Fraud Must Be Pleaded and Proved, Mere Allegation Insufficient: Telangana High Court

Telangana High Court quashing the orders of the Additional Collector, Revenue (FAC), Ranga Reddy District. The Additional Collector had earlier set aside the Occupancy Rights Certificates (ORCs) granted in favor of the petitioners’ predecessors under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955.

Justice K. Lakshman held that the appeals challenging the ORCs were filed after an abnormal delay of 22 and 33 years, far beyond the statutory limitation period, and without any application for condonation of delay. The respondents had also alleged fraud in obtaining the ORCs but failed to plead and prove it with evidence. The Court ruled that the appellate authority had acted beyond its jurisdiction and had violated well-established legal principles, making the impugned order legally unsustainable.

The dispute involved agricultural land situated in Survey Numbers 100 and 101 of Nandigama Village, Ranga Reddy District. This land, which was originally part of a Dastagard Inam land, had been assigned multiple survey numbers. The petitioners’ predecessors were in possession of the land and were granted ORCs in 1981 and 1991 under the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955.

The private respondents (6 to 13) claimed that their ancestor, Erragari Sayanna, was the protected tenant of the land and that the petitioners had fraudulently obtained the ORCs without issuing notice to them. Initially, the respondents had filed a civil suit (O.S. No. 34 of 2004) before the Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, seeking a declaration of their ownership and for recovery of possession. However, this suit was dismissed on December 31, 2012.

Following the dismissal of their suit, the respondents preferred an appeal under Section 24 of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, before the Additional Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in 2013. They sought to challenge the validity of the ORCs issued in favor of the petitioners in 1981 and 1991, claiming that they were obtained fraudulently. The Additional Collector, in 2023, set aside the ORCs and remanded the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Shadnagar, for fresh inquiry. The petitioners, aggrieved by this order, approached the High Court.

Limitation – Appeals Filed After 33 Years Barred by Law

The primary issue before the Court was whether the respondents could challenge the ORCs after 33 years without an application for condonation of delay. Section 24(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, prescribes that appeals must be filed within 30 days from the date of the order, and any delay can only be condoned if the appellant shows sufficient cause.

In the present case, the appeals were filed in April and May 2013, despite the ORCs having been issued in 1981 and 1991. The respondents neither submitted an application for condonation of delay nor provided a reasonable explanation for why they did not challenge the ORCs earlier. The Court noted that limitation laws must be strictly applied and that allowing such stale claims would create legal uncertainty.

Citing Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, the Court reiterated that limitation laws must be applied with full rigor and delay cannot be condoned merely on equitable grounds. It emphasized that the appeals should have been dismissed at the threshold for being time-barred.

Fraud Allegation: No Pleading, No Proof

The respondents contended that the ORCs were obtained fraudulently without notice to them. However, the Court emphasized that fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved with substantial evidence. A mere assertion of fraud, without details or supporting documents, is not sufficient to invalidate an order.

On examining the records, the Court found that the respondents did not even use the word "fraud" in their grounds of appeal before the Additional Collector. They had failed to establish how the ORCs were fraudulently obtained or to provide any material evidence supporting their claim.

Referring to D. Narasimha Rao v. Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 1284, the Court held that fraud cannot be inferred in the absence of specific pleadings and supporting evidence. The appellate authority had erred in setting aside the ORCs on the ground of fraud without the respondents proving their allegations.

Res Judicata: Civil Suit Dismissed, No Re-litigation Allowed

The Court observed that the respondents had earlier filed a civil suit (O.S. No. 34 of 2004) seeking a declaration of their ownership over the disputed land. This suit was dismissed on December 31, 2012, and the respondents subsequently filed an appeal (A.S. No. 7 of 2019), which is still pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

Despite having litigated the matter in civil court, the respondents attempted to re-agitate the issue before the Revenue Authority by filing an appeal against the ORCs. The Court held that this amounted to forum shopping and an abuse of process. Citing Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy, (2003) 7 SCC 667, the Court reiterated that once a civil court has adjudicated a dispute, the same issue cannot be reopened before an administrative or quasi-judicial authority.

Doctrine of Election: Respondents Cannot Approbate and Reprobate

The Court noted that in 2011, during the pendency of the civil suit, the respondents had withdrawn part of their claim against some of the petitioners, acknowledging the validity of their ORCs. However, after losing the civil suit in 2012, they changed their stance and sought to challenge the same ORCs in appeal before the Additional Collector.

Citing R.N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir, (1992) 4 SCC 683, the Court ruled that the law does not permit a party to take contradictory positions in order to gain an advantage. A party cannot accept a benefit under a proceeding and later challenge the same when it is no longer favorable.

Writ Petitions Allowed, Orders of Additional Collector Quashed

The Telangana High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the orders of the Additional Collector, which had set aside the ORCs. The Court held that the appeals were barred by limitation, fraud was neither pleaded nor proved, and the respondents were attempting to relitigate an issue that had already been decided by the civil court. The appellate authority had exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining an appeal filed decades after the limitation period had expired.

However, the Court granted liberty to the parties to raise their contentions in A.S. No. 7 of 2019, which is still pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

Date of Decision: January 29, 2025