APHC010327952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI WRIT APPEAL NO: 778/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters aside the Order dated 08 dismiss the writ petition and pass such Between: 1. YARRASANI MUNAIAH @ YARRASANI MUNIGADU, S/O. MUNAIAH @ MUNIGADU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. GANGULA NARAYANAPALLI VILLAGE, MYLAVARAM MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 1. SMT PILLI NAGAMMA, W/O LATE CHINNA THIRUPALU, AGED YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD, R/O H.NO. 2 VILLAGE, MAILAVARAM MANDAL, YSRKADAPA DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTR 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 5. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, MYLAVARAM MANDAL, YSR 1 (RNT,J & W.A. NO.778 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 778/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent be pleased to set the Order dated 08-05-2025 passed in W.R No. 828 of 2025 and dismiss the writ petition and pass such MUNAIAH @ YARRASANI MUNIGADU, S/O. MUNAIAH @ MUNIGADU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. GANGULA NARAYANAPALLI VILLAGE, MYLAVARAM MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND SMT PILLI NAGAMMA, W/O LATE CHINNA THIRUPALU, AGED YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD, R/O H.NO. 2-59, PONNAMPALLE VILLAGE, MAILAVARAM MANDAL, YSRKADAPA DISTRICT. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTR THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, MYLAVARAM MANDAL, YSR (RNT,J & MRK,J 778 OF 2025) [3524] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Patent be pleased to set 2025 passed in W.R No. 828 of 2025 and MUNAIAH @ YARRASANI MUNIGADU, S/O. MUNAIAH @ MUNIGADU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. GANGULA NARAYANAPALLI VILLAGE, ...APPELLANT SMT PILLI NAGAMMA, W/O LATE CHINNA THIRUPALU, AGED 76 59, PONNAMPALLE VILLAGE, MAILAVARAM MANDAL, YSRKADAPA DISTRICT. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, MYLAVARAM MANDAL, YSR 2 (RNT,J & MRK,J W.A. NO.778 OF 2025) KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the order dated 08-05-2025 in WP No. 828 of 2025 and pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave of this Hon’ble Court to file the Writ Appeal against the order dated 08-05-2025 in W.R No. 828 of 2025 and pass such IA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 08-05-2025 in W.R No. 828 of 2025 pending disposal of the writ appeal and to pass such IA NO: 4 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the entries made in online revenue records in the name of Respondent no. 1/writ petitioner in Sy.No.87-1 and in Sy.No.143of Ponnampalli Village, Mylavaram Mandal pursuant to the order dated 08-05-2025 passed in W.P. No. 828 of 2025 pending disposal of the above writ appeal and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. D KRISHNA MURTHY 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 (RNT,J & MRK,J W.A. NO.778 OF 2025) JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellant/third party, being aggrieved by the order dated 8.5.2025 passed in W.P.No.828 of 2025 by the learned single Judge, to set aside the same. 2. Heard Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the writ appellant/third party, Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner and Sri B.Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.2 to 5. 3. On 26.09.2025, we passed the following order : “On 23.09.2025, we passed the following order : Heard Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the writ appellant and Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 2. This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and order dated 08.05.2025 in W.P.No.828 of 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. 3. The writ appellant was not party. He is third party and has filed I.A.No.2 of 2025, seeking leave of the Court to file the appeal. 4. The 1st respondent was the writ petitioner. The petition was filed questioning the action of the 4th respondent therein, the Mandal Revenue Officer, the present 5th respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Mylavaram Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa, with respect to the subject land, which the writ petitioner claimed to be her but was placed under the disputed register. The grievance raised was that the said action of the Mandal Revenue Officer was in violation of the principles of natural justice, without issuing any notice to her. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, 4 (RNT,J & MRK,J W.A. NO.778 OF 2025) directing the 4th respondent therein to delete the subject land from the disputed register and process the application filed by the petitioner for mutating her name in online web land register and pass appropriate orders within the specified time. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that with respect to the same subject land, the writ petitioner, previously, preferred W.P.No.13930 of 2022, which was disposed of by order dated 06.05.2022, directing the petitioner to make appropriate application through Mee Seva/online in terms of G.O.Ms.No.209, dated 14.06.2017 complying the requirements under Rule 5(3) of the Rules framed under the Act. It was further provided that on making such application, the 4th respondent shall dispose of the same within the specified period. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said Writ Petition No.13930 of 2022 was disclosed in W.P.No.828 of 2025. But, the other material facts were suppressed. Drawing the attention of the Court to para- 4 of the affidavit in support of the W.P.No.828 of 2025, he submits that the writ petitioner mentioned that her application was not accepted. It was also submitted that as per the knowledge of the writ petitioner, there was no dispute over her land. Learned counsel submits that in fact, pursuant to the order dated 06.05.2022 in W.P.No.13930 of 2022, the writ petitioner filed the application, which was rejected by the Mandal Revenue Officer, by order dated 28.12.2022 (pages 48 to 50). The said order was passed after hearing the writ petitioner as also the present appellant. Not only this, the writ petitioner had also filed O.S.No.178 of 2022 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu, against the present appellant, the defendant therein, with respect to the same property. He further submits that in the said suit, the present appellant filed I.A.No.528 of 2023 and along with the affidavit, he brought on record, the copy of the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, which was duly received by the learned counsel for the plaintiff therein (page Nos.111 and 112). These facts were not disclosed in W.P.No.828 of 2025 and the writ appellant was also not made party therein. Behind the back of the writ appellant and by suppression of material fact, 5 (RNT,J & MRK,J W.A. NO.778 OF 2025) W.P.No.828 of 2025 was got disposed of with the directions issued. 7. Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, submits that in the previous W.P.No.828 of 2025, he was the counsel for the writ petitioner, but those facts were not disclosed by the writ petitioner therein. He however tries to justify the order of the learned Single Judge on merits. 8. Prima facie, from the submission advanced as also the documents annexed, we are satisfied that the 1st respondent, the writ petitioner of W.P.No.828 of 2025 made concealment and suppression of material facts and succeeded in getting the order for direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer to mutate her name after deleting the subject land from the disputed register. The order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 28.12.2022 which was not disclosed in the writ petition, is in favour of the writ appellant. But, neither that order was disclosed nor the writ appellant was made party in the writ petition. 9. It is settled in law that a person has to approach the Court with clean hands. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and equitable. It is not to be invoked in favour of the person, who suppresses the material fact and approaches the Court with unclean hands. 10. Prima facie, we are of the view that such act requires to be dealt with iron hands by taking appropriate action, which may include initiation of contempt proceedings along with imposition of having costs. 11. However, before passing such order, we would give opportunity to the 1st respondent/petitioner. 12. Issue notice to the 1st respondent, the writ petitioner of W.P.No.828 of 2025, as to why the action be not taken against her. She is represented through counsel. The counsel shall ensure her presence on 26.09.2025 before this Court. 13. We allow I.A.No.2 of 2025. 14. The leave to appeal is granted. 6 (RNT,J & MRK,J W.A. NO.778 OF 2025) 15. The appellant is permitted to pursue this appeal. 16. The operation of the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer pursuant to the order passed by the writ court in W.P.No.828 of 2025, shall remain stayed. Post on 26.09.2025.” 2. Pursuant to the said order, respondent No.1– Smt. Pilli Nagamma (Writ Petitioner) is present through her learned counsel. 3. Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, submits that all material facts were not disclosed and that there was suppression of certain facts, though not deliberate. 4. Pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.828 of 2025, the Mandal Revenue Officer effected mutation of the name of respondent No.1 in the revenue records. However, it is pointed out that earlier, the application of respondent No.1 had been rejected by the Mandal Revenue Officer, and that order was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. 5. In such circumstances, and in continuation of our order dated 23.09.2025, we direct the personal appearance of the 5threspondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Mylavaram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, before this Court to explain (i) why the earlier order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer was not brought to the notice of the Court in the writ proceedings, and (ii) why, after the order of the learned Single Judge, no appropriate steps were taken, and if taken, what specific steps were initiated to apprise the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue Department so as to enable appropriate action in relation to the order passed in the Writ Petition. 6. Post the matter on 07.10.2025. 7. Having regard to the age and health condition of respondent No.1, her personal appearance on the next date of hearing is dispensed with. 8. Pursuant to the mutation entry made in the revenue records in favour of respondent No.1, no further transactions shall be effected until further orders.” 7 (RNT,J & MRK,J W.A. NO.778 OF 2025) 4. On 08.10.2025, we passed the following order : “The 5th respondent–Mandal Revenue Officer, Mylavaram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, is present. 2. Neither the Mandal Revenue Officer nor the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue is in a position to answer to the query with reference to the contents of paragraph No.5 of the order dated 26.09.2025. 3. Post on 09.10.2025. 4. Let the 5th respondent–Mandal Revenue Officer file an affidavit explaining the position with respect to the contents of paragraph No.5 of the order dated 26.09.2025 and shall also remain present before this Court on the next date of listing.” 5. Thus, by the orders dated 26.09.2025 and 08.10.2025, the 5th respondent–Mandal Revenue Officer, Mylavaram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, was directed to file an affidavit on the points mentioned therein. In compliance, the 5th respondent–Mandal Revenue Officer has filed an affidavit, inter alia, submitting that the written instructions dated 27.01.2025 were provided to the learned Assistant Government Pleader. The said instructions referred to the earlier order of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 28.12.2022, by which the application of the 1st respondent herein (writ petitioner in W.P.No.828 of 2025) was rejected. 8 (RNT,J & MRK,J W.A. NO.778 OF 2025) 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5, submits that in the writ petition, on 28.01.2025, the written instructions were taken on record and time was granted to file a counter affidavit. The proceedings dated 28.01.2025, at page No.7, indicate that the written instructions were taken on record and, having regard to their contents, the counter affidavit was directed to be filed. However, the counter affidavit was not filed thereafter. The said order also shows that a copy of the written instructions was served on the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. 7. The writ petition was finally disposed of with certain directions. The operative portion of the order dated 08.05.2025 reads as under: “4. In view of the same, the present writ petition is disposed of, directing the 4th respondent to delete the subject lands from the disputed register and process the application filed by the petitioner for mutating her name in online web land register and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 5. With the above directions the present writ petition is disposed of.” 8. Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the writ appellant submits that the writ appellant was not made a party to the writ petition. He further submits that the order dated 28.12.2022 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer on the application of the 1st respondent (writ petitioner) was not disclosed in the 9 (RNT,J & MRK,J W.A. NO.778 OF 2025) writ petition. He submits further that the fact regarding filing of a civil suit by the 1st respondent was not brought to the notice of the Writ Court. Consequently, the order in the writ petition came to be passed in favour of the writ petitioner without disclosure of these material facts. 9. Learned counsel submits further that the order dated 28.12.2022 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, rejecting the application of the writ petitioner, was never challenged and, therefore, it attained finality. In such circumstances, in the absence of any challenge to the said order, the Writ Court could not have passed the impugned order directing mutation of the writ petitioner’s name. 10. Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, does not dispute that the aforesaid facts were not disclosed in the writ petition. He also does not dispute that those facts were relevant for the adjudication of the issues raised therein. 11. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, at paragraph No.2, the writ petitioner stated, inter alia, that she had submitted an application for mutation of the subject lands in the online revenue records on 12.10.2021, but no action was taken thereon. She further stated that she had earlier filed W.P.No.13930 of 2022, in which a direction was issued to the 4th respondent to dispose of her application. Pursuant thereto, the writ petitioner again submitted an application for mutation, but the same was not being accepted online. 10 (RNT,J & MRK,J W.A. NO.778 OF 2025) 12. The truth is that in compliance with the order dated 06.05.2022 in W.P.No.13930 of 2022, the Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar, Mylavaram Mandal, conducted an enquiry and rejected the writ petitioner’s application by order dated 28.12.2022. 13. There is no dispute with regard to the facts of the case. It also cannot be said that there was no suppression of material facts by the writ petitioner in the writ petition. The writ appellant, in whose favour the order dated 28.12.2022 was passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, was, also not impleaded as a party to the said writ petition. 14. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that even the order dated 28.12.2022 passed in favour of the writ appellant is not sustainable in law. 15. The validity of the order dated 28.12.2022 is not the subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings. Any appeal or application has not been filed before the appropriate forum questioning the same. In the Writ Petition also the order dated 28.12.2022 was not even disclosed muchless challenged. Consequently, we are not called upon in this Writ Appeal to examine the validity or otherwise of the order dated 28.12.2022 and our consideration in this appeal is confined only to the legality of the order dated 08.05.2025 under challenge passed by the learned single Judge in the Writ Petition No.828 of 2025, and that too, on the limited ground that there was suppression or non-disclosure of material facts by the writ petitioner. 11 (RNT,J & MRK,J W.A. NO.778 OF 2025) 16. Though the written instructions were taken on record, but the time was granted to file the counter-affidavit. The writ petition came to be decided almost three months thereafter, but in the meantime, no counter- affidavit was filed taking specific stand pursuant to the written instructions. Failure to file a counter-affidavit, despite the directions of the Court and despite receipt of the written instructions, by the State and its authorities, sometimes results in a situation such as the present one. We refrain from making any further observations for not filing the counter-affidavit, for which, any plausible reason has not been put forth, and also on the aspect as to why either of the sides, despite having knowledge of the order dated 28.12.2022, did not place the said fact before the Court on the date of hearing when the impuged order was passed. 17. It is well settled that a person approaching this Court, or any Court of law, must come with clean hands and with full disclosure of all material facts necessary for adjudication. The Writ jurisdiction is discretionary and extraordinary. The Court may decline to exercise such jurisdiction if it finds that there has been suppression or misrepresentation. 18. It is evident that the material facts were suppressed by the writ petitioner, and such suppression has resulted in the passing of the impuged order by the learned Writ Court in favour of the writ petitioner. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The impuged order passed in W.P.No.828 of 2025 is set aside. Writ Petition 12 (RNT,J & MRK,J W.A. NO.778 OF 2025) No.828 of 2025 is restored to its original number for fresh decision in accordance with law, with the following further directions to the parties : i. The writ petitioner shall disclose all the material facts in the writ petition by filing an appropriate application for amendment. ii. The writ petitioner shall implead the writ appellant as a party-respondent in the writ petition. iii. The writ appellant is also at liberty to file an appropriate application for his impleadment in the Writ Petition No.828 of 2025. iv. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue shall file a counter-affidavit in the writ petition before the Writ Court. v. The writ petitioner shall be at liberty to file a rejoinder- affidavit, if so required. vi. Under the circumstances, we impose costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) on the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, payable to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. vii. Since we have set aside the impugned order passed by the writ Court, any order passed subsequently by the Revenue authorities pursuant to the impugned order, shall be ineffective, inoperative and of no legal consequence. 13 (RNT,J & MRK,J W.A. NO.778 OF 2025) viii. The parties shall maintain status quo with respect to the subject property. They shall not alienate, encumbrance, or otherwise change the nature or character of the property during the pendency of the writ petition. 20. We are satisfied with the affidavit filed by the 5th respondent and observe that no further proceedings are required against the respondent No.5 pursuant to any previous orders passed by us. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date : 16.10.2025. RPD. 14 (RNT,J & MRK,J W.A. NO.778 OF 2025) 167 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM (ALLOWED) WRIT APPEAL NO: 778 OF 2025 Date: 16.10.2025 RPD.