The Telangana High Court on Tuesday levied a hefty fine of Rs 1 crore on a petitioner for concealing facts and misguiding the judicial process in a complex land dispute case. Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka ordered Venkata Rami Reddy to pay the fine to the High Court Legal Services Authority by April 10, 2025, emphasizing the severity of the misconduct.
Venkata Rami Reddy had claimed ownership of a nine-acre parcel of land in Bandlaguda mandal, seeking judicial protection against alleged interference by government officials and the Roads and Buildings Department. However, it was revealed during the proceedings that Reddy had previously filed multiple writ petitions related to the same land dispute, without disclosing these facts in his latest petition.
The court noted that Reddy’s actions not only abused the legal process but also placed an undue burden on the judicial system, leading to the dismissal of his petition with exemplary costs. This decision was informed by revelations that Reddy had, on several occasions during the case’s pendency, sought similar interventions from both the High Court and civil courts to maintain a status quo, which were granted based on dubious claims.
Government Pleaders for Revenue, along with counsel for the respondents, highlighted that Reddy’s repeated legal actions were based on fraudulent documents aimed at usurping valuable government land. This behavior was characterized as part of a larger scheme involving land grabbers, employing frivolous litigation tactics to manipulate judicial outcomes.
Reflecting on the ethical foundation of the Indian judicial system, the court lamented the erosion of fundamental values such as truth and moral integrity, which it deemed essential to the fabric of society. The court’s order sternly criticized the petitioner for undermining these principles through his dishonesty and for attempting to manipulate the legal framework to his advantage.
The imposition of the Rs 1 crore penalty is unprecedented in the court’s history, signaling a robust judicial stance against litigants who engage in deceitful practices to benefit from legal loopholes. The court also emphasized the need for mechanisms to deter frivolous and baseless litigation, which congests court dockets and detracts from the administration of justice.
