Andhra Pradesh HC Recalls Consent Order, Finds Fraud on Court Over Kakinada Open Space Worth ₹15 Crore, Orders ACB Inquiry

Justice Harinath N recalled a January 2026 consent order in two writ petitions after finding advocates had misled the court to facilitate a grab of public open space in Kakinada, and directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau to inquire through an officer of Inspector General rank or above.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, in a common order dated 28 July 2026, recalled its earlier consent order of 8 January 2026 in two long-pending writ petitions concerning open spaces in a residential layout in Kakinada, East Godavari District. Justice Harinath N, sitting singly, found that the order had been obtained by playing fraud on the court through a coordinated set of actions by advocates representing opposing parties. The bench directed the Director General of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada, to entrust the inquiry to an officer not below the rank of Inspector General and to submit a report within twelve weeks. The property at the centre of the dispute — open spaces earmarked for public use in a layout — was valued at approximately ₹15 crore in the open market.

The Writ Petitions and the Open Spaces at Ramanaiahpeta

W.P. No.11254 of 2013 was filed seeking a declaration that the respondents' attempt to construct a compound wall over 700 square yards of land in Survey No.127/4, Ward No.30, Block No.70, Ramanaiahpeta, Kakinada Urban Mandal, was illegal and unconstitutional.

W.P. No.13428 of 2015 sought a direction restraining interference with possession and development of land in L.P. No.230/62 in the same ward and survey number, covering three parcels of 750 square yards, 750 square yards, and 220 square yards under three registered documents.

Jayendra Nagar Residents Welfare Association, registered under No.491/2015, sought impleadment in both writ petitions. The association's specific case was that these open areas had been gifted to the municipality at the time the layout was formed and were earmarked for public purposes. It stated that compound walls had already been constructed on three such open spaces, and when construction was attempted on a fourth, the writ petitioners approached the court claiming title. The impleadment petitions were allowed, and counter-affidavits were filed by both the municipality and the association.

Kakinada Municipal Corporation's counter, filed on 8 December 2015, took the position that the subject property formed part of an open space within the layout and that protecting such spaces for public use was its duty. The association's stand aligned with the corporation: these properties vested in the Municipal Corporation for all purposes.

How the 8 January 2026 Order Came to Be Passed

On 8 January 2026, the writ petitions came up for final hearing. Senior Counsel Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy appeared for the writ petitioners, assisted by Sri Meka Rahul Chowdary. Standing Counsel Sri M. Krishna Rao appeared for the Kakinada Municipal Corporation. Sri N. Siva Reddy appeared for the Jayendra Nagar Residents Welfare Association. Mrs S. Pranathi appeared for the State.

During the hearing, Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners drew the court's attention to an affidavit filed by the Commissioner, Kakinada Municipal Corporation, dated 6 January 2026 — just two days before the hearing. That affidavit took a position diametrically opposite to the corporation's earlier counter of December 2015. Counsel for the Jayendra Nagar Residents Welfare Association then submitted that the association had no claim over the subject property and that the writ petitions could be disposed of by recording the Municipal Corporation's revised stand.

On that basis, both writ petitions were disposed of by a common order on 8 January 2026. The review petitioner — the Jayendra Nagar Residents Welfare Association — subsequently filed Writ Appeal Nos.270 and 271 of 2026. A Division Bench disposed of those appeals on 13 March 2026, observing that no writ appeal lies against a consent order but leaving it open for the appellants to file a review before the single judge.

Grounds Raised in the Review Petitions

The association, as review petitioner, urged through Sri Venkat Challa that the counsel who had appeared for it in the writ petitions conceded the writ petitioners' prayer without any oral or written instructions. It was submitted that the order was based on the writ petitioners' submissions, the Municipal Corporation's affidavit of 6 January 2026, and the previous counsel's unauthorised concession.

The review petitioner further alleged that the counsel who appeared for the writ petitioners had subsequently appeared before this Court for Respondent No.3 in W.P. No.11254 of 2013, and that the same counsel had later been appointed as Special Government Pleader. These role-switches, it was argued, indicated connivance. The open market value of the property was placed at close to ₹15 crore, at approximately ₹75,000 per square yard.

Counsel for the writ petitioners opposed the review. It was submitted that the order had become a consent order, that the review petitioner could not disown the submissions made by its counsel, and that the Division Bench had already declined to interfere in the writ appeals. It was also submitted that Respondent No.1 had categorically stated in an affidavit that it was not interfering with the property claimed by the writ petitioners.

The Court's Examination of Counsel Conduct and Conflict of Interest

Justice Harinath N examined the docket orders and vakalatnamas on record. The sequence disclosed was as follows. Mrs S. Pranathi filed a vakalatnama for the writ petitioners on 22 September 2021 and continued until 19 November 2025. On that date, her husband, Sri Meka Rahul Chowdary, filed a no-objection vakalatnama after Mrs Pranathi gave a no-objection. On the same day, Mrs Pranathi accepted additional material papers filed by the writ petitioners on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh — that is, she accepted papers for the opposite party on the same day she stepped off the record for the petitioners.

On 15 October 2025, a representation was made before the court that Mrs Pranathi had been appointed as a Special Government Pleader and that a fresh vakalatnama would be filed. On 6 November 2025, further time was sought to file the fresh vakalat. Sri Meka Rahul Chowdary filed his vakalatnama for the writ petitioners on 19 November 2025. On 8 January 2026, Mrs Pranathi appeared for the State while her husband appeared for the writ petitioners, assisted by a Senior Counsel.

The court found this pattern raised a serious question of professional misconduct and a deliberate attempt to commit fraud. It observed that the risk of privileged information crossing a marital relationship, even unintentionally, was a real concern. It also noted that the Kakinada Municipal Corporation Commissioner, when directed to appear virtually on 30 June 2026 and asked who instructed him to file the January 2026 affidavit, stated that he had recently joined, was unaware of the case history and the earlier counter, and could not explain the reversal of position. He did inform the court that unauthorised constructions on the subject lands had been stopped on his intervention, and photographs of construction activity were placed on record.

Legal Framework Applied on Fraud and Review

The court considered the scope of review: whether an error apparent on the face of the record existed, and whether the grounds taken could withstand scrutiny within that limited scope. It found that the common order of 8 January 2026 was not passed on the merits of the case at all; it was based entirely on counsel submissions, a contradictory Municipal Corporation affidavit, and the concession by the association's own counsel without instructions.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in A.V. Papayya Sastry and Others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, reported at 2007(4) SCC 221, Justice Harinath N cited the settled proposition that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. The court quoted the principle: “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.” It further noted that such an order can be challenged in any court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ, or even in collateral proceedings.

The court also referred to Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India and Others, reported at 2024(5) SCC 481, for the proposition that fraud vitiates everything.

On the facts, the court concluded that the order of 8 January 2026 had been obtained by playing fraud. The collusion and fraud were, in its words, apparently evident.

Displeasure Expressed; ACB Directed to Inquire

Before parting, Justice Harinath N expressed the court's displeasure at the manner in which the advocates who appeared in this matter had, in its words, “in univocal terms, played fraud on this Court.” The court observed that the trust reposed in advocates as officers of the court is immense and that instances of collusion, dual representation, or fraud on the court can disproportionately erode that trust.

The court clarified that it was not expressing any final opinion on the involvement of the counsel and others, but that the matter required thorough inquiry by an investigating agency with expertise in handling such cases, given that property worth several crores belonging to the Kakinada Municipal Corporation was planned to be knocked off.

The Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada, was directed to entrust the inquiry to an officer not below the rank of Inspector General. The inquiring officer was directed to take into consideration any additional information received during the course of the inquiry relating to such issues. A report was directed to be submitted to the court preferably within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to forward a copy of the order to the Director General along with the entire case files, including counters, memos, and other documents.

Outcome

Both Review Petition No.2 of 2026 in W.P. No.11254 of 2013 and Review Petition No.2 of 2026 in W.P. No.13428 of 2015 were allowed. The common order dated 8 January 2026 was recalled. The court directed that an opportunity of hearing on merits be extended to the parties in the writ petitions. No order as to costs was made. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed as a sequel.