# Ganga Prasad v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 2118
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-22
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 3000027 of 2011
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ganga-prasad-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51631
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-manipulation of land recordsLand(gata no.521) was declared surplus in
1964 and later allotted to Kishore in 1970A lekhpal fraudulently inserted his name
into the revenue records without proper
authorization-Kishore's
legal
heir
challenged
the
fraudulent
mutationFraudulent actions by lekhpal were proven
including
misuse
of
his
position
to
manipulate records-It is well settled
proposition of law that a judgment ,
decree or order obtained by playing fraud
on the court is a nullity and non est in the
eye of law-Such a judgment ,decree or
order by the first court or by the Final
court has to be treated as nullity by every
court, superior or inferior- Hence, all
orders based on these fraudulent entries
were declared null and void-the court
restored the land rights to Kishore's legal
heir-cost imposed.

The writ petition is allowed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,926 of 46,570. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39926 for what follows._

2118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against
the
impugned
order
dated
30.04.2010
passed
by
the
District
Consumer
Dispute
Redressal
Forum,
Ambedkar
Nagar,
before
the
State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow within next three
weeks. In case the appeal is filed, the same
shall be considered on merits in accordance
with law.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 2118
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J..

Writ -C No. 3000027 of 2011

Ganga Prasad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pt. D.R. Shukla, Anurag Narain Srivastava, M.D.
Shukla, Manoj Kr. Singh, Sanjeev Kumar Pandey,
Sudhanshu Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Karunakar Srivastava, Mohd. Askam
Khan, Nitin Srivastava

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-manipulation of land recordsLand(gata no.521) was declared surplus in
1964 and later allotted to Kishore in 1970A lekhpal fraudulently inserted his name
into the revenue records without proper
authorization-Kishore's
legal
heir
challenged
the
fraudulent
mutationFraudulent actions by lekhpal were proven
including
misuse
of
his
position
to
manipulate records-It is well settled
proposition of law that a judgment ,
decree or order obtained by playing fraud
on the court is a nullity and non est in the
eye of law-Such a judgment ,decree or
order by the first court or by the Final
court has to be treated as nullity by every
court, superior or inferior- Hence, all
orders based on these fraudulent entries
were declared null and void-the court
restored the land rights to Kishore's legal
heir-cost imposed.

The writ petition is allowed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Vs Raj Kumar
Rajinder Singh (2019) 14 SCC 449,

2. A.V. Papayya Sastry Vs Govt. of A.P.(2007) 4
SCC 221

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1.

Heard
Sri
Anurag
Narain
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner as well as learned Standing
Counsel for the State respondents and Sri
Mohd.
Aslam
Khan,
learned
Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Nitin Srivastava,
learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition
the petitioner has challenged:

(i) the order dated 25.07.2011,
passed by the Additional Commissioner,
under Section 27(4) of the Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2006"),
for cancellation of patta of predecessor in
interest of petitioner namely Kishore.

(ii) the order dated 21.06.2011,
passed
by
Additional
Commissioner,
deleting the name of Kishore on account of
his death without substituting the legal
heirs of Kishore.

(iii) the order dated 16.07.2011,
passed by the Additional Commissioner
whereby the recall application seeking
recall of order dated 21.06.2011 has been
rejected on the ground that registered will
3 All. Ganga Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2119
dated 18.10.2007 executed by Kishore in
favour of the petitioner since declaration
was not obtained by the petitioner from the
competent
Court
in
relation
to
the
petitioner that he is legal heir of Kishore on
the basis of registered will.

(iv)
order
dated
26.10.1964,
pertaining to declaration of surplus land in
relation to plot no. 1300, were set aside exparte and the recall application was also
rejected on the ground that lease holder has
got no right of opportunity of hearing and
the petitioner has no right to file objections.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioner that on 26.10.1964, the
land of tenure holder Bhaiya Jagdish Dutt
Ram Pandey was declared surplus under
the provisions of the Act, 1960. The land
was entered in the name of Bhaiya Jagdish
Dutt Ram Pandey which is evident from the
Khatauni and after about six years on
31.08.1970, out of surplus land of Bhaiya
Jagdish Dutt Ram Pandey plot No.
521/1.70 acres was allotted to Kishore S/o
Ram Karan being a landless labourer, it is
pertinent to point out that over the patta
document Ram Naresh (Lekhpal) @ Nanhe
Lal Lekhpal was a witness and on the basis
of patta name of Kishore was entered in the
khatauni and the mutation register prepared
under Rule 24.

4. It has been submitted by the
petitioner that Ram Naresh (Lekhpal) had
committed forgery in the revenue record as
well as in UPCH Form - 45 and
fraudulently got his name entered into the
khatauni with intention to grab the land
which was declared surplus by means of
order dated 26.10.1964 by the Prescribed
Authority. The Prescribed Authority had
declared surplus land in relation to the
original tenure holder - Bhaiya Jagdish
Dutt Ram Pandey under section 10(2) of
the Act of 1960 and the said order attained
finality as it was never challenged by the
recorded tenure holder in appeal.

5. It is stated that Ram Naresh
(Lekhpal) had taken advantage of his
posting as Lekhpal and entered his name in
the revenue records without there being any
order or title deed in his favour. Due to
aforesaid act of fraud committed by Ram
Naresh (Lekhpal) he got his name mutated
in the revenue records pertaining to Plot
No. 521/1.50 acres and also manipulated
the same in UPCH Form - 45 fraudulently.

6. When the predecessor in interest of
the petitioner namely Kishore (Patta
holder) came to know about the fraudulent
entry having been made by Ram Naresh
(Lekhpal), he made a complaint, and an
inquiry was ordered by the Chief Revenue
Officer, Gonda. The matter was enquired
into by Tehsildar, Karnelganj, Gonda. The
inquiry report revealed that Ram Naresh
(Lekhpal) has unauthorisedly without any
order of competent authority entered his
name into the revenue records pertaining to
Plot No. 521/1.50 acres. It was stated that
said entries in the name of Ram Naresh
were fictitious and forged and they were
liable to be rectified under Section 33/39 of
the
Land
Revenue
Act.
There
are
allegations of manipulation in the revenue
records regarding two other Gata Nos. also
and after due inquiry it was revealed that
the respondent had committed serious acts
of forgery and therefore the matter was
referred to the SDO, Karnelganj, Gonda for
correction of entries and by means of order
dated 24.08.1993, the entries made in
UPCH Form - 45 was deleted and further
direction was issued that the entries in the
revenue records of the village may be
corrected.
2120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. Aggrieved by the order of Chief
Revenue Officer, Ram Naresh (Lekhpal)
preferred two revisions being Revision No.
32 and 130 - 1992-93, before the Board of
Revenue, Lucknow, which were dismissed
by means of order dated 04.03.1998.

8. Being unsuccessful in proceedings
before the Board of Revenue, Ram Naresh
(Lekhpal) approached the Commissioner,
Faizabad
Division,
Faizabad
for
cancellation of the lease granted in favour
of Kishore. The application of Ram Naresh
(Lekhpal) was dismissed by means of order
dated 30.09.1995. Against the order dated
30.09.1995, he preferred Writ Petition
(Ceiling) No. 178 (M/S) of 1995. The writ
petition was dismissed on 07.12.1995.
While dismissing the writ petition the
Court observed that the application under
Section 11(2) of the Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holdings Act which was pending,
be decided on merits. It has further been
stated that in the writ petition Kishore was
not made party.

9. Ram Naresh (Lekhpal) after getting
his name mutated in the revenue records in
place of Kishore, moved an application
before the Prescribed Authority under
Section 11(2) of the Ceiling Act for setting
aside of the order dated 26.10.1994 by
which the land of Bhaiya Jagdish Dutt Ram
Pandey was declared surplus stating that he
has been recorded as tenure holder and
therefore the order was passed by the
Prescribed authority without giving notice
or any opportunity of hearing and therefore
prayed that the order dated 26.10.1994 be
set aside and land of Gata No. 521/1050
acres be excluded from the holdings of the
original tenure holder. The Prescribed
Authority by means of order dated
31.10.1996
allowed
the
application
preferred by Ram Naresh (Lekhpal) under
Section 11(2) of the Ceiling Act. It is stated
that the State brought to the knowledge of
the Prescribed Authority that the revenue
entries have been made fraudulently by
Ram Naresh (Lekhpal) himself which have
been ordered to be deleted, and therefore
no benefit of the same could have been
granted, but he ignored the said arguments
and by means of order dated 31.10.1996
allowed the application under section 11(2)
of Act of 1960.

10. Kishore, on coming to know
about the order dated 31.10.1996, moved
an application stating that he had been
granted patta and was necessary party in
the said proceedings but his application for
recall
was
rejected
by
order
dated
04.08.1997.

11. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that Kishore had
died issue less and had bequeathed his
entire property in favour of petitioner by
means of registered will dated 18.10.2007.
It has also been stated that Ram Naresh had
moved an application under Section 27(4)
of the Ceiling Act, 1960 praying that the
revenue entries should be made in his
favour and that name of Kishore has
wrongly
been
recorded.
During
the
pendency of the said application Ram
Naresh (Lekhpal) as well as Kishore
expired and Ram Naresh was substituted by
Devi
Shanker
Srivastava
and
Maya
Shanker Srivastava while no substitution
was made with regard to Kishore. The
application filed by the respondent was
allowed and the lease in favour of Kishore
was cancelled and direction was made for
recording of entry in name of Ram Naresh
in the revenue records.

12. The petitioner being legal heir of
Kishore moved an application for recall of
3 All. Ganga Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2121
order dated 21.06.2011 which was rejected.
Another application preferred by the
petitioner for substitution was also rejected
on 16.07.2011 observing that there was no
decree
of
the
Court
of
competent
jurisdiction declaring that the petitioner
was legal heir of Kishore.

13. The application preferred by Ram
Naresh was finally allowed on 25/07/2011
on merits. While allowing the application it
was held that initially the prescribed
authority
by
means
of
order
dated
26/10/1964 had declared the land of the
original tenure holder Jagdish Dutt Ram
Pandey as surplus, and the said order was
modified on 31.10.1996 an application
under section 11 (2) of the act of 1960
preferred by Ram Naresh and the plot No.
521/1.5 acres was excluded from the land
which was declared surplus by means of
order dated 31/10/1996. In the meanwhile,
the land which was declared surplus by the
prescribed authority had been allotted in
favour of Kishore on 31/08/1970, and on
the application of Ram Naresh under
Section 27(4) of the act of 1960, the patta
granted in favour of Kishore was cancelled
by means of the impugned order dated
25/07/2011.

14. Sri M.A Khan ,Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of respondent 5 and 6
has vehemently opposed the writ petition. It
has been submitted that the initial order
passed
by
the
prescribed
authority
pertaining to the land of the original tenure
holder was passed on 26/10/1964 without
giving any opportunity to the respondent of
the petitioner was also declared surplus
illegally and arbitrarily. Apparently the
patta was allotted in favour of Kishore,
respondent had filed an application for
cancellation of the Patta under section
27(4) of the act of 1960. It was submitted
that the application was illegally rejected,
against which a writ petition was filed
being writ petition no. 178(Ceil.) of 1995
and the petition was disposed of on
07/12/1995 and that the application under
section 11(2) of the act of 1960 be disposed
of by the prescribed authority. As per the
directions of this court, the application
under section 11(2) was allowed by means
of order dated 31/10/1996 and plot No. 521
was excluded from the surplus land
declared
by
the
prescribed
authority
previously. In this regard it has been
submitted that the order dated 21/10/1996
has not been assailed by the petitioner in
any proceedings and has become final and
consequently submitted that there is no
error in the impugned orders.

15. The State initially filed an
affidavit of compliance supporting the case
of the respondents, and the deponent was
none other than Parmanand Tewari, who
has authored the impugned order dated
25/07/2011, and consequently this Court
taking a serious view of the matter by
means of order dated 10/10/2011 directed
the enquiry to be conducted by the
Principal Secretary, Revenue, Government
of U.P.

16. The enquiry was conducted by the
Principal Secretary, Revenue, Government
of U.P, and submitted his report on
31/01/2012 which was filed 03/05/2015.
According to the enquiry report land
situated at Gata No. 1300, the new number
being Gata No. 521 was declared as surplus
from the original holding of Bhaiya Dutt
Jagdish Ram Pandey on 26/10/1964.
Subsequently a mutation entry dated
23/09/1978 is existing on record whereby
name of Ram Naresh, son of Sambhu
Dayal has been entered as Sirdar, but there
is no order for making the said mutation
2122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and accordingly prima facie the said entry
seems to be suspect/doubtful. Even the
procedure of making the said mutation
seems to indicate the said mutation has
been done by black ink while normal
course such mutation is carried out in red
writing. Another glaring infirmity is that
the
mutation
was
done
when
the
proceedings under Section 9 of the
Consolidation
of
Holding
Act
were
underway. In such a situation the said
mutation has to be reflected in the revenue
records of the particular year, and in case
the mutation has been done after the
conclusion of Consolidation proceedings
then the same has to be done in accordance
with provisions of section 109A of the
Consolidation of Holdings Act, and only
after approval of the Deputy director of
Consolidation the Assistant Consolidation
Officer will carry out the mutation in form
45 itself while in the present case the
mutation
has
been
done
by
the
Consolidation
Lekhpal on
28/09/1978
which is on the face of it illegal and
without jurisdiction.

17. It has also been stated in the
report that on the said land been declared
surplus by the prescribed authority. Initially
the land was allotted in favour of one Devi
Shanker son of Nanhey Lal by order dated
13/05/1970, but subsequently the Pargna
Adhikari cancelled the said allotment and
passed another allotment order in favour of
Ramkishore
son
of
Ramkaran
on
31/08/1970.

18. In the aakar form 45 with regard
to Khata No. 723, the fraudulent in the
entry made in favour of Ram Naresh a
complaint was made by Kishore to the
Commissioner
Faizabad
mandal
on
27/29/11/1991
an
enquiry
was
got
conducted by the Pargna Adikari and it
came on record that the revenue entry in
favour of Ram Naresh was fraudulently
done by means of order dated 28/09/1978.

19. It has further been stated that a
complaint was made by Kishore with
regard to the fraudulent entry made by the
Ram Naresh to the Commissioner, an
enquiry was conducted by the Pargana
Adhikari who submitted his report on
05/08/1993. The said report was forwarded
to the Chief Revenue officer, who in turn
directed the Pargana Adhikari to delete the
mutation in the revenue records in favour
of Ram Naresh, but his order was not
implemented by the concerned Lekhpal.

20. Another important aspect stated in
the said report is with regard to the fact that
Ram Naresh, the concerned Lekhpal and
was working on the said post during the
period when the mutation was carried out
in his favour. After the said facts have come
to the knowledge of the higher authorities
enquiry was been ordered. The Pargna
Adhikari has also been held to be guilty of
not complying with the Chief revenue
Officer. It is only because in the revenue
records the name of Ram Naresh continued
to be recorded in Gata No. 521, which
persuaded the Prescribed Authority to allow
the application filed by Ram Naresh under
section 11(2) of the act of 1960, and hence
order was passed in his favour.

21. I have heard the counsel for the
parties and perused the record. The
petitioner
has
questioned
the
dated
21/06/2011 whereby on the application for
substitution of Kishore, it was stated that he
has died interstate and it was recorded dead
in front of his name and the petitioner.

22. Considering the submissions
made on behalf of parties, the point in issue
3 All. Ganga Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2123
in the present case is as to whether Ram
Naresh (Lekhpal) had misused his official
position as Lekhpal and fraudulently
manipulated the revenue record whereby
the entry in his name against Gata No. 521
was recorded. This aspect gains relevance
inasmuch as it is only because of the entry
in the revenue record pertaining to Gata
No. 521 that initially when the said entry
was ordered to be deleted by the Chief
Revenue Office the petition against the
same were dismissed at the behest of Ram
Naresh and secondly his claim for
exclusion of the said land from the holdings
of the original tenure holder in proceedings
under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960 was
made only on the basis of entry existing in
his name against Gata No. 521.

23. Though there is denial by
respondent nos. 5 and 6 in their counter
affidavit that Ram Naresh was the
concerned Lekhpal at the time when the
alleged fraudulent entry was made deleting
the name of Kishore and replacing it with
the name of Ram Naresh, but the enquiry
conducted
by
the
Chief
Secretary
(Revenue) has made it clear that it was
Ram Naresh who was in fact posted as
Lekhpal when the said manipulation in the
revenue record took place. It is also
pertinent to note that signatures of Ram
Naresh were existing on the Patta given to
Kishore. Further the inquiry report of Chief
Secretary (Revenue) has also confirmed the
fact that there was no order by any
competent authority preceding the entry
made in favour of Ram Naresh. Even in the
entire counter affidavit filed before this
Court no such order has been produced
which could indicate that there was any
semblance of legality in deletion of name
of Kishore and its substitution in the name
of Ram Naresh.

24. The weak resistance put up by the
private respondents is on account of the
fact that Gata No. 521 was initially allotted
in the name of one Devi Shanker,son of
Nanhe Lal vide order dated 13.05.1970 and
the said allotment was cancelled and
subsequently allotment was made in the
name of Kishore S/o Ram Karan on
31.08.1970. The previous cancellation vide
order dated 13.05.1970 was never assailed
before any authority and consequently it
became final.

25. When Kishore came to know
about the deletion/modification of the entry
pertaining to Gata No. 521, he had moved
an application before the Commissioner,
Lucknow Division, Lucknow for inquiry
and for restoration of his name. An inquiry
was conducted in this regard in 1993 by the
Parganadhikari where it came forth that
entry in the name of Ram Naresh was
unauthorisedly made without there being
any order and consequently the Chief
Revenue Officer directed that the entry
existing in the name of Kishore be restored.
Despite orders having been passed by the
competent authority correction as directed
was never carried out and accordingly
illegal entry in the name of Ram Naresh
continued to exist in the revenue record.

26. On the strength of illegal and
improper entry existing in the name of Ram
Naresh efforts were made on the judicial
side fortifying his claim on the said land
and as efforts to set aside the order dated
24.08.1993 by which the entry was directed
to be cancelled was rejected at the behest of
Ram Naresh and he could not succeed at
that stage. Subsequently, Ram Naresh filed
a writ petition before this Court where
liberty was granted to him to pursue his
application under Section 11(2) of the Act,
1960.
2124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

27. Before the Prescribed Authority
the State had informed about the order
passed by the Chief Revenue Officer dated
24.08.1993, for deletion of the entry
existing in the name of Ram Naresh, but
this argument was not considered as in the
revenue records name of Ram Naresh
continued to exist and merely on the basis
of said record, application under Section
11(2) of the Act, 1960 was allowed and
Gata No. 521 was excluded from the
holdings of the original tenure holder and
also order of Prescribed Authority dated
31.10.1996, was suitably modified.

28. The Additional Commissioner
(Judicial)
had
illegally
rejected
the
application for impleadment preferred by
the petitioner despite the fact that he had
produced copy of registered will clearly
indicating that the deceased Kishore had
bequeathed his property in favour of
petitioner. There was no other claim to the
property of Kishore and no one has raised
dispute in this regard and consequently
rejection of his application merely on
account of the fact that there was no decree
from the Court of competent jurisdiction
regarding declaration of the petitioner as
successor in interest of Kishore, he
declined to accept the application for
substitution.

29. The respondents could not show
any law which provides that application for
substitution can be accepted only when the
person claiming his rights produces a copy
of decree of declaration of the competent
Court that he is the successor in interest of
the deceased. At the stage of consideration
of the application for substitution, the court
has to look only into the relevant
documents and relationship claimed by the
applicant on the basis of which the
application for substitution has been made.
It has to be borne in mind that even if the
application for substitution is allowed it
does not vest any substantial right in the
applicant, except to contest the said case.
The applicant having produced a certified
copy of the registered will of the deceased,
which was sufficient in itself for the
concerned authority to have allowed the
said application, where no doubts were
expressed for its existence and validity by
the other side. Accordingly, the findings of
the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) in
this regard are illegal and arbitrary and are
set aside. The order is clearly arbitrary and
illegal and also deserves to be quashed.

30. The next issue raised is with
regard to the validity of the entry made in
favour of Ram Naresh, and as to whether
on the basis of the said entry the land was
rightly excluded from the holding of the
original tenure holder and the patta of the
petitioner was rightly cancelled.

31. As discussed above, there is no
doubt that the revenue records were
tampered by the Lekhpal i.e. Ram Naresh,
who was responsible for entering his name
in place of Kishore illegally and without
authorisation.
He
himself
was
the
concerned Lekhpal and has manipulated the
revenue records. We have no reasons to
doubt the report submitted by the Principle
Secretary,Revenue
who
has
carefully
examined the entire record and dealt with
all the issues in detail. We take serious note
of the fraudulent conduct of the respondent
in this regard. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in a number of judgments has discussed the
aspect of fraud. Some of such judgments
are quoted herein below.

32. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam v. Raj Kumar
3 All. Ganga Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2125
Rajinder Singh, (2019) 14 SCC 449, has
held :-

"68. Fraud vitiates every solemn
proceeding and no right can be claimed by
a fraudster on the ground of technicalities.
On behalf of the appellants, reliance has
been placed on the definition of "fraud" as
defined in Black's Law Dictionary, which is
as under:

"Fraud:
(1)
A
knowing
misrepresentation
of
the
truth
or
concealment of a material fact to induce
another to act to his or her detriment.
Fraud is usually a tort, but in some cases
(esp. when the conduct is wilful) it may be
a crime. ... (2) A misrepresentation made
recklessly without belief in its truth to
induce another person to act. (3) A tort
arising from a knowing misrepresentation,
concealment of material fact, or reckless
misrepresentation made to induce another
to act to his or her detriment. (4)
Unconscionable dealing; esp., in contract
law, the unconscientious use of the power
arising out of the parties' relative positions
and
resulting
in
an
unconscionable
bargain."

33. The Court in Satluj Jal Vidyut
Nigam v. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh
(supra) has further observed that :

"69.
Halsbury's
Laws
of
Englandhas defined "fraud" as follows:

"Whenever a person makes a
false statement which he does not actually
and honestly believe to be true, for purpose
of civil liability, the statement is as
fraudulent as if he had stated that which he
did know to be true, or know or believed to
be false. Proof of absence of actual and
honest belief is all that is necessary to
satisfy the requirement of the law, whether
the representation has been made recklessly
or deliberately, indifference or recklessness
on the part of the representor as to the truth
or falsity of the representation affords
merely an instance of absence of such a
belief.

70. In Kerr on the Law of Fraud
and Mistake, "fraud" has been defined
thus:

"It is not easy to give a definition
of what constitutes fraud in the extensive
significance
in
which
that
term
is
understood by Civil Courts of Justice. The
courts have always avoided hampering
themselves by defining or laying down as a
general proposition what shall be held to
constitute fraud. Fraud is infinite in
variety... Courts have always declined to
define it, ... reserving to themselves the
liberty to deal with it under whatever form
it may present itself. Fraud ... may be said
to include property (sicproperly) all acts,
omissions, and concealments which involve
a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or
confidence,
justly
reposed,
and
are
injurious to another, or by which an undue
or unconscientious advantage is taken of
another. All surprise, trick, cunning,
dissembling and other unfair way that is
used to cheat anyone is considered as
fraud. Fraud in all cases implies a wilful
act on the part of anyone, whereby another
is sought to be deprived, by illegal or
inequitable means, of what he is entitled
to."

71. In Ram Chandra Singh v.
Savitri Devi [Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri
Devi, (2003) 8 SCC 319] , it was observed
that fraud vitiates every solemn act. Fraud
and justice never dwell together and it
cannot be perpetuated or saved by the
application of any equitable doctrine
including res judicata. This Court observed
as under :

"15. Commission of fraud on
court and suppression of material facts are
2126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
core
issues
involved
in
these
matters.Fraud, as is well known, vitiates
every solemn act. Fraud and justice never
dwell together.

16. Fraud is a conduct either by
letter or words, which induces the other
person or authority to take a definite
determinative stand as a response to the
conduct of the former either by word or
letter.

17. It is also well settled that
misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud.
Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may
also give reason to claim relief against
fraud.

18.
A
fraudulent
misrepresentation is called deceit and
consists in leading a man into damage by
wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe
and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if
a party makes representations which he
knows to be false, and injury ensues
therefrom although the motive from which
the representations proceeded may not have
been bad.
***

23. An act of fraud on court is
always viewed seriously. A collusion or
conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights
of the others in relation to a property would
render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud
and deception are synonymous.
***

25. Although in a given case a
deception may not amount to fraud, fraud
is anathema to all equitable principles and
any affair tainted with fraud cannot be
perpetuated or saved by the application of
any equitable doctrine including res
judicata."
(emphasis supplied)

72.
In
Madhukar
Sadbha
Shivarkar
v.
State
of
Maharashtra
[Madhukar Sadbha Shivarkar v. State of
Maharashtra, (2015) 6 SCC 557, this Court
observed that fraud had been played by
showing the records and the orders
obtained unlawfully by the declarant,
would be a nullity in the eye of the law
though such orders have attained finality.
Following observations were made :

"27. The said order is passed by
the State Government only to enquire into
the landholding records with a view to find
out as to whether original land revenue
records have been destroyed and fabricated
to substantiate their unjustifiable claim by
playing fraud upon the Tahsildar and
appellate authorities to obtain the orders
unlawfully in their favour by showing that
there is no surplus land with the Company
and its shareholders as the valid sub-leases
are made and they are accepted by them in
the proceedings under Section 21 of the
Act, on the basis of the alleged false
declarations filed by the shareholders and
sub-lessees under Section 6 of the Act. The
plea urged on behalf of the State
Government and the de facto complainant
owners, at whose instance the orders are
passed by the State Government on the
alleged ground of fraud played by the
declarants
upon
the
Tahsildar
and
appellate authorities to get the illegal
orders obtained by them to come out from
the clutches of the land ceiling provisions
of the Act by creating the revenue records,
which is the fraudulent act on their part
which unravels everything and therefore,
the question of limitation under the
provisions to exercise power by the State
Government does not arise at all. For this
purpose, the Deputy Commissioner of Pune
Division was appointed as the enquiry
officer to hold such an enquiry to enquire
into the matter and submit his report for
consideration of the Government to take
further action in the matter.The legal
contentions urged by Mr Naphade, in
justification of the impugned judgment and
3 All. Ganga Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2127
order prima facie at this stage, we are
satisfied that the allegation of fraud in
relation to getting the landholdings of the
villages referred to supra by the declarants
on the alleged ground of destroying
original revenue records and fabricating
revenue records to show that there are 384
sub-leases of the land involved in the
proceedings to retain the surplus land
illegally as alleged, to the extent of more
than 3000 acres of land and the orders are
obtained unlawfully by the declarants in
the land ceiling limits will be nullity in the
eye of the law though such orders have
attained finality; if it is found in the enquiry
by the enquiry officer that they are tainted
with fraud, the same can be interfered with
by the State Government and its officers to
pass appropriate orders. The landowners
are also aggrieved parties to agitate their
rights to get the orders which are obtained
by the declarants as they are vitiated in law
on account of nullity is the tenable
submission and the same is well founded
and therefore, we accept the submission to
justify
the
impugned
judgment
and
orderBabu
Maruti
Dukarev.State
of
Maharashtra[Babu Maruti Dukarev.State
of Maharashtra, 2006 SCC OnLine Bom
1268 : (2007) 2 AIR Bom R 361] of the
Division Bench of the High Court."
(emphasis supplied)

73. In Jai Narain Parasrampuria
v.
Pushpa
Devi
Saraf
[Jai
Narain
Parasrampuria v. Pushpa Devi Saraf,
(2006) 7 SCC 756] , this Court observed
that fraud vitiates every solemn act. Any
order or decree obtained by practising
fraud is a nullity. This Court held as under:

"55. It is now well settled that
fraud vitiates all solemn act. Any order or
decree obtained by practising fraud is a
nullity.
[See
(1)Ram
Chandra
Singhv.Savitri
Devi[Ram
Chandra
Singhv.Savitri Devi, (2003) 8 SCC 319]
followed
in
(2)Kendriya
Vidyalaya
Sangathanv.Girdharilal
Yadav[Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathanv.Girdharilal Yadav,
(2004) 6 SCC 325 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 785]
;
(3)State
of
A.P.v.T.
Suryachandra
Rao[State of A.P.v.T. Suryachandra Rao,
(2005)
6
SCC
149]
;
(4)Ishwar
Duttv.LAO[Ishwar Duttv.LAO, (2005) 7
SCC
190]
;
(5)Lillykuttyv.Scrutiny
Committee, SC & ST[Lillykuttyv.Scrutiny
Committee, SC & ST, (2005) 8 SCC 283] ;
(6)Maharashtra SEBv.Suresh Raghunath
Bhokare[Maharashtra
SEBv.Suresh
Raghunath Bhokare, (2005) 10 SCC 465 :
2005 SCC (L&S) 765] ; (7)Satyav.Teja
Singh[Satyav.Teja Singh, (1975) 1 SCC 120
: 1975 SCC (Cri) 50] ; (8)Mahboob
Sahabv.Syed Ismail[Mahboob Sahabv.Syed
Ismail, (1995) 3 SCC 693] ; and (9)Asharfi
Lalv.Koili[Asharfi Lalv.Koili, (1995) 4 SCC
163] .]"

(emphasis supplied)

74. In State of A.P. v. T.
Suryachandra Rao [State of A.P. v. T.
Suryachandra Rao, (2005) 6 SCC 149] , it
was observed that where the land which
was offered for surrender had already been
acquired by the State and the same had
vested in it. It was held that merely because
an enquiry was made, the Tribunal was not
divested of the power to correct the error
when the respondent had clearly committed
a fraud. Following observations were made
:

"7. The order of the High Court
is clearly erroneous.There is no dispute
that the land which was offered for
surrender by the respondent had already
been acquired by the State and the same
had vested in it. This was clearly a case of
fraud. Merely because an enquiry was
made, the Tribunal was not divested of the
power to correct the error when the
respondent had clearly committed a fraud.
2128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. By "fraud" is meant an
intention to deceive; whether it is from any
expectation of advantage to the party
himself or from ill-will towards the other is
immaterial.
The
expression
"fraud"
involves two elements, deceit and injury to
the person deceived. Injury is something
other
than
economic
loss,
that
is,
deprivation of property, whether movable
or immovable or of money and it will
include any harm whatever caused to any
person in body, mind, reputation or such
others. In short, it is a non-economic or
non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage
to the deceiver, will almost always cause
loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in
those rare cases where there is a benefit or
advantage
to
the
deceiver,
but
no
corresponding loss to the deceived, the
second
condition
is
satisfied.
[SeeVimlav.Delhi
Admn.[Vimlav.Delhi
Admn., 1963 Supp (2) SCR 585 : AIR 1963
SC 1572 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ 434] andIndian
Bankv.Satyam
Fibres
(India)
(P)
Ltd.[Indian Bankv.Satyam Fibres (India)
(P) Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 550] ]

9. A "fraud" is an act of
deliberate deception with the design of
securing something by taking unfair
advantage of another. It is a deception in
order to gain by another's loss. It is a
cheating intended to get an advantage.
(SeeS.P.
Chengalvaraya
Naiduv.Jagannath[S.P.
Chengalvaraya
Naiduv.Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1] .)

10. "Fraud" as is well known
vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice
never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct
either by letter or words, which includes
the other person or authority to take a
definite determinative stand as a response
to the conduct of the former either by words
or letter. It is also well settled that
misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud.
Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may
also give reason to claim relief against
fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is
called deceit and consists in leading a man
into damage by wilfully or recklessly
causing him to believe and act on
falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party
makes representations, which he knows to
be false, and injury enures therefrom
although the motive from which the
representations proceeded may not have
been bad. An act of fraud on court is
always viewed seriously. A collusion or
conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights
of the others in relation to a property would
render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud
and deception are synonymous. Although in
a given case a deception may not amount to
fraud, fraud is an anathema to all equitable
principles and any affair tainted with fraud
cannot be perpetuated or saved by the
application of any equitable doctrine
including res judicata. (SeeRam Chandra
Singhv.Savitri
Devi[Ram
Chandra
Singhv.Savitri Devi, (2003) 8 SCC 319] .)
***

13. This aspect of the matter has
been considered recently by this Court
inRoshan
Deenv.Preeti
Lal[Roshan
Deenv.Preeti Lal, (2002) 1 SCC 100 : 2002
SCC (L&S) 97] ,Ram Preeti Yadavv.U.P.
Board of High School and Intermediate
Education[Ram Preeti Yadavv.U.P. Board
of
High
School
and
Intermediate
Education, (2003) 8 SCC 311] ,Ram
Chandra Singhv.Savitri Devi[Ram Chandra
Singhv.Savitri Devi, (2003) 8 SCC 319]
andAshok
Leyland
Ltd.v.State
of
T.N.[Ashok Leyland Ltd.v.State of T.N.,
(2004) 3 SCC 1]

14. Suppression of a material
document would also amount to a fraud on
the court. (Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amba
Shankar Family Trust [Gowrishankar v.
Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust, (1996) 3
SCC 310] and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v.
3 All. Ganga Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2129
Jagannath [S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v.
Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1] .)

15. "Fraud" is a conduct either
by letter or words, which induces the other
person or authority to take a definite
determinative stand as a response to the
conduct of the former either by words or
letter. Although negligence is not fraud but
it can be evidence of fraud; as observed in
Ram Preeti Yadav [Ram Preeti Yadav v.
U.P.
Board
of
High
School
and
Intermediate Education, (2003) 8 SCC 311]
.
16. In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley
[Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, (1956) 1
QB 702 : (1956) 2 WLR 502 : (1956) 1 All
ER 341 (CA)] , Lord Denning observed at
QB pp. 712 and 713 : (All ER p. 345 C)

'No judgment of a court, no order
of a minister can be allowed to stand if it
has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels
everything.'

In the same judgment, Lord
Parker, L.J. observed that fraud 'vitiates all
transactions known to the law of however
high a degree of solemnity' (All ER p. 351
E-F)."
(emphasis supplied)

34. The Apex Court in the case of
A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P.,
(2007) 4 SCC 221 has observed as under :-

"21. Now, it is well-settled
principle of law that if any judgment or
order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be
said to be a judgment or order in law.
Before three centuries, Chief Justice
Edward Coke proclaimed:

"Fraud avoids all judicial acts,
ecclesiastical or temporal."

35. The Apex Court in the case of
A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P.,
(2007) 4 SCC 221 has held as under :

"22.It is thus settled proposition
of law that a judgment, decree or order
obtained by playing fraud on the court,
tribunal or authority is a nullity and non
est in the eye of the law. Such a judgment,
decree or order-by the first court or by the
final court-has to be treated as nullity by
every court, superior or inferior. It can be
challenged in any court, at any time, in
appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral
proceedings.

23. In the leading case of Lazarus
Estates Ltd. v. Beasley [(1956) 1 All ER
341] Lord Denning observed :

"No judgment of a court, no
order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand
if it has been obtained by fraud."

24. In Duchess of Kingstone,
Smith's Leading Cases, 13th Edn., p. 644,
explaining the nature of fraud, de Grey,
C.J. stated that though a judgment would
be res judicata and not impeachable from
within, it might be impeachable from
without.