geetha created fake and forged document No.823/1987 with the help of office staff in sub-registrar office, Vijayawada, V.Geetha created a fake and forged document No.823/1987 as reconstructed documents No.11/2009 and filed suits in the civil courts. Thereafter vesta geetha started filing false civil suits in civil court in Vijayawada and in this hon’ble high court claiming herself to be the owner of the property. Basing on the orders passed by Hon’ble I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in CF No.3510 dated 05.05.2011, LW Sri.T. Srinivas reddy, sub-inspector of police, Machavarm PS, Vijayawada registered a case in Cr.No.269/2011 and 14.05.2011 and investigation was taken up by LW-29 Satyanandam, the then inspector of police, Machavarm PS, Vijayawada. LW-30 return back from Bangalore and informed to LW-29 that he verified the address and found that V.Geetha was not residing in the address and produced a letter from the proprietor of Shanthi Nikethan ladies hostel stating that no person by name V.Geetha stayed in their hostel from 2008”. 7. He further submits that in W.P. No.15225 of 2020, the petitioner filed Memo U.S.R. No.15529 of 2021, dated 02.03.2021, 7 seeking withdrawal of the writ petition. The respondents filed objections thereto and prayed that this Hon’ble Court reject the petitioner’s request for the reasons mentioned below. “This is a peculiar case in which the contesting respondents have raised an issue about the very identity of the petitioner. It is their contention that the petitioner before this court is a fictitious person who is impersonating a person called vetsa geetha. This is the consistent version of the respondents all through. I.A.No.2 of 2020 was filed seeking for a direction for the personal appearance of the writ petitioner along with other authenticated documents, adhar card etc., for proving her identity. Time was granted on 16.10.2020, 02.11.2020, 09.11.2020, 17.11.2020, and 24.11.2020. on all these occasions, learned counsel for the writ petitioner sought time on various grounds. Ultimately on 03.12.2020 after holding the adequate opportunity was given, this court directed issuance of non-bailabale warrant and directed that Vetsa geetha should appear before this court. The warrant was returned unexpected stating that the door number mentioned in the address was not existing. The police therefore expressed their inability to execute the warrant. During the course of hearing through video conference one lady appeared along with her counsel, but her answers were not very convincing and she was not responding to the queries from the court. She also filed a memo stating that she wishes to change her counsel. An opportunity was 8 given to her on 22.01.2021 to engage another counsel and also to appear and argue I.A.No.2 of 2021, where a dispute is raised about her identity. This was after the order dated 03.12.2020 was passed issuing NBW. Now another counsel filed the current memo. The respondents through their counsel appeared in this court in person as they wanted to prove this court that the lady appearing in the video conference is not the person who claims to be vetsa geetha. It is also mentioned that a death certificate in the name of V.Krishnaveni was sought to be corrected as the death certificate of Vetsa Venkata Krishnaveni on the basis of a forged document. As per the said report, the original V.Krishnaveni was a five year old girl who died on 15.12.1991”. 8. He further submits that after elaborate hearing, by order dated 29.06.2021, this Court dismissed the memo and did not permit withdrawal of the Memo USR No.15529 of 2021 dated 02.03.2021. Ultimately, by common order dated 23.10.2021, this Court dismissed W.P. Nos.15225 of 2020, 17716 of 2017, and 36899 of 2017, wherein it is stated that:- When the matter came up for hearing, this court passed the following order in W.P.No.15225 of 2020 on 15.09.2021:- 9 “The preliminary report submitted by the Station House Officer, Thullur reveals that many of the documents filed by the petitioner are not genuine. In that view of the matter, the station house officer, thullur is directed to investigate the case further and take it to its logical conclusion. List the matter before appropriate bench having the roster. The preliminary report should be kept under a sealed cover and to be opened under the orders of the court. A perusal of the material reveals that after investigation, the police filed a report stating that the address given by the petitioner is not available and the documents filed by her are not genuine and are bogus ones. When the matter was listed on 04.10.2021, this court directed the petitioner to appear before this court and at the request of her counsel, the matter is posted to 22.10.2021 under the caption for appearance. On that day, no representation was made and the petitioner was also not present and the matter was adjourned to this day. Today also, neither the petitioner nor the learned counsel for the petitioner is present. In view of the above said circumstances, this court has not option except to hold that no such person exists. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. If the petitioner files petitions for restoration of the writ petitions, 10 the registry shall entertain such applications after verifying the identity of the petitioner. The preliminary report submitted by the station house officer, thullur shall be kept as a part and parcel of the record. No costs”. 9. The learned Standing counsel for the respondents further contends that it is clearly established that professional land grabbers fabricated documents in the name of a fictitious person, Vetsa Geetha, including forged death certificates of her and her alleged parents, solely with a view to lay false claims over valuable property situated in R.S. No.404/2B, Gundala Village, Vijayawada, NTR District. In view of the above, it is submitted that the present writ petition, being founded on fraud and misrepresentation, is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs, for it is a settled principle of law that fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant fraud and justice can never dwell together. 10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, and the learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent–Gram Panchayat, and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that, in fact the petitioner claimed himself as the cousin brother of the 11 deceased, Smt. Vetsa Geetha vide alleged Will dated 22.10.2021 which was executed by the deceased in his favour in respect of her estate. It is further stated that the petitioner preferred W.P. No. 9778 of 2023 for not uploading the digital death certificate with a digital signature by respondent No. 4 in respect of Smt. Vetsa Geetha, wherein this Court specifically directed the respondent No. 4 herein to issue a digital death certificate by affixing a digital signature. He further pleaded that, at the instance of the petitioner, the said death certificate was issued, and that being a legal heir, he is entitled to receive notice before cancellation of the death certificate of Smt. Vetsa Geetha, which was allegedly based upon fabricated and forged records. However, it is evident from the enquiry conducted by the committee appointed by the then Panchayat Officer, Krishna District, on 19.08.2023, that the said death certificate is fraudulent and fabricated one. Therefore, the relief claimed in the present Writ Petition, being based upon forged and fabricated documents, cannot be granted, and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, more particularly as prayed for in the present Writ Petition. 12 11. On perusal of the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P. No. 15225 of 2022, dated 23.10.2021, it is clear and categorical that the entire record, including the death certificate of Smt. Vetsa Geetha, was forged and fabricated to grab the property measuring an extent of 5400 square yards situated in R.S. No. 404/2B, Gundala Village, Vijayawada, NTR District. 12. Having suffered and being fully aware that the death certificate issued in respect of Smt. Vetsa Geetha was declared to be forged and fabricated, the petitioner, under the guise of being a legal claimant or beneficiary under the alleged Will purportedly executed by her, has once again filed the present Writ Petition challenging the same. This conduct amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law, intended to mislead this Court and to grab the property at any cost. Upon perusal of the order passed by this Court in the earlier proceedings on the same issue, it is evident that the petitioner herein had created forged and fabricated documents, including the death certificate. Filing the present petition, therefore, constitutes nothing but a gross misuse of the judicial process. 13. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition is liable to be 13 dismissed with costs. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/–, payable by the petitioner to the A.P. High Court Advocates’ Association within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the petitioner shall submit the payment of receipt to the Registrar (Judicial). As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 02.09.2025 Klk 14 282 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.2588 of 2025 KLK 02.09.2025 15