The Telangana High Court has taken serious note of suspected forgery involving fabricated court orders submitted in a land dispute case. In a significant development, the Court has ordered its Registrar (Judicial-I) to file a formal police complaint and initiate a detailed investigation into the matter.
The case, titled Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority & Others vs. Mohammad Taher Khan, concerns land located in Shamshabad village. The High Court was hearing a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (CMA No. 76 of 2025) filed by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) and others, challenging an order passed by the trial court.
Fabricated Orders Discovered
On March 7, 2025, the Court noticed major inconsistencies in two orders presented during proceedings:
- An order dated April 29, 1988, in Application No.533 of 1988 in Civil Suit No.7 of 1958
- An order passed in Writ Petition No.28734 of 1996
Upon initial review, the Court found both these orders suspicious. It directed the Registrar (Judicial-I) to investigate their authenticity. A detailed report was submitted in a sealed cover on March 27, 2025.
After examining the report, the division bench of Justice T. Vinod Kumar and Justice P. Sree Sudha made a startling revelation:
Read Also:- Telangana HC Extends Stay on Kancha Gachibowli Deforestation, Case Resumes April 7
"Hon'ble Sri Justice N.D. Patnaik was elevated to the Bench only on December 28, 1988. Therefore, he could not have passed an order in April 1988. Also, the writ petition W.P. No.28734 of 1996 was never registered in the records of this Court."
The Court thus concluded:
"The orders as noted above have been fabricated."
Action Ordered Against Forgery
Acknowledging the gravity of the situation, the Court took the following decisive actions:
"Registrar (Judicial-I) is hereby directed to lodge a complaint with the concerned police authority to cause a detailed enquiry into the aforesaid aspects of the matter by initiating necessary action against the concerned involved in bringing on record the fabricated and forged orders."
The Court further noted that two similar complaints had already been filed in 2024 at Charminar Police Station under FIR No. 43 and FIR No. 176.
Read Also:- 'No Coercive Steps': Telangana HC Halts Tree Felling Near Hyderabad Central University Till Thursday
Recognizing a possible pattern of fraud, the bench ordered:
"The State Government should be directed to constitute a Special Team to investigate the present complaint along with the earlier two complaints expeditiously."
Prevention of Further Use of Forged Orders
To ensure these fake documents are not used again in any proceedings, the Court instructed the Registrar:
"Obtain orders from the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice to issue a circular to all officers concerned not to act on the said orders if relied upon in any collateral proceedings before any Court/forum."
This includes publishing a notice on the Telangana High Court’s website to inform the public and legal fraternity.
Context and Background
The questionable April 29, 1988, order had reportedly been presented in several cases related to the land at Shamshabad and Paigah Village, Shamshabad Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. It was claimed to have been issued by Justice N.D. Patnaik in Application No.533 of 1988.
However, the High Court emphasized that Justice Patnaik was only appointed to the Bench on December 28, 1988. This timeline clearly invalidates the claim, leading the Court to suspect intentional forgery.
Read Also:- Deception in Marriage Without Proven Customary Divorce Amounts to Rape: Telangana HC
In addition, the Court pointed out that the Writ Petition numbered 28734 of 1996 did not exist in the Court’s official records for that year.
Although the senior counsel for the respondent suggested there may have been a mix-up in application numbers, the Court firmly stated:
"From the record available, it is noted that Hon’ble Sri Justice N.D. Patnaik could not have passed the order in April 1988. Further, W.P. No.28734 of 1996 was not registered in that year and no such order was passed."
Case : Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority & Others vs. Mohammad Taher Khan
Counsel for State: Additional Advocate General, Tera Rajinikath Reddy, Assisted by Special Government Pleader, S. Rahul Reddy, Nethan Reddy
Counsel for Respondent: Dama Seshadri Naidu, Senior Counsel, on behalf of Jyothi Eswar Gogineni.
