Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of Telangana High Court on Tuesday imposed costs of ₹ 1 crore on a petitioner, to be paid by April 10 for abusing legal process by suppressing facts in a writ petition.

The judge instructed the petitioner Venkata Rami Reddy of Nampally in Hyderabad, to deposit the costs imposed in the account of the High Court Legal Services Authority. He ordered the HC Registrar (Judicial-I) to list the writ petition on April 11 if the petitioner failed to deposit the costs by the deadline.

“The conduct of the petitioner not only undermines the integrity of the judicial process but also leads to an abuse of legal remedies, causing unnecessary burden on the courts,” Justice Nagesh Bheempaka observed in the order dismissing the plea. Already, the judicial system had been overburdened with frivolous litigation. “Litigation like the present one is contributing fuel to fire in mounting pendency, disabling the courts to discharge the prime duty of justice dissemination,” he said in the verdict.

Venkata Rami Reddy, in his writ petition, stated that he was absolute owner of nine acres and 11 guntas of land in Kandikal village of Bandlaguda mandal in Hyderabad district having secured the property through his father. He contended that the Roads and Buildings department and the Revenue authorities were interfering with possession and enjoyment of the property without following due procedure under the law. He stated that the Azampura Sub-Registrar and the Hyderabad District Registrar were not registering the sale deeds he had submitted. The Registration authorities were citing the letter of Tahsildar not to register the property. Since no notification was issued by government under Section 22A of the Registration Act, not registering the lands was an illegal action, he told the HC. He wanted the HC to instruct the Registration authorities to register the sale deeds.

He claimed that his father Pattabhiram Reddy acquired the land through a sale deed dated July 30, 1980 from the legal heirs of original land owner R. Venkatesham. However, the Revenue authorities claimed that the land belonged to the government and the petitioner was land encroacher. There were disputes between third parties and government on the land under Survey numbers 310/1 and 310/2, the officials said. The orders were in favour of the government in original suit No. 227 of 1989 issued on March 4, 1998. The authorities claimed that land grabbers were trying to sell the land using fictitious documents.

Senior counsel Vedula Venkata Ramana, appearing for the petitioner’s counsel, said no government officer was authorised to instruct the Registration officials not to register sale deeds unless the property was notified under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. The judge noted that already a dispute was pending for consideration in Second Appeal No. 1250 of 2010 over declaring the vendors, who sold land to petitioner’s father, as owners of the said land. Knowing this fully well, the petitioner with the help of land grabbers was filing frivolous and vexatious writ petitions using fabricated, sham and bogus documents, the judge said.

While such pleas were pending, the petitioner again approached civil court and obtained status quo orders. The officials contended that the petitioner was claiming rights over the land based on a fabricated document no. 9050 of 1980 dated July 30, 1980.