WP/17017/2026 of Kondapuram @ Dasari Kusi Reddy, Vs State of Telangana, on 21 August 2026

1. Kondapuram @ Dasari Kusi Reddy, S/o Kondapuram @ Dasari Chandra Reddy Aged 78 years, Occ. Agriculture,

2. Kondapuram @Dasari Sudhakar Reddy, S/o Kondapuram @ Dasari Seetharam Reddy. Aged 46 years, Occ. Agriculture,

3. Kondapuram @Dasari Sugunamma, W/o Kondapuram @ Dasari Seetharam Reddy. Aged 61 years, Occ. House hold,

4. Kondapuram @ Dasari Keshava Reddy., S/o Kondapuram @ Dasari Neelam Reddy, Aged 39 years, Occ. Agriculture,

5. Kondapuram @Dasari Anasuya, W/o Kondapuram @Dasari Neelam Reddy, Aged 72 years, Occ. House hold,

6. Nomula Narsimha Reddy, S/o Nomula Laxma Reddy, Aged 64 years' Occ' Agriculture,

7. Kondapuram @ Dasari Krishna Reddy, S/o Kondapuram @ Dasan Narsimha Reddy. Aged 70 years, Occ. Agriculture,

8. Kondapuram @ Dasari Balwantha Reddy, S/o Kondapuram @ Dasari Narsimha Reddy. Aged 66 years, Occ. Agriculture,

9. Nomula Bharathamma, Wo Sri Nomula Srinivas Reddy, Aged 80 years, Occ. House hold, All R/o Babaguda Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. ...PETITIONERS AND

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Additional collector (LB) and Additional District lvlagistrate, Medchal- Malkajgiri District.

3. The Revenue Divisional offrcer, Keesara Divrsion, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

4. The Tahsildar, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri Distrrct. 5 M/s Leo Meridian lnfrastructure projects and Hotels Ltd, A company registered under the Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at 6-3_ 668110n3, Near Sri Venkateshwara Swamy Temple. irurga Nagar Colony, Punjagutta Hyderabad-Soo oB2, Represented by its btRfCfOif SRI.G RANJITH REDDY S/o. Late c. RaJi Reddy, Aged about 61 years, R/o. 8-2-2931821NU 137 and 138, ptot No.137/1 38, MLA anc Mp s Cotony, Road No '10C, Jubilee Hilts Hyderabad-5OO 033.

6. G. VIJAYA LAXMI, Wo G. Narayana Rao, Aged major, Ccc. Housewife. R/o. Plot No.4411, 3-54162. Saraswathi Nagar Colony, Lothukunta, Secunderabad

7. RAIVIARAJU LAXI\4 t NARSAMMA, W/o Venugopal Rao, /\ged about 7g years, Occ Household. R/o. Nagayapalli Village, Bommalaramam Mandal, Nalgonda District.

8. Ivl/s MJM MEDICA PRTVATE L|M|TED, Havrng its office at 305, Amrutha Vi e right wing, Opp. Yashoda Hospitat, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-sO0 002 Rep by its Director SRt.A V.PRASAD S/o VenkateJhwai Rao, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Business, R/o. 305, Anrrutha Ville right wjng, O_pp. Yashoda Hospitat Rar Bhavan Road, SomaliquOa, UyOeraOaO_6OO OO). (Respondent Nos.6 to I are the proforma parties to presr-.nt Writ petition). ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitutron of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit flled therewith, the High oourt may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ. order or Direction more particurar y one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the com lon order passed in Appeal Nos. F2l2151t2O2S and FZtZ156t2O25 dated 21 05.2026 by the 2nd Respondent under sections 90 and 91 of the A.p. (Terangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and be preased to quash and set aside the same as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Tenancy Act violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 300-A of the constitution of lndia and consequenfly restore the order dated 27 .0i.2017 passed by the 4th Respondent herein in case No.B/219gl2016 under section 32(1) read with section 98 of the Act and the consequentrar order dated )-4.0g.zo1g passed by the 3rd Respondent in Proceedtngs No.L/587/20't6 granting ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Act in favour of the petitioners in respect of rand admeasuring Ac. 10-00 guntas rn Sy. No.430 situated at uommaraspet vi[age, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchat-Malkajgiri District. l.A. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the crrcurnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned common order passed in Appear Nos. F2r2151t2o2s and F21215612025 dated 21 .os.2026 by the 2nd Respondent rrnder sections go and 91 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 interest of justice. Counsel for thE PEtitiONEr: SRI E. AJAY REDDY REPRESENTING FOR Ms. E. ANISHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.s: Ms. RUBAINA S. KHATOON Counsel for the Respondent No.6 to 8: - - - - The Court made the following: ORDER in the

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 17O L7 0F 2026 2L.Oa.2026 Kondapuram @ Dasari Kusi Redd v & others And Petitioners State of 'Ielangana, Rep. bv Principal Secrerary,, Revenue Department & or-hers ORDE R: Respondents This Wnt petition is filed, aggrieved b_r. the common order dated 21.05.2026 in Appeal Nos.F2/2tl)l l2O2S and F2/2156/2025 under Sections 9O and 91 of the A.p. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, whereby. the 2nd Respondent allorved the Appeals filed by the 5, Respondent

- M/s Leo Meridian Infrastructure projects and Hotels Limited, set aside the order cl,aled 27 .Ol .20 17 passed by the 4u., Respondent - Tahsildar, Shamirpet Mandal, in Case No.Bl2198/2O16 under Section 32(1) read ivith Section 98 of the Act, set aside the order dated 24.09.2019 passed bv the 3.d Respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer, Keesara Divrsion, in Proceedings No.L/587 12016 under Section 3g-E o. rhe Act, and directed cancellatron of the consequential mutatir)n entries, e Between:

Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds in respect of the land admeasuring Acs' 10-00 guntas in Survey No 43O situated at Bommaraspet Vi1lage, Shamirpet Mandal' Meclchal-Malkajgiri District

2. Petitioners claim to be the agriculturists and residentsofBabagudaVillage,ShamirpetMandal,Medchal' , being the legal heirs and successors of Late asari Chandraiah @Charrdra Reddy and Late Malkajgiri District KondaPuram @ D Nomula Laxmaiah @Laxma Reddy' who slood recognized as ProtectedTenantsundertheprovisionsoftheA.P.(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act' 1950 in respect of the protected tenancy holdings situated at Bommaraspet Medchal -Malkaj giri District' Village , ShamirPet Mandal ' including the subject land '

2.1. Petitioners contended' in substance' as follows' a. The impugned common order date<l 21 05 2026 arises out of common questions of fact and law relating to the same subject property and the same statutory proceedings' and the Writ Petition challenging the said common order in a single proceeding is maintainable' The subject Iand originallY formed Part of the protected tenancy holdings of Late KondaPuram @Dasart b Chandraiah @ Chandra ReddY and Late Nomula Laxmaiah (@'

J Laxma Reddy, the ancestors of the Petitioners' who stood recognized as Protected Tenants under the provisions of the Act' their names having been reflected in the Protected Tenancy Registers as well as in the Khasra Pahani of 1954-55' the Chessala Pahani of 1955-58 and the year wise Pahrrni Patrikas' as possessors and Protected Tenants Upon the demise of the original Protected Tenants, Pctitioners, being their legal heirs and successors, succeeded to the protected telancy rights und.erSection40oftheAct,andthe4rhRespond(nt'afterdue enquirl', recognized Pelitioners as such Iegai hetrs and successors by Proceedings No A/30/2OO3 date.l 14 02 2OO3 and Proceedings No. A/ l22l2OO3 dated O1 05 2003' c. The said succession proceedings were carried in appeal by rival parties before the Joint Coilector' Ranga Reddy District in Appeal Proceedings Nos F2l3226l2oO4 and F213227 l2OO4, dismissed bv common order dated 21 12 2OO4 confirming the succession rights of Petition':rs and their predecessors; and Civil Revision Petitions Nos 597' 598' 599 and 60O of 2005 preferred against the sai'l orders were drsmissed as withdrawn / not pressed by order dated 28.03.2012 , rendering the succession proceecltngs [rna1 and binding. Consequent thereto, petitioners inltiated proceedings undcr Section 32(1) read with Section 98 of th3 Act before the

4th Respondent in proceedings No.B/219g/2016 restoration of possession of the subject land. and seeking the 4ft Respondent, after enquiry, allowed the said proceedings by order dated 27.O1 .2017 and restored possession in favour of the Petitioners through due process of .law. d. Petitioners thereafter, approached the 3,d Respondent seektng issuance of Ownership Certificate under Section 38-E of the Act in proceedings No.Ll5g7 /2016, and the 3'd Respondent, after considering the material records, granted the Ownership Certificate by proceedings dated 24.O9.2079 tn respect of the subject land. pursuant to the grant of the said Ownership Certificate, the revenue authorities mutated the names of Petitioners in the revenue records and issued pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds in their favour, and the statutory tenancy and ownership rights of the petitioners attained finality and continued to subsist for several years, being further reflected in the due diligence reports and records prepared during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution process concerning M/ s Leo Meridian Infrastructure projects and Hotels Limited, the 5tI Respondent. e. The alleged claim of the Srh Respondent over the land admeasuring A-cs.14-0g guntas in Survey No.43O traces back to an alleged sa.le transaction said to have been executed ) by the original pattadar Smt Ramaraju Laxmi Nars'rmmtr' the 7s Respondent, in favour of one Mamidipaltir Yadagiri Rao' purportedlY regularized by the Tahsildar, Medchal under Section 5O-B of the Act by proceedings dated O8'O2 '972 in File No.FJ21241211971, on lhe strength of which I'4amidipally Yadagiri Rao and others executed Registered Sale Deed beanng Document No.47O7 11985 dated 27 06'1985 in favour of Smt- Meda Shobha Reddy Thereafter' through successive conveyances, lands were transferred in favour of Dr' V Vidyasagar Rao and subsequently, under Registerr:d Sale Deed Document Nos.333O/2007 aod 3331 12007 dated 2a022OO7' in favour of Chanda Nagabhushanam and otherl; and Rajesh Kapoor and others, and finally the 5th Respond':nt claims to have purchased thc subject property under Rt gistered Sale Deed Document Nos'2174 12070 and 2l73 t2O1O dated

20. l2.2OlO through GPA holders of the said vendors' f. The predecessors of Petitioners had rluestioned the very validity of the foundational Section 5O-B proceedings dated 08.02.L972 as being contrary to Sections 38-D and 50-8(3) of the Act, and had preferred Appeals before the loint Collector' Ranga Reddy District in Proceedings Nos' 84/ l:6 to 160l1992' relating to Survey Nos 414, 416, 417 and cther connected survel' numbers at Bommaraspet Village The Joint Collector'

Ranga Reddy District, by common orders dated 11.Og.1997 in Proceedings Nos.84/ 156 to 160/ 1992, held that regularizarion proceedings dated 08.02.1972 were contrary to Sections 38-D and 50-8(3) of the Act and set aside the said proceedings, thereby nullifying the very foundation of Mamidipally Yadagiri Rao s claim. g The derivative conveyances flowing from the invalidated proceedings, including the Sale Deed dated 27.06.7985 and the later conveyances claimed by the Stir Respondent, became seriously disputed and clouded, whereas Petitioners assert independent statutory rights as protected Tenants recognized through the succession, restoration and Ownership Certificate proceedings, incapable of nullification b1z subsequent private conveyances flowing from invalidated proceedings. The 5e Respondent was fully aware of the tenancy, succession, restoration and Ownership Certificate proceedings much prior to hling the Appeals, having been arrayed as a respondent in Proceedings No.B/2198/2Ot6 and Proceedings No.Ll587 12016, and having filed detailed counters and contested the matter on merits therein. h. The existence of the protected tenancy claims and the Ownership Certificates was also reflected in the Due Diligence Reports prepared during the CIRP of the 5n

I in the proceedings of the ComnLirtee of the National Company Law "ribunal' Respondent and Creditors before Hyderabad. i, Despite such participation and existence o'detailed records, thc present management of the 5m Responrient hled self-sen'ing averments of hru ing no the ApPeals making knowledge of the earlier proceedings' claiming to havt'come to knou' of the Secdon 38-E certificate only on 08 08 2025' to overcome an unexplained delay of several years l'etitioners raised a preliminary objection regarding limitation under Section 93 of the Act, but the 2"d Respondent' without any petitiontocondonedelayandrt,ithoutrecordingafindingof suffrcient cause, invoked Section 17 oI the Limitation Act' 1963 on allegations of fraud rvilhout adjudication or proof rendering the impugned order without jurisdiction The Appeals ' [rled after a delal' of nearly six years without any appl cation for condonation of delay, were barred blr limitation un'ler Section 93 of the Act and liable to have been rejected in ltmine j. A mere change in management' change in Directors, or comrllencement of the Corporate lnsolvency Resolution Process does not create a fresh cause ol action nor extend the statutory Period of limitation available to a company' The 2.d Respondent erred in invoking Section 17 of the

Limitation Act, 1963 in the absence of any legaliy established fraud, mere allegations being insufhcient unless specihcally pleaded and strictly proved. That the 2"d Respondent recorded hndings regarding suppression, collusion, interpolation and lraud without any trial, framing of issues, recording of evidence' or forensic examination, rendering such findings perverse and unsustainable. k. The Ownership Certihcate under Section 38-E had attained statutory finalitY and collateral appellate proceedings could not be annulled 1n setting astde the proceedings. The wrthout foundational tenancy and succession impugned order is self-contradictory inasmuch as the 2"d Respondent observed that certain issucs required detailed examination while simultaneously allorving the Appeals and cancelling vested rights; the only permissible course' if at all' was to remand the matter for fresh enquiry' The succession proceedings under Section 40 had already attained finality' conhrmed before the Joint Collector and this Court in C R P' Nos.597 to 60O of 2O05, and could not be indirectly reopened in collateral Proceedings

Once statutory ownership rights stood vested under Section 38-E along with consequential mutations, Pattadar Pass Books and title entries, the same could not have been lightly interfered with merely on suspicion or inference. The 2,d Respondent made findings regarding alleged interpolatron and difference in ink, sty.le and alignment in the proter:ted Tenancy Register without expert opinion or forensic examination, such findings being speculative, more so when staru _ory revenue records carry a presumption of correctnesll. The 2nd Respondent erred in entering into complicated questions of title relating to conveyances, mortgages, SARFAES and CIRP proceedings, though the scope of proceedings under the Act is limited and rival ciaims regarding tltle could only b,t adjudtcated before a competent Civil Court. m. The 2na Respondent erred in relying upon alleged prior conveyances without appreciating that protected tenancy rights are statutory rights that cannot b,: presumed extinguished unless the requtrements of the staru e are strictly satisfled. Petitioners and their predecessors have consistently asserted protected tenancy rights over the subjr:ct lands for several decades and the impugned order unsettles Jong_sranding statutory rights wrthout proper adjudication. The allegations of fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved and cannot be inferred on mere assumptions, and in the absence of a conclusive hnding regarding fraud, the 2,d Respondent could not have annulled the statutory proceedings. That ..he impugned order has resulted in prejudice by directing cancellation of the Ou.nership Certificates, mutation entries, Pattadar Pass Books and title records, and if allowed to stand, would result in irreparable 1oss.

3. Respondent No.5 filed Counter Afhdavit contending that Wrlt Petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed' It rs further as under: a. Petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands, the writ petition being built upon the suppression of material and crucial facts, the most decisive being that the very protected tenants through whom the Petitioners claim' Kondapuram @ Dasari Chandra Reddy and Nomula Reddy, themselves joined as executants and sold the land admeasuring Ac.14-08 guntas in Survey No'430 under the Registered Sale No.47O7 11985 in Deed dated 27 06.1985 bearing Document favour of Smt. Meda Shobha Reddy, and Havrng sold the land for value, retained no tenancy or other to the Petitioners, and this registered conveyance, executed by Petitioners own ancestors' was studiously concealed throughout the writ petition' suppression of a material document being itself a species of fraud on the Court disentitling a litigant guilty of it to namely Laxma received the sale consideration ' Lhe predecessors oI Petitioners right caPable of transmission

ll discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Cor-rstitution of India. b. The writ jurisdiction is a discretionarv extraordinary remedv incapable of being invoked by persor.s guilty of fraudulent conduct, petitioners being guilty of comrnttting large scale fraud and of colluding rvith the erstu.hil: promoters displaced under the insolvency process under lhe Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20 16, the impugned order itself referring to and recordrng such fraud. And an order, c.ertificate or mutation obtained by fraud, collusion and sultpression of material facts is a nullity in the eye of law and con fcrs no right u,hatsoever, fraud unravelling even the mlst solemn proceedrngs and rendering an order so obtained nrn est, liable to be ignored or set aside whenever and howeve- brought to notice c. Petitioners suppressed and failed to fil,:, along rvith the writ petition, several material documents that were filed by Respondent No.5 along with its Appeals, namely thc order of the National Compan1.. Lau, Tribunal dated 25.02 .20!tS approving the Resolution plan in C.p.(L.8.) No.43l7lHDBl2078, demonstrating that the Section 3g_E order of 2019.was passed after admission of Respondent No.5 into Corporale Insolvency Resolution process.

t2 d. Petitioners further suppressed the Provisional and Final Protected Tenancy Register Extracts' demonstrating that Survey Nos. 414 and 430 were not included in the holding ofthe Petitioners' predecessors in the Provisional Register and were interpolated by hand at a later point in time' Petitioners also suppressed the Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.47O7 11985 dated 27 '06 tg85 execuled in favour of Smt' Nleda Shobha Reddy by the predecessors of the Pe titioners / original protected tenants' demonstrating that the original protected tenants were themselves party to the very sale transaction through which Respondent No'5 traces its title' e. Petitioners suppressed the two Registered Sale Deeds bearing Document Nos2174l2OlO and 217512010' both dated.2O.l2.20IO,executedinfavourofRespondentNo5'and other link documents claiming through Smt' Reddy, demonstrating an unbroken link Respondent No.5 Section 38-E Meda Shobha of and its registered vendors. documents in favour o[ Petitioners suPPressed 19.05.1975 vide Proc. No Certificate dated Nos.417lA, 421, 426 ard

1. g6lLREl75 in resPect of SurveY 427, demonstrating that even the predecessors of the Petitioners claimed no tenancy rights over Survey Nos. 414 and 43O

f. Petitioners suppressed the Registerecl Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds bearing Document No.51 ol 20 1 1 dated 06.01.20I 1 in favour of Union Bank, demonstrating rhat Survey No.430 u'as mortgaged as a secured asset b). tht: erstwhile promoters of Respondent No.S, and the copy of Origina.l Application No.164 of 2015 filed by Bank of Baroda and others before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, de monstrating that the collusive revival of stale claims was in con tivance with the erstrvhile promoter to defeat the mortgage rights of the lending banks. It is stated, Survey No.43O was nev(.r part of the protected- tenancy holding of petitioners, predecessors, Final Protected Tenancy Register of 1975 recording thc renancy of Kondapuram Chandra Reddl' only in respecr of Survey Nos.417/A, 421,426 and,427, and not Survel. No.414 or Survey No.43O. g. Section 38-E Ownership Certifi:ate dated 19.05.1975 issued vide proc. No. 196/LRElTS was granted to Kondapuram Chandra Reddy only over Ac.3O_25 guntas in Suniey Nos.417/A, 421 , 426 and, 427, Survel, No.430 not being included therein, the said certificate having later been set aside on appeal vide order dated 22.03.1979 in Appeal No.Ba /967 817 5 and remanded bringing Survey No.43O within for fresh enqrLiry, without the protected- te;tancr, lands.

t4 That by the Registered Sale Deed dated 27 06 1985' Sri M' Yadagiri Rao, along with the alleged protected tenants Kondapuram Chandra Reddy and Nomula Laxma Reddy and others. sold the land admeasuring Ac' 14-08 guntas in Survey No.43O to Smt, Meda Shobha ReddY' h. ln 1992, Kondapuram Chandra Reddy (PT)' Medi Krishna Reddy and others challenged the 1972 orders bearing Nos.B2 I 241\ 171 and 82 l2412l7 1 by filing five appeals' 84 l156l92 (Survev No'419), 84ll57 192 (Survey No 417)' 84 11.581g2 (Survev No 419), 84ll5g lg2 (Survey No 416) and 84 l160l92 (Survey No 414), before the Joint Collector' no challenge whatsoever having been raised against Survey No 430 even though Order No 82/2412171 also concerned Survey No.430. That by common order dated ll 08 1997 in Appeal No.B4/ I58l 1gg2 and batch, the Joint Collector allowed the said appeals and set aside the Section 50-B certificates bearing Nos.B2l2417177 and F,212412171', the said order making no mention whatsoever of Survey No'430, wrth the result that the sale of Survey No.430 in favour of Smt Meda Shobha Reddy' to which the protected tenants were themselves parties' remains undisturbed.

l5 r. By Proc. No.Alt22/2OO3 dated Ot C5.2OO3, the Mandal Revenue Officer granted succession under ljection 40 of thc Act to Kondapuram Chandra Reddy and No:nula Laxma Reddy over various survey numbers, the succe.ssion being limited, as regards Survey Nos.416, 4l7,4lg anci 430, to an aggregate extent of only Ac.S_00 guntas across the lbur survey numbers, a Section 40 succession order neither creating nor enlargrng tenancy. Smt. Meda Shobha Reddy sc,ld Ac.14-0g guntas in Survey No.430 to Sri V. Dayasagar Rao trr regislered sale deed dated 30.08.2003, who in turn sold Ac.O-03 guntas out of Survey No.43O to Sri B. Jagannadha Rao lt1. registered sale deed dated 25.07 .2006. That on 2g.O2.20O7, \/. Dayasagar Rao and B. Jagannadha Rao sold Ac.7 -O4 guntE.s in Survey No.430 to Chanda Nagabhushanam and others, and, on the same da1,, V. Dayasagar Rao sold the remaining Ac.7 _O4 guntas in Sun.ey No.430 to Rajesh Kapoor and others, both by registered sale deeds bearing Document Nos.3330/2007 and 333). /2OO7. j It is stated, Chanda Nagabhushanarr and others and Rajesh Kapoor and others thereafter, executcd registered Agreements of Sale-cum-GpA dated t7.Og.2OO7 an<t 19.O9.2OO7 respectively in favour of M/s MIM Medica pn\,ate Limited, which. acting on the said pou,ers of Attorney, so d the entire

Acs.14-08 gunlas in Survey No 430 to Respondent No 5 by two regtstered sale deeds dated 20 12'2OlO bearing Document Nos.2174/201O and, 21751201O, whereafter Respondent No 5 undertook construction of buildings and a golf course on [he property. On 06.01.2011, Respondent No 5 created a registered mortgage over the subject property in favour of Union Bank of India by a Registered Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds beanng Document No.51 of 20 1 1 , and in the year 2015' Bank of Baroda and consortium initiated Original Application No 164 of 2015 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal' Hyderabad' for recovery ofdues under the SARFAESI Act and the RDDBFI Act' k. ln 2076, thirteen years after the succession order' the legal representatives of Kondapuram Chandra Reddy and Nomula Laxma Reddy hled applications before the Revenue DivisionalOflicerforSection38-trcerttficates'registeredas Case No.L/588/2O16 for Survey No 414 and Case No' L]587 12016 for Survey No 430, in collusion with the erstwhile management, only to defeat the interest of the banks which had initiated recovery and SARFAESI proceedings against the CompanY.

BY order dated 27 Ol 2077 in Case No.Bl2lg}l2016, the Tahsildar, Shamirpet Mandal' ordered restoration of possession of Survey No 43O to the legal t7 representatives of the protected renants, *.ithout /.rillcation of the foundational tenancv records or possession, u,hich order the erstwhile management deliberately did not apperLl. The paper panchanama/ possession delivery proceedings dated 29. 11.2O77 recorded handover of the land, but were never acted upon, Respondent No.5 having continued in physical possession throughout, as evidenced by satellite imagery filed,rrt record. On 09-O4.2019, the National Company Law Tribu_ral admitted Respondent No.5 into Corporate Insolvency Resolr_rtron process in C.P.(1.8.) No.a3/Z /HDB/2018 and appoinrec an tnterim Resolution Professional, the Board of Directors b:rng removed and a moratorium Bankruptcy Code, 29.06.2O19, formai under Section 14 of the In,;olvencv and 2016 commencing thereupx; and on written arguments were llled by the erstrvhib management in Case No.L/Sg7 l2016 without disclosing the pendency of CIRp, in violation of the said moratorium. m. On 24 .O9 .2019, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Keesara Division, in proc. No.L/Sg7 /2016, granred Section 3g_E certificate over Suney No.430, founded entire y upon the restoration order dated 27.Ol.2OlZ and passed during the subsistence of the CIRp moratorium, rendering rt vord. On

25. O2.2025, the Narional Company Law Tribunal rpproved the CIRP scrutiny of title documents, the new final Resolution Plan submitted by M/s Jalavihar Entertainment Private Limited Consortium, and a new Board of Directors took over Respondent No 5; and that on 08'08 2025' during post- discovered the Revenue Divisional Officer's

24. Og.2079 and the underlying tenancy proceedings' n. Respondent No 5 filed Appeal No F2/215112025 on 26.09.2025 challenging the order d'ated 24 09 2019' obtained legal opinion d'ated 29.09 2O25 conclusively ascertaining the fraud after verihcation of the mortgage, the anterior records and the encumbrances, and filed Appeal No'F2 12L56 12o25 on 2a.rc.2025 challenging the restoration order dated 27 01' '2077 ' invoking Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963' Survey I'1o 430 surfaces as tenancy land only in an anomalous' internally inconsistent composite entry in the succession proceedings All22 l2OO3 and in certain pahani occupancy columns where additional survey numbers appear introduced through the expression "Vagaira", which entries were denounced AS interpolated and bogus by rival members of the same family as farbackas2004.Thatevenassuming,thoughdenied'thatthe Petitioners'ancestorseverheldatenancyinterestinSurvey No.43O, they themselves executed the Registered Sale Deed dated 27.06.1985 anh took the consideration' and' under management order dated t9 Section 38-D of the Tenancy Act, forfeited all rights in the land, being estopped by deed from afterwards setting up a subsisting tenancy, no person being permitted to approbate and reprobate. The Section S0 B validation dared Oa.O2.lg72 ir-r File No.B2/241211971 covered Survey No.43O as rveil as Survey Nos.414, 416,417 and 419, but the appeals ol t992 challenged only Survey Nos.414, 416,417 and 419, Surver. I,Jo.430 never having been put in tssue, so that the 1997 order ne ither did nor could disturb the Section 50_B validation insofar as Survev No.430 is concerned. o. The succession order dated O 1.05.2OC3 is purely declaratory of heirship and confers no title, cn-nership or possession, and that the recognition therein was imitecl to an aggregate extent of only Ac.5-00 guntas across sr:veral surwey numbers, whereas the restoration order of 20 l7 rer;tored Ac. 10_ 00 guntas and the 2O19 certificate covered the eniire Ac.14 0g guntas, an escalating and unexplained quantum indicative of non-application of mind and of a collusive anrl engineered design. p The defrauding of the Company. bv he erstwhile Managing Direcror, Sri Gokaraju Srinivasa Chakrlvarthi Raju, u'ho hatched the fraudulent scheme in collusion ruith the legal heirs of the original protected tenants, has resultr:cl in various criminal cases, inciuding by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Directorate of Enforcement, being registered against him, which are presently pending A single writ petition challenging the common order dated 21'O5 '2026 is not maintainable, the order disposing of two separate and independent appeals, Appeal No'F212151 12O25 against the Section 38-E order and Appeal No'F21215612025 against the restoradon order, each arising from a distinct order passed by a distinct authority under distinct statutory provisions and constituting a separate and independent cause of action' q Reliance was placed upon A'V' Papagga Sastry u' Gooernment of A.P.l, Meghmala u' G' Na,raslmha Reddg? ' State oJ Puniab a. Gutdeu Singha, S'P' Chengaluaraga Naldu v. Jagannatha, Palla o Sheth u' Custodians ' Alchemlst ,Asset Recons tructlon Co. n' Hotel Gaudauan (P) Ltd'6 and Innoaentiae Industries Ltd' u' ICICI Bankz for the propositions that an order obtained by fraud is non esf and can be challenged at any time, that fraud unravels all statutory bars including res jud'icata, that a void order is not clothed with (2007) 4 scc 22r : (2010) 8 scc 383 r (1991) 4 scc 1 ' (1994) 1 scc 1 ' (2oo1.) 7 scc s49 o (2018) 1 6 scc 94 ' (2018) t scc 4o7

validi[-. by limitation, thar a party guilty of frauc, cannot have limitation run in its favour, and that proceedings taken against a corporate debtor during the subsistence of th: moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankrupt<:y Code, 2016 are a nullity"

4. Petitioners hled Reply contending that the allegations levelled in the Counter Affidavit are fals;e and denied, and, more particularly, contended as under: a. The Andhra pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 is a beneficial social welfare legis.lation requiring liberal and purposive interpre ,a tion so as to advance the object of the legislation, as held b_l the Hon,ble Supreme Court ir-r Edukanti Kistamma o. S. Venkatareddgp, as approved in Thota Srid.ho.r Red.d.g v. Mandala Ramulammae, the provisions relating to prote lted tenancy, succession, restoration and ownership being rr,quired to be construed in favour of preserving statutory -ights unless Iawfully extinguished in the manner prescribed uncer the Act. b. It was admitted that the protected tenants Kcndapuram @ Dasari Chandra Reddy and Nomula Laxma Redd.; were shown as executants in the Sale Deed dated 27 .06.1 9g5 bearing ' (2010) I scc 756 n (202tI 16 scc r

Document No.47O7 of 1985 in favour of Smt Meda Shobha Reddy. but it was denied that such execution extinguished the protected tenancy rights or amounted to a lawful surrender undertheAct,suchrightsbeingStatutoryandterminableonly inthemannerplescribedundertheAct,RespondentNo.S having neither pleaded nor established any valid surrender' termination or extinguishment in accordance with law- c, It was denled that Survey No 430 never formed part ol the protected tenancy holding' it being contended that the recitals of Sale Deed No 4707 of 1985 itself categorically state thattheVendors2toTareprotectedtenantsandtheirnames have been included in the protected tenants Register accordinglY. This admitted recital constituting a clear acknowledgment of the existence of protected tenants whose names were reflected in the Final Protected Tenancy Register' The certified copy of the Final Protected Tenancy Register obtained by the Petitioners reflects that the land in SurveY presumption of by a comPetent No.43O is included thereln' correctness unless set aside authority. Chessala Pahani and other Pahanis carryIng a or modified d The categorically reflect Protected tenants 1n respect of SurveY No.430 . ih" pah^.ri of 1955-58 recording Survey No 43o' extent Ac.l4-08 gl-lntas, Pattadars Venugopal Rao, Sudarslran Rao and Tulisamma, with possessors Kondapuram Char draiah and Nomula Laxmaiah recorded as protected Tenan ts and the nature of cultivation recorded as ,'Kavuldar,', and the pahani of I972-73 recording the same Survey No.430 and ext(.nt, pattadar Laxmi Narsamma, with possessors protected Tenants K. Chandraiah and N. Laxmaiah, nature of cultivation Kavulu,,. e. Respondent No.5 traces its title througL rhe Scction 50 B validation proceedings in File No.B2/2412171 which were set aside by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy t)istricr, vide orders dated 11.08.1997 in proc. Nos.B4/ 156l92 to 160l92 on the specific finding that the transactions u,ere vzrlidated in violation of Sections 19 and 3g-D of the Tenanc). A(:t, such that Respondent No.5, rvhose claim is derived from invalidated proceedings, cannot claim lawful title or dispute thc statuton, rights of the petitioners.

In Succession proc.No.A/ 122/2AO3 dated 01.05.2003, the Mandal Revenue Officer categoriceJly recorded that Sri Dasari Chandraiah and Nomula Laxmaiah u,ere shou,n as protected tenants ln respect ol various lancLs including that the succession proceed ngs, having been carried in appeal to proceedings Nos.F2/322 6/2004 and F213227 /2OO4, dismrssed on 21.t2.2OO4, and Civil Revision Survey No.43O, and

F- petitions Nos.597 to 600 of 2005, dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed on 28.O3.2O12, attained finality. C. protected tenancy can be surrendered or terminated only in accordance with Section 19 of the Tenancy Act and other relevant provisions including Section 3g_D, and that Respondent No.5 had neither pleaded nor estabjished any valid surrender in accordance with Section 19, there materiaT to show that the alleged surrender was lawful and in conformity with the mandatorv being no voluntary, statutory requirements. Respondent No.S had taken totally inconsistent stands, approbating and reprobating on the one hand by claiming title through the registered sale deed flowing from Smt. Meda Shobha Reddy and the protected tenants, and, on the other hand, contrarily asserting that Survey No.43O is not part of the tenancy records. The averment that Respondent No.S,s title flows from a clear and continuous chain of registered conveyances was denied as false, it being contended that once the root transaction, namery the Section 50 B validation, is held invalid, all subsequent conveyances flowing therefrom are tncapable of conferring lawful title, no person being able to convey a better title than what he himself possesses h

It is stated, creation of mortgage in favolrr of UnLon Bank of India and the recovery proceedings initiated bY the financial institutions do not validate or perfect .'he trtle of Respondent No.5, the Company having acquired title only in the year 2OiO, whereas the protected tenants had already challenged the Section 50-B validation as early as ' 992 ' which was Set aside in 1997, much prior to the Companl ,s purchase and the creation of the mortgage The collusion, conspiracy and fabrication Petitioners, their predecessors and the Director were denied as false and fabricated' proterted tenancy rights of the Petitroners being founded upon statLltory records and not upon any collusive act' and no competent Court' Tribunal or authori[ having ever recorded a Iincling that the orders dated 27 .O1 2OI7 or 24 'O9 2019 were obtair-red bl' fraud' the plea of fraud being a mere afterthought raisec to overcome de1ay. allegatiorLs of fraud, levelled against the erstrl,hile Managing Reliance Placed present PhYsical condition by ResPondent No 5 of the 1and, including upon the the alleged roads and existence of a golf course, buildrngs' interne'l landscaping, was denied as legally irrelevant' protected tenancy rights being statutory rights determined wlth re [erence to the statusofthelandontherelevantdatesrecognisedunderthe

Act and incapable of being defeated by subsequent unilateral acts of purchasers or developers Pursuant to the restoration proceedings, possession of the subject property was handed over to the Petitioners and their predecessors- in-rnterest' the proceedings having attained finaiity' and Respondent No 5' never having challenged the possession proceedings at the relevant time, ts estopped from contending that the restoration order was never imPlemented' j The contention that Section 38-E Certihcate dated

24. Og.2}lg is non est on account of the CIRP moratorium u'as the TenancY Act relating to Pre- of protected tenants and not constituting recovery proceedings against the Corporate Debtor' the certificate being merely a formal recognition of ownership alreadY vested Pursuant to the statutory notihcation under denied, Proceedings under existing statutory rights Section 38-tr with effect from 01 01 1973 of fraud bY the "new management" in untenable, Respondent No 5 continuing corporate entity notwithstanding the change in management' the proceedings culminating in the orders dated 27 'Ol '2017 and 24'og.2otghavingbeencontestedbyRespondentNo.5itself, which had filed counters and w'ritten submission s therein ' so The plea of discovery 2025 was denied as to remain the same that the Company had full knowledge of the procredings from their inception. k. The proceedings of the 7 3,d , Z qtt and 75rh Committee of Creditors Meetings conclusively establish that Respondent No.S had full knowledge of the exis ence of the protected tenants prior to approval of the Resolution p.lan, and Respondent No.5 acquired the assets of the Corporate Debtor on an "as is where is", ,as is u,hat is,,, ,,whatever tltere is,, and "\r'ithout recourse" basis, $,ith full awareness of rLe subsisting protected tenancy rights. The orders dated 01.05.2003,

27. O1.2O17 and 24.Og.2OIg were passed by competent statutory authorities, remained unchallenged for s;everal years and artained hnality, the order dated 27 .O1.2017 having been acted upon with possession delivered, and the Orvnership Certificate dated 24 .O9 .2O l9 having remained unqrrestioned for more than srx years.

1. The Appeals filed by Respondent No.5 were instituted after an extraordinary delay of neariy eight years and six years respectively, without any application lor condonation of delay, and that rhe appellate authority failed to aCjudicate the Petitioners' preliminary objection on limitation and proceeded to allo*'the Appeals on merits, denying the petitioners a lair and reasonable opportunity to rrre their counters and objections.

5. Heard Sri E. Ajay Reddy, Iearned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms E. Anisha Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue on behalf of Respondents 1 to 4, Sri S' Niranjan Reddy' learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Rubaina S Khatoon, learned counsel for Respondent No.5.

6. Having perused the material on record and having heardlearnedcounseloneitherside,thefollorvingpointsarise for determination in this Writ Petition: i. Whether a composite urit petition assailing the common order d.ated.21.05.2026, which disposes of two Appeals beanng distinct numbers' is maintainable; ii. whether Survey No'430 formed part of the protected tenancy holding of the Petitioners' predecessors so as to sustain the restoration order daled27.01.2017 and the Section 38 E Certificate dared 24 'O9 '2019; iii. Whether the Appeals preferred by Respondent No 5 before the 2"dRespondentwerewithinlimitation,havingregardtosection93ofthe Tenancy Act read \a'ith Section 17 of the Limitation Act' 1963; iv. Whether the Section 38-E Certifrcate dated' 24092olq' having been granted during the subsistence oI the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code' 2016' could be sustained in la\t; and v Whether in the totality of the facts and circumstances' the impugned common order dated 21 05 2026 calis for interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia. Point No. i Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.5 has urged that the impugned common order'

though passed in a single proceeding, in truth, disposes of two distinct Appeals. Appeal No.F2 l2t|l/2025, dire:ted against Section 38-E order dated 24.Og .2OIg , a nd Appeat No.F2 /215612025, directed against restoration order dated 27 .Ol.2O17 , each arising from an order of a differ,:nt authority under a different srarutory provisron, and that rl single writ petition assailing both is, for that reason, not malnlainable. This Court is unable to accept the saicl objection as or e warranting rejection of the Writ petition at the threshold. Both the Appeals concerned the very same parties, the very same sltbject land in Survey No.430, and rvere heard together and disposed of by a common, reasoned order on the same date. The czLuse of action for Petitioners, namely their grievance against rhe common order dated 21.O5.2026, is singular and indivisible, notwithstanding that the order itself traces its origin to two Appeals. To require petitioners to file two separate writ petitions assailing what is, tn substance and form, one ord.r would be to elevate procedurar technicality over substance anr wourd serve no purpose other than needless multiplicity of pro:eedings. This point is accordingly, answered against RespondcnL No.5, and Writ Petition is held to be maintainable in its presr nt form.

Point No. ii: This is the pivotal question in the Writ Petition, for unless Petitioners are able to demonstrate that Survey No.43O u"as, in fact and in law' part of the protected tenancy holding of their predecessors' the entire edifice of their claim, the succession, the resloration of possession' and Sectron 38-ECertificate,mustnecessarilycollapse.Itbearsemphasisat the outset that this Court, sitting in writ jurisdiction' does not re-appreciate the tenancy records as a court of first appeal would,andconfinesitselftoexaminingwhetherthef.rnding recorded bY f,he 2nd the material on jurisclictional error. Upon a careful examination' on that limited touchstone, of the foundational tenancy records placed before the2.dRespondentandrelieduponbeforethisCourt,this Court is unable to hold that the finding of the 2"d Respondent' that Survey No.430 was not shown to have been validly recorded as protected tenancy land to the extent now claimed' suffers from anY such inhrmitY'

9. The Final Protected Tenancy Register' which is the primary and foundational document under the Act' records the Kondapuram Chandra Reddy only in respect of 417 lA, 421 , 426 a^d 42T Section 38-E Ownership Respondent on this aspcct is supported by record and is free from Perverslty or tenancY of SurveY Nos Certilicate dated 19.05 1975, issued vide Proc No 196ILRE'I75'

l1 was similarly confined to Ac.30_25 guntas in the ve rv same four survey numbers, and did not extend to Survev No 430. It is on record that this very certificate was itself set aside on appeal by order dated 27.O3.1979 in Appeal No.B4 l9t.t7g/75 and remanded for fresh enquiry; the outcome of th lt remanded enquiry is not separately placed before thrs Corrrt, but it is srgnificant that the subsequent statutory proceedings culminating in the Section 40 successiorr order dated

14. O2.2OO3 and the ownership order dated 05.06..t0O4, both of which post-date the remand by over t\r,o decades, contrnued to exclude Survey No.43O, indicating that whatever rranspired in the remanded enquiry did not result in recognitic n of tenancy over Survey No.43O. The common order of the Joint Collector dated 1 1.O8.1997, passed in the very appeals throL,gh which the Petitioners predecessors themselves chal,enged the 197 2, dealt oniy with Survey regularization proceedings of Nos.414, 476,417 and 419. and is conspicuousl.,. silent as to Survey No.43O. The Section 40 succession order dated

14. O2.2OO3 in Proc. No. A/30/2003 concerned onl.,. Survev Nos. 417 , 418 and 419, while the ownership order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 05.06.2004 in proc. Nc. L/3601/03 granted ownership only in Survey Nos. 4i4,416 ancl 419. Ever1, one of these foundational contemporaneous records, spannrng a

period of nearly three decades, is consistent in excluding Survey No.430 from the protected tenancy holding of the petitioners' predecessors.

10. Against this consistent documentary trail, Petitioners place principal reliance upon the succession proceedings dated 01.05.2003 and upon certain pahani entries. This Court has examined these documents with care. The succession order of 01.05.2003 itself, even on Petitioners' own showing, recognized their predecessors in respect of an aggregate extent of only Acs.5-00 guntas spread across several survey numbers including Survey No.430, and not the entire extent of Acs. 14-08 guntas comprised in that survey number. A succession order under Section 40 of the Act is, in any event, declaratory of heirship alone; it does not create, enlarge or confer tenancy where none otherwise existed. The pahani entries relied upon, insofar as they seek to bring Survey No.430 within the tenancy holding, do so through the composite and internally inconsistent expression Vagaira", an expression which, as the record itself discloses, was denounced as interpolated and bogus by rival members oI the very same family as far back as the year 2004, long before the present controversy arose and long before Respondent No.S had any occasion to raise the issue. The doubt surrounding these entries is not, therefore, a construct devised for the purposes of this litigation. 1 1. Equally significant is the trajecro4, I;1, u,hrch the extent of the claim is described, at each successive stage, differently: an aggregate of only Acs.S-OO guntas, r;pread across several survey numbers, recognized in the 2OO3 succession order: Acs.1O-O0 guntas restored by the order dated

27. O1.2017; and, on Respondent No.S,s ow-n case, the entire Acs. 14 08 guntas comprised in Survey No.43O saic t.o have been nominally covered by the Section 3g_E Cert iflcate dated

24. O9.2OI9. It is the figure of Acs. iO 0O gunras, being the extent that formed the actual subject matter oa cancellation under the impugned common order dated 2l 05.2026 and consequently of the present r,,,rit petition, with wh,ch this court is directly concerned; the wider figure of Acs. 14_0g guntas is adverted to only insofar as Respondent No.5 rel;es upon it to demonstrate that the cxtent attributed to the pet.troners claim did not remain constant across the succession, rt,storation and Section 38-E proceedings. No explanation, do,;u6sr,,u* o. otheru-ise, has been placed before this Court for rhe manner in r,,'hich the limited aggregate extent recognized under the 2OO3 succession order came and differing extent in to be described as a m..terially larger the subsequent proce(,drngs. Such an unexplained variance in the extent of a stalutory claim' at each stage without reference to the foundational records, is a circumstance which detracts from the credibility of the restoration and Section 38-E proceedings and lends support to the finding of the 2nd Respondent that those proceedings were not preceded by any adequate verification of the underlying tenancy records. L2. Of considerable signihcance is the admitted fact' that the very protected tenants through u'hom the Petitioners claim, namely Kondapuram @ Dasari Chandra Reddy and Nomula Laxma Reddy, themselves joined as executants in the Registered Sale Deed dated' 27 06'1985 bearing Document No.47O7 11985 in favour of Smt' received consideration thereunder Meda Shobha ReddY, and Petitioners exPlain this admittedcircumstancebycontendingthattheirpredecessors executed the said document merely in the capacity of confrrming parties, that the recital in the sale deed describing the vendors as protected tenants whose names were included in the Protected Tenancy Register in fact acknowledges subsisting tenancy, and that no valid surrender within the meaning of Section 19 of the Tenancy Acl has ever been pleaded or established by Respondent No 5 This Court is not called upon' in the exercise of its ;urisdiclion under Article 226' to itself pronounce upon the ultimate legal effect of the 19€ 5 sale deed as a question of statutory surrender under Ser:tron 19 or forfeiture under Section 38-D, that being a matter.within the province of lhe authorities under lhe Tenancy Acr. What this Court does find is that the admitted execution of a registered convel,rance consideration, by the protected tenants thcrrselves, for over the very land now claimed, ctnstitutes a material circumstance u,hich, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation placed on record as to the contrnuance o[ the tenancy thereafter or as ro possession having remained with the Peritioners' predecessors independent of the subsequent statutory certificates, substantially supports the finding of the 2nd Respondent that the tenancy claim over Survev No.430, as subsequcntly asserted, could not be accepted on the material produced. i3. The reliance placed by petitioners upc,n Edukanti Kistq.mma v. S. Venkatareddg as approved in Thota Sridhar Red.d.g v. Mandata Ramulamma for the proposi _ion that the Tenancr. Act must be liberalll. and purposively cor:strued so as to preserve the rights of protected tenants, does rot assist the Petitioners in the facts of the present case. The principle of beneficial construction operates to resolve genuine ambiguity in favour of a protected tenant whose statutory status, is olherwise established; it cannot be pressed inlo service to conJure a tenancy over Iand which the foundational, contemporaneous statutory records themselves never recorded as tenanted' nor to overridetheeffectofaregisteredconveyancevoluntarily executed by the tenants themselves for consideration Liberal construction is an aid to interpretation of an established right; it is not a substitute for its Proof'

14. This Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 does not extend to sitting in appeal over findings of fact recorded by a statutory authority upon an appreciation of the material on record, and this Court has accordingly examined the reasoning of the 2'.'d Respondent not to substltute its own view of the evidence, but only to satisfy itself that the conclusion reached is not perverse, is not unsupported by the record' and does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record or want of jurisdiction Tested on this standard' this Court finds no perversity or jurisdiclional error Respondent that SurveY No 430 foundational tenancY records, to in the finding of the 2"d protected tenancy holding of the Petitioners' predecessors to the extent of Acs.1O-00 guntas actually restored and covered by the impugned appellate order, and that the restoration order dated 27 .Ol .2017 and Section 38-E Certificate dated 24 09 '2019 ' was not shown, on the have formed Part of the

3l resting as they do upon the succession order of 2O()3 and the disputed pahani entries rvithout relerence to the foundational Register, could not be sustained, Point (ii) is rrccordingly answered against Petitioners.

Point No. iii to v : Section 93 of the Tenancy Act imports the provisrons of Sections 5 and 12 io 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings under the Act, and it is not in dispute that Section 17 of the Limitation Act, which postpones the commencement of the period of Lmrtarion in a case of fraud to the date on rvhich the fraud is, or with reasonable diligence could have been, discovered, is accordingly available party before the authorities constituted under the Tenancy Act. The Petirioners contend that the Appeals. filed on

26. O9.20'25 and 28.1O.2025 respectively against c,rders dated

24. O9.2019 and 27.O1.2O17, rvere hopelessly belared and that the 2nd Respondent erred in invoking Section 17 without a specific application for condonation of delay anl without a conclusive finding of fraud recorded after trial.

16. This Court finds that the plea of limitation cannot be considered in isolation from the events surrounding the change in management of Respondenr No.5. It 1s not drsputed that Respondent No.5 was admitted into Corpora:e lnsolvency Resolution Process by order dared O9.04.2O19 of the National

Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in C.P. ( 1 .8.) No.43l7lHDBl2Ol8, that its Board of Directors stood superseded upon such admission, and that the Resolution Plan submrtted by M / s Jalavihar Entertainment Private Limited Consortium was approved only on 25.02.2025, whereupon a new Board took charge of the Company on what both parties describe as a clean slate. It is the specifrc case of Respondent No.5 that the new management discovered the existence of the order dated 24.O9.2019 and the underlying restoration order only on 08.08.2025, during post-CIRP scrutiny of title documents, obtained a considered legal opinion dated

29. Og.2025 after verifying the mortgage, the anterior records and the encumbrances, and thereupon moved with reasonable promptitude, frling Appeal No.F2l2l5ll2025 on 26 'O9 '2025 and Appeal No.F21215612025 on 28.10.2025' Petitioners, for their part, dispute thrs case, contending that Respondent No 5 continues to be the very same corporate entity that contested the proceedings culminating in the orders dated 27 07 2017 and

24. Og.2olg, and that the Committee of Creditors was, in any event, aware of the existence of a tenancy dispute concerning Survey No.430 prior to approval of the Resolution Plan This contrary case is considered immediately below,

77. Petitioners seek to impute to tl e present managemcnt the knou.ledge that the erstwhile management, under the erstwhile Managing Director Sri Gokaraju Srinivasa Chakravarthi Raju, undoubtedlv, possessed; it is nct in.lispute that the erstwhile management contested the proceedings culminating in the orders dated 27 .Ol .20 17 and 24.Og .2OIg and yet chose, deliberately, never to appeal the j:estoration order. It is a well-settled principle, illustratr,d in S..P. Chengalvaraga Ndldu u. Jagannath and. palto.u Sheth a. Custod.ian, that a party guilty of practising a fraud cannot be permitted to derive the beneht of limitation running in rts own favour by virtue of rhar very fraud, and it woulci lre a curious application of this principle to visit upon the Co mpanv. now under ner.v and unconnected management following a resolution process specihcally designed to place the corporate <lebtor on a fresh footing, the consequences of a fraud allegedll, practised by its or.r'n erstq'hile Managing Director in collusion v..i th the very persons who nou assert rights against the Company. The proceedings of the Committee of Creditors, rvhi.e they may indicate that the pendency of some tenancy disput,: u,as known ar the .level of the Committee prior to 25.02.2021,, do not, by themselves, establish that the neu, Board of Dire ctors, which assumed charge only upon approval of the Resolut:on plan, had

actual knowledge of the fraud, collusion and suppression underlying the orders dated 27 .Ol .20 17 and 24.09 .2Ot9 , as opposed to bare knowledge of a disputed claim noted for diligence purposes. This distinction between hare knowledge of a pending dispute and knowledge of the fraud and suppression said to underlie ir is one that the 2nd Respondent was entitled to draw, and this Court, examining the matter within the confines of its writ jurisdiction, finds no perversity or jurisdictional error in the conclusion reached by the 2nd Respondent that the benefit of Section ),7 of the Limitation Act was available to Respondent No.S, and that the Appeals, filed within a matter of weeks of the discovery pleaded by Respondent No.5, were withrn time.

18. It is not in dispute that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Respondent No.5 commenced upon the admission order dated 09.O4.2019, and that a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2O16 came into operation from that date and continued until the approval of the Resolution Plan on 25.O2.2025. The order dated 24.09 .2019 , by which the 3.d Respondent granted the Section 38-E Certificate over Survey No.430 in favour of the legal representatives of the protected tenants, was thus passed squarely within this period. This Court is in agreement with the 4l proposition, u,ell settled by the decisions in Alchemist Asset Reconstntctlon Co. u. Hotel Gaudauan (p) Ltd. and Innoventive Industries Ltd. u. ICICI Bank that morarorium under Scction 14 of the Code is of wide sweep and overriding effect. This Court is mindful that Respondent No.5 \\-as not itself a part)' to the proceedings culminating in the order dated

24. O9.2O19, and that the question u,'hether ir recognirion proceeding of this nature, to lr'hich the corporate debtor u,as not a part]', falls within the class of proceedings cor templated by Section 14(1) of the Code is not entirely free from difficulty and need not be conclusively pronounced upon in this u,rit petition. What is. however, clear on the record is that the s.aid order had the direct effect of creating a claim over, and divesring the corporate debtor of an interest in, an asset forming part of the insolvency estate, that this occurred u,ithout the knowledge, participation or sanction of the Interim Resolurion professional then in charge of the Company s affairs, and rhat even the formal rvritten arguments hled by the erstr,r,hile management on 29.06.2019 in the very same proceedings did n(,t clisclose the pendency of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution lrocess. These circumstances, tvhatever their precise 1egal charac terisation under Section 14, lend further support to, and are consistent rvith, the {inding already recorded under point (ii) above that the order dated 24.09 .2019 could not be sustained; this Court accordingly treats the moratorium as reinforcing and not as an independently sufficient or freestanding' ground for declining to interfere with the impugned common order dated 21 'O5 2026 insofar as it set aside the said certificate'

19. It remains to notice one further circumstance material to the exercise of this Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of India The Registered Sale Deed dated 27 06 1985, executed by the Petitioners' own predecessors and forming the very foundation of the controversy, ltnds no mention ln the affidavit f-ried by the Petitioners in support of the writ petition' and came to light only through the Counter Afhdavit filed by Respondent No'S A litigant who approaches a Court of equity under Article 226 is obliged to place before it every fact material to the adjudication of the controversy, and the suppression of a document of this consequence, executed by the Petitioners' own ancestors and going to the very root of the tenancy claim' is not a matter this Court can pass over' It is well settled' as held in A'V' Pdpaggd Sastry u. GooenLflent oJ A'P' and Meghmata u' G' N(4rasi,rha Reddg, the latter arising under this very statute' that fraud and suppression of material facts vitiate even the most solemn of proceedings and disentitle a party to .+3 discretionary relicf. While this Court has ir dependently examined the merits of the controversy rather than resting its conclusion on the suppression alone, the fac: ol such suppression reinforces, and does not detrac from the conclusion that Petitioners failed to make out a case warranring inrerference with the impugned common order.

20. This Court has also considered the co:lention that the impugned order is self-contradictory inasmuch as the 2nd Respondent observed that certain matters, such as the alleged interpolation of pahani entries, u,ould reqr_.ir.e detailed examination, rvhile yet proceeding to allow the Ap teals. Having examined the impugned order, this Court finds no such infirmity. The 2nc Respondent rested his conclusion substantially upon rhe foundational tenancv rec;r.ds and thc limited scope of rhe succession proceedings, in particular the facts that the Final protected Tenancy Register proceedings No.A/30/2003 and Proceedings No.L/3601/O3 exr.luded Survey No-430 altogether, and thar proceedings No.Al 12,)_ 12003, rvhile referring to Surve]. No.430, did so only as pan of a limited aggregale extent of Ac.5-00 gunras spread across rjeveral survey numbers. which did not establish protected tenancv over Survey. No.430 to the extent subsequently claimed in the restoration and Section 38-E proceedings, as this Court has itself +4 I considered under Point (ii) above Where the foundational record is thus dispositive, a remand for further enquiry into peripheral matters such a5 the alleged interpolation serves no purpose ' and the 2nd Respondent cannot be faulted for having declined to order one.

27. For the reasons recorded above' this Court finds that the impugned common order dated 2l'O5 2026 passed by the 2nd Respondent in Appeal NosF2l2151 12025 and F2l 215612025 does not suffer from any illegality' arbitrariness' or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Petitioners failed to establish that Survey No 43O formed part of the protecteci tenancy holding of theirpredecessorstotheextentclaimed,theAppealspreferred by ResPondent No 5 were within Section 17 of the Limitation Act' Section 93 of the Tenancy Act' and the circumstance that the orderdated24'og.2olgwaspassedduringthesr-rbsistenceof the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 20 16, without the knowledge or sanction of the Interim Resolution Professional' further reinforces the conclusion that the said order could not be sustained The writ petition, being devoid of merit' accordingly fails Iimitation having regard to 1963 as aPPlicable through ,15

22. In the result, the Writ petirron is disrn issed and the common order dated 21.O5.2026 passed by the 2n i Respondent in Appeal Nos. F2l2 till2O2S andF2/215612O25 is confirmed. No costs.

23. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if an1' shall stand closed. SD/. P.PONNA KRISHNA //TRUE COPY// To, ,\ sEcTtoN oFFtcER

1. One CC to Ms. E. ANTSHA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

2. One CC to Ms RUBAINA S KHATOON, AOvolate 1OI:UC1 3 Two CCs to cP FOR REVENUE, High Court for t'he S,taie of Tetangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies BN ,v ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR"

HIGH COURT DATED: 2110812026

ORDER

WP.No.17017 of 2026 DlSMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS iie s ra 14: 01 sEP 2[26 i) \ ).

i. r - \:\ . i,- .^.-- ..

- _!::J_-.- - .ru ,} (1r1 !. q