# Keshav Prasad & Ors v. Consolidation Commissioner, Lko. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 1374
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-23
- **Case number:** Writ -B No. 853 of 2024
- **Bench:** Jaspreet Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/keshav-prasad-ors-v-consolidation-commissioner-lko-ors-52559
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

A. Land Law - Concealment and nondisclosure - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953 - Section 4(2), 48(3) - 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. Fraud as is well-known vitiates every
solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwells
together. 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 former either by
word or letter. It is also well settled that
misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud.
Indeed, innocent misrepresentations may also
give reason to claim relief against fraud. A
fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and
consists in leading a man into damage by
willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and
act on falsehood.

The principle of 'finality of litigation'
cannot be pressed to the extent of such an
absurdity that it becomes an engine of
fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants.

The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in
disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts.
If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the
very functioning of Writ Courts and exercise
would become impossible. The petitioner must
disclose all the facts having a bearing on the
relief sought without any qualification. This is
because, "the Court knows law but not facts".

The principle that a person who does not come
to the court with clean hands is not entitled to
be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in
any case, such person is not entitled to any
relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed
u/Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution
but also to the cases instituted in others courts
and judicial forums. The object underlying the
principle is that every court is not only entitled
but is duty bound to protect itself from
unscrupulous litigants who do not have any
respect for truth and who try to pollute the
stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by
making misSt.ment or by suppressing facts
which have a bearing on adjudication of the
issue(s) arising in the case. (Para 26)

In the entire present petition there is not
a whisper of the fact as to how the
petitioners had any personal cause or
what is their personal right in respect of
any plot. (Para 29)

The petitioners have definitely not disclosed the
fact regarding their right to file the instant
petition. Moreover, multiple petitions filed by the
petitioners were not disclosed in this writ
petition but were mentioned by the St./Garam
Sabha in their counter-affidavit. It is only when
the rejoinder-affidavit was filed that the same
has been accepted by the petitioner as a
conformation of the averments made in the
counter-affidavit but there was no effort of the
petitioners to bring the facts which were there
in their knowledge at the time of filing of the
instant petition including its outcome. (Para 28)

It prima facie appears from the record that the
petitioners no.1 and 4 have already been held to
be the beneficiaries of fraudulent entries against
whom action has been taken and the fraudulent
entries have been expunged. This aspect of the
matter and the background of the litigation has
been deliberately suppressed. (Para 30, 32)

The petition suffers gross concealment of
material facts. The petition is vague, no
personal cause of action of the petitioners has
been made out coupled with the fact that the
petition suffers from concealment of material
fact and is an attempt to waste the precious
time of the court by resorting to filing a frivolous
petition and if the St. Counsel and the Gaon
Sabha would not have brought the facts to the
notice of the Court, the petitioners would have
had
a
leverage
by
getting
away
with
concealment and non disclosure of material
facts. (Para 36)

B. There is a great sanctity attached to the
proceedings conducted in the court. Every
Advocate putting hi

## Text

_Characters 0–39,817 of 73,663. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39817 for what follows._

1374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rs.100/- and it has not been registered and,
therefore, it is not admissible in evidence.

29. It is true that this agreement is not
duly stamped but the liability to pay stamp duty
on this agreement was of the revisionist
himself. The revisionist himself has evaded
payment of proper stamp duty on this
agreement. It is a settled principle of law that no
person can be allowed to take advantage of his
own wrong. When the revisionist himself had
avoided payment of stamp duty on the
agreement dated 21.09.2011, he cannot take the
plea that the agreement dated 21.09.2011 not
being duly stamped, is not admissible in
evidence although it has been filed by the
revisionist himself. Therefore, this Court finds
no reason to disbelieve the agreement filed by
the revisionist-defendant alongwith his affidavit
filed before this Court.

30. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner next submitted that the opposite party
- plaintiff had not taken any plea based on the
agreement dated 21.09.2011 and, therefore, no
decision has been given by the trial Court on
this point. In these circumstances, it would be
proper to remand the matter to the trial Court
for being decided afresh.

31. In Jagdish Prasad v. Angoori
Devi: (1984) 2 SCC 590, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had held that: -

"2. ...This was not an attempt
to reassess evidence but to take into
consideration the evidence which had
not been looked into by the trial court.
The
revisional
jurisdiction
under
Section 25 of the Provincial Small
Cause Court Act is not as wide as the
appellate jurisdiction under Section 96
of the Code of Civil Procedure; yet in a
case of this type we do not think fault
could be found with the revisional court
for pointing out the legal error
committed by the trial court in its
approach to this material aspect...."

32. In the present case also, the
revisionist - defendant had himself filed an
agreement dated 21.09.2011, as per which, his
tenancy stands expired with effect from
31.05.2012, but it was not taken into
consideration by the learned trial Court. This
Court is well within its jurisdiction to correct the
legal error committed by the trial Court by
ignoring this material evidence placed by the
revisionist.

33. In view of the foregoing discussion,
the revision is allowed in part. The judgment and
order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court
No. 16, Lucknow in SCC Suit No. 14 of 2014 is
set aside to the extent that it holds the rate of rent
of the shop in question to be Rs.6,600/- per
month and it is held that the rate of rent of the
shop in question was Rs.500/- only. The
remaining part of the judgment and decree so far
as it orders ejectment of the revisionistdefendant, does not suffer from any illegality
calling for interference in exercise of this Court's
revisional jurisdiction and the revision in respect
of this relief is dismissed. The parties will bear
their own costs of litigation.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 1374
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Writ -B No. 853 of 2024

Keshav Prasad & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Consolidation Commissioner, Lko. & Ors.
 ...Respondents
9 All. Keshav Prasad & Ors. Vs. Consolidation Commissioner, Lko. & Ors.
1375
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Rahul Roshan Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mohan Singh

A. Land Law - Concealment and nondisclosure - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953 - Section 4(2), 48(3) - 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. Fraud as is well-known vitiates every
solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwells
together. 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 former either by
word or letter. It is also well settled that
misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud.
Indeed, innocent misrepresentations may also
give reason to claim relief against fraud. A
fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and
consists in leading a man into damage by
willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and
act on falsehood.

The principle of 'finality of litigation'
cannot be pressed to the extent of such an
absurdity that it becomes an engine of
fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants.

The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in
disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts.
If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the
very functioning of Writ Courts and exercise
would become impossible. The petitioner must
disclose all the facts having a bearing on the
relief sought without any qualification. This is
because, "the Court knows law but not facts".

The principle that a person who does not come
to the court with clean hands is not entitled to
be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in
any case, such person is not entitled to any
relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed
u/Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution
but also to the cases instituted in others courts
and judicial forums. The object underlying the
principle is that every court is not only entitled
but is duty bound to protect itself from
unscrupulous litigants who do not have any
respect for truth and who try to pollute the
stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by
making misSt.ment or by suppressing facts
which have a bearing on adjudication of the
issue(s) arising in the case. (Para 26)

In the entire present petition there is not
a whisper of the fact as to how the
petitioners had any personal cause or
what is their personal right in respect of
any plot. (Para 29)

The petitioners have definitely not disclosed the
fact regarding their right to file the instant
petition. Moreover, multiple petitions filed by the
petitioners were not disclosed in this writ
petition but were mentioned by the St./Garam
Sabha in their counter-affidavit. It is only when
the rejoinder-affidavit was filed that the same
has been accepted by the petitioner as a
conformation of the averments made in the
counter-affidavit but there was no effort of the
petitioners to bring the facts which were there
in their knowledge at the time of filing of the
instant petition including its outcome. (Para 28)

It prima facie appears from the record that the
petitioners no.1 and 4 have already been held to
be the beneficiaries of fraudulent entries against
whom action has been taken and the fraudulent
entries have been expunged. This aspect of the
matter and the background of the litigation has
been deliberately suppressed. (Para 30, 32)

The petition suffers gross concealment of
material facts. The petition is vague, no
personal cause of action of the petitioners has
been made out coupled with the fact that the
petition suffers from concealment of material
fact and is an attempt to waste the precious
time of the court by resorting to filing a frivolous
petition and if the St. Counsel and the Gaon
Sabha would not have brought the facts to the
notice of the Court, the petitioners would have
had
a
leverage
by
getting
away
with
concealment and non disclosure of material
facts. (Para 36)

B. There is a great sanctity attached to the
proceedings conducted in the court. Every
Advocate putting his signatures on the
Vakalatnamas and on the documents to be
1376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
filed in the Courts, and every Advocate
appearing for a party in the courts,
particularly in the Supreme Court, the
highest court of the country is presumed
to have filed the proceedings and put
his/her appearance with all sense of
responsibility
and
seriousness.
No
professional much less legal professional,
is immuned from being prosecuted for
his/her criminal misdeeds. (Para 35)

The role of an advocate in the justice
dispensation
system
is
of
crucial
importance. The counsel representing a
case of his client is first an officer of the
Court and then he pleads the case for his
client fearlessly. In the instant case, the
counsel for the petitioner, who has been
representing them in various petitions appears
to have lost sight of his duties as an officer of
the Court.

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Bhagwan Das Chela Balram Das Vs District
Magistrate Ambedkarnagar & ors., 2023 (1) ADJ
342 [LB] (Para 26)

2. All India EPF Staff Federation Vs U.O.I. &
ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1629 (Para 27)

3. Kusha Duruka Vs The St. of Odisha, (2024) 4
SCC 432 (Para 27)

4. Bhagwan Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2024
SCC OnLine SC 2599 (Para 35)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. Heard Shri Rahul Roshan Dubey,
the learned counsel for the petitioners, Dr.
Krishna Kumar Singh, learned Standing
Counsel for the State and Shri Mohan
Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
Gaon Sabha.

2. Shri Rahul Roshan Dubey,
learned counsel for the petitioners has filed
the rejoinder-affidavit which is taken on
record.

3. To put the matter in a
prespective, certain facts giving rise to the
instant
petition
are
being
noticed
hereinafter.

4.

Eight
petitioners
have
approached
this
Court
seeking
the
following relief's which reads as under:-

"Issue a writ order or
direction
in
the
nature
of
mandamus directing the opposite
parties particularly opposite party
no.1 to call for the record in respect
of
consolidation
proceedings
commenced
during
covid-19
pandemic year 2019-2020 of Gram
Jamkhuri, Post Jamkhuri, Pargana
Chanda, Tehsil Lambhuwa, District
Sultanpur
and
initiate
a
proceedings under Section 48 of
U.P. Consolidation and Holdings
Act 1953 and decide after hearing
the tenure holders and further be
pleased to set aside the orders
passed in under Section 9(ka) and
section
20
and
42
of
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act
1953 and CH-41 & CH-45 to meets
the
ends
of
justice
annexed
hereiwith as Annexure No.5 dated
09.08.2021."

5. The writ petition runs in 14
paragraphs. However, paragraphs 4 to 12
are being reproduced hereinafter for better
appreciation of the contention as well as the
response of the respective parties.

4. That by means of the
present writ petition the petitioner
is
challenging
the
entire
9 All. Keshav Prasad & Ors. Vs. Consolidation Commissioner, Lko. & Ors.
1377
consolidation
proceedings
commenced in the year 2019-20 in
village
Jamkhuri,
ParganaChanda, Tehsil Lambhuwa, District
Sultanpur
in
which
several
irregularities have been committed
and further no action has been
taken by the opp. party no.-1 & w
upon several representation made
by the petitioners.
5. That in the mid of corona
(covid-19) in year 2020 without
given any notice to any villagers
the authorities passed Dhara 9,
Dhara-20, Dhara-21 and Dhara-42
opp. party no.4 has passed the
order ex parte which is illegal and
arbitrary because that time Hon'ble
Supreme Court has passed the
interim order in whole country
which was extended till 2021. The
copy of order of Hon'ble Apex
Court is being annexed herewith as
Annexure No.2 to this writ petition.
6. That the brief facts of the
case is that during the Covid-19
pandemic in village Jamkhuri,
Pargana-Chanda
Tehsil
Lambhuwa,
District-Sultanpur
consolidation
proceedings
have
been
commenced
and
during
consolidation proceedings several
irregularities have been made in
which orders under Section 9(ka)
and Section 20 and 42 of U.P.
consolidation of Holdings Act 1953
without
giving
any
notice/information to the concern
tenure holder and without giving
opportunity to lead evidence CH-41
and CH-45 has been finalized some
of the irregularities have been
mentioned as below:-
a- In CH-41 and CH-45 the
consolidation officer has rejected
the entire area and chaks and there
are several irregularities in chaks
are has been mentioned wrongly
and even parentage of tenure
holders
have
been
wrongly
mentioned and there is no number
mentioned in final map.
b. Chak No.643 in CH-23
has been recorded in favour of Ram
Nayan in which old gate No.1170
has
been
left
for
Panchayat
Bhawan but in order to grab that
land nail and chak marg has been
proposed while there is a chak
marg existed.
c. Gata No.22/18. 2/4 and
2/8 was recorded as Naveen Parti
but while making CH-41 and 45
without informing to the tenure
holders that has been rejected and
old gata no.2/2 area 0.632, 2/4 are
0.0063, 2/6 area 0.063, 2/16 area
0.151, 2/20 area 0.262, 63/2 area
0.358 and 23 mi area 0.208 from
the
tenure
holders
has
been
recorded as Naveen parti without
even notice to the tenure holders.
d.
In
CH-11,
recorded
khata no.51 gata no.-63 Mi, 67, 69,
1031 has been rejected from the
khata and recorded as Naveen parti
and in gata no.63 name of Jai
Narayan son of Chandrika and in
gata no.67 Rajendra son of Krishna
Chandra and in 69 Makhdom son
of Jhuri wrongly and double
recorded without even notice to the
tenure holder.
e. In CH-45 parentage of
several persons have been wrongly
recorded like in CH-23 at Khata
no.999
Adha
Prasad
son
of
Ramnath has been recorded and in
45 in khata no.155 Adha Prasad
1378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and others son of Ram Nayak has
been recorded.
f. Chak of Ram Yug son of
Girja
Shankar
was
proposed
nearby his house but at the time of
preparing CH-41 and 45 chak has
been shown far away and no notice
has been issued to the tenure
holder.
g. The entire map of village
is wrongly made which is not in
accordance with the sanctioned
map. Copies of Nakal Khatauni
Gram Jhamkhuri alongwith akar
patra are collectively annexed
herewith as Annexure No.3 to this
writ petition.

7. That in respect of above
irregularities the tenure holders of
the
above
Gram
Jhamkhuri
Pargana
Chanda,
Tehsil
Lambhuwa, District Sultanpur has
given on 25.08.2021 in before the
opposite party no.1 in which
opposite party no.1 has directed the
Assistant Consolidation Officer to
present his report after enquiry. A
copy
of
application
dated
25.08.2021
and
postal
order
alongwith endorsement order is
being
annexed
herewith
as
Annexure No.4 to this writ petition.
8

That
upon
that
application the Settlement Officer
Consolidation has directed the
Consolidation Officer Lambhuwa
and
Consolidation
Officer
Lambhuwa
has
directed
to
Assistant
Consolidation
Officer,
Lambhuwa but till date no any
report has been presented.
9.

That
again
on
09.08.2021 the petitioners again
submitted an application before the
opposite party no.1 but nothing
concreate has came out neither any
report has been sent in respect of
above mentioned irregularities. A
copy
of
application
dated
09.08.2021
is
being annexued
herewith as Annexure no.5 to this
writ petition.
10.

That
during
commencement of consolidation
proceedings in covid-19 pandemic
several irregularities have been
committed due to which the poor
tenure
holders
have
to
face
multiplicity of litigations for their
life time.
11. That the proceedings of
consolidation has been commenced
during the year 2019-20 without
giving notice to the tenure holders
and
without
providing
any
opportunity of hearing and Ch-41
and CH-45 has been made in most
illegal and arbitrary manner.
12.

That
the
authorities/opposite
parties
are
turning deaf ear into the matter
despite
no
report
has
been
presented in respect of above
mentioned
irregularities
which
leads multiplicity of litigations to
the poor tenure holders.

6. Taking note of the aforesaid
facts which are pleaded, the Court had
required the learned Standing Counsel to
seek instructions. Once the instructions
were placed before the Court, this Court
had passed the order dated 03.09.2024 as
under:-

Heard learned counsel for
the petitioners as well as Dr.
Krishna Singh, learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents
9 All. Keshav Prasad & Ors. Vs. Consolidation Commissioner, Lko. & Ors.
1379
who has provided a copy of the
written instructions for perusal of
the Court and the same is taken on
record.
As per the instructions, it
has been informed that the entire
petition
suffers
from
material
concealment of fact.
It has been further pointed
out that even earlier few of the
present petitioners including the
petitioner no. (i) and (iv) amongst
others had filed a Writ Petition
bearing No. 943 (Consolidation) of
2005 which came to be dismissed
on 21.03.2007 relating to the same
property.
It has further been pointed
out that it was noticed that the
petitioners
were
involved
in
falsification of the records and a
First
Information
Report
was
lodged against them on 27.12.2012
and this fact has also been
concealed.
It has also been submitted
that the proceedings under the
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 were duly
proceeded and complied with so
much so that the notification under
Section 52 of the Act of 1953 was
made on 19.10.2020.
Since the petitioners are
responsible for encroaching and
falsely occupying the government
land, hence, without disclosing the
aforesaid facts, the instant petition
has been filed.
The matter is serious.
The learned counsel for the
petitioners is directed to file their
response and clearly indicating by
bringing on record the complete
pleadings
of
W.P.
No.
943
(Consolidation) of 2005 including
the
fact
whether
any
First
Information Report was lodged
against them on 27.12.2012 and
what is the status as to whether the
matter has gone to the trial and
whether at any point of time, the
petitioners were apprehended in
context
with
the
said
First
Information Report. Sri Mohan
Singh, learned counsel who usually
appears for the Gaon Sabha has
informed the Court that other than
the matter which has been brought
to the notice of the Court by the
learned Standing counsel, there is
further
material
concealment,
inasmuch as, the Gaon Sabha
concerned had also filed a writ
petition against the fraudulent
entries of which the petitioners are
the beneficiaries wherein the Court
had required the petitioners to file
a counter affidavit which was not
done, however, in order to avoid
the same, the petitioners are
allegedly said to have filed the
subsequent petitions which are
connected with the petition filed by
the Gaon Sabha and this fact has
also not been disclosed.
The learned counsel for the
petitioner is directed to implead the
Gaon Sabha concerned as a partyrespondent no. 5 during the course
of the day.
Sri Mohan Singh, learned
counsel for the Gaon Sabha is
directed to bring the details of all
the pending litigations within the
aforesaid period of one week.
The
learned
Standing
counsel is directed to bring the
material filed along with the
written instructions on record by
1380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
way of a short counter affidavit and
as noticed above, the petitioner
shall also file the affidavit as called
for within a period of one week.
List this matter on 12th
September, 2024, as fresh showing
the name of Sri Mohan Singh, as
counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

7. On 12.09.2024, the Court had
passed the following order which reads as
under:-

This Court had passed a
detailed order on 03.09.2024 and
in terms whereof the learned
counsel for the petitioners was
required
to
file
his
response
regarding the earlier petitions filed
by him, the reference of which has
not been mentioned in the instant
petition and it has come to light
only in light of the instructions
available with the learned Standing
Counsel as well as the learned
counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
The learned counsel for the
Gaon Sabha as well as the learned
Standing Counsel have filed their
short counter affidavits bringing
the material on record as required
in terms of the order dated
03.09.2024.
The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that since he has
received a copy of the short counter
affidavit filed by the State as well
as the Gaon Sabha today itself, he
requires some short time to respond
to that and he further submits that,
though, he has collected all the
materials as is required in terms of
the earlier order but the affidavit
could not be sworn, hence, he may
be granted some liberty so that the
compliance of the order dated
03.09.2024 is made also referring
to the short counter affidavits filed
by the learned counsel for the Gaon
Sabha as well as the learned
Standing Counsel.
Let the same be done by
18th September, 2024.
The learned counsel for the
petitioners
shall
provide
an
advance copy of his affidavit in the
aforesaid context both to the
learned counsel for the Gaon
Sabha as well as the learned
Standing Counsel.
List this matter shall come
up before this Court on 23rd
September, 2024, as fresh.

8. Thereafter the matter was listed
on 23.09.2024 and on the said date a
rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the
learned counsel for the petitioners.

9. The State had filed a short
counter-affidavit on 11.09.2024 under the
signatures of Shri Shivanand Singh Rathaur,
who is posted as the Consolidation Officer,
Lambhua, District Sultanpur wherein several
documents were brought on record indicating
the manner in which the consolidation
proceedings were held as well as the facts
that the writ petition suffered from gross
concealment of material facts. The short
counter-affidavit filed by the State also had
various annexures including orders which
have been passed earlier against which the
present petitioners had availed their rights of
challenging the said orders and final orders in
such proceedings were passed which arose
from consolidation proceedings.

10. Shri Mohan Singh, learned
counsel for the Gaon Sabha on 10.09.2024
had filed their short counter-affidavit also
9 All. Keshav Prasad & Ors. Vs. Consolidation Commissioner, Lko. & Ors.
1381
reflecting the aforesaid facts as narrated by
the State counsel including multiple writ
petitions filed by the petitioners at different
point of time relating to the property in
question as well as copies of the FIR which
were lodged against the petitioners for
falsification of the government documents.

11. It is in the aforesaid context,
the Court had required the counsel for the
petitioners to give his response and while
filing the rejoinder-affidavit the counsel for
the petitioners has primarily not disputed
the factual scenario regarding filing of
multiple petitions at different point of time.
It is also not disputed that the FIR had been
lodged against some of the petitioners
where they have been chargesheeted and
for some time they remained under judicial
custody as well.

12. In the aforesaid factual
backdrop and the pleadings which are now
before this this Court, the issue arises
regarding the bonafidies of the petitioners
while filing petitions and as to whether they
have concealed material facts from the
Court while instituting the instant petition
or whether the facts which have been
brought on record by the State counsel as
well as counsel for the Gaon Sabha can be
treated to be not relevant for the purposes
of adjudicating the controversy raised in
the instant petition, hence the petition be
entertained on its own strength.

13. Learned counsel for the
petitioners Shri Rahul Roshan Dubey has
attempted to submit that the issue raised in
the writ petition is regarding the anomalies,
irregularities
committed
by
the
Consolidation Authorities. Moreover, the
writ petitions, filed by the some of the
petitioners
earlier,
which
have
been
referred to by the State Counsel as well as
by the Gaon Sabha relates to different plots
number, hence the same has no nexus with
the facts of the instant case vis a vis the
relief's which have been claimed in the
instant petition.

14. It is also urged that the writ
petition filed by the petitioners on earlier
occasion were based on different cause of
action which has nothing to do with the
averments made in the instant petition,
hence the petitioners cannot be held to be
guilty of suppression of material facts nor
the petition suffers from any vice of
misrepresentation.

15. Per contra, Dr. Krishna Kumar
Singh as well as Shri Mohan Singh counsel
for the State and the Gaon Sabha
respectively has pointed out that the entire
text of the averments made in the writ
petition are based on an incorrect premise.
What has not been indicated by the
petitioners in the writ petition is the fact
that the notification under section 4(2) of
the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 was published on 15.07.1981 and the
notification under section 52 of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act was made
on 19.10.2020.

16. It is also submitted that the
alleged
non-compliance
of
various
provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act as alleged by the petitioners
is
patently
false;
inasmuch
as
the
publication in terms of Section 10 was
made on 31.12.1984, publication in terms
of Section 20 was done on 15.10.1985.
Publication in terms of Section 20 was
done on 30.11.1994, publication in terms of
Section 23 was done on 21.09.1988 and the
delivery of possession as contemplated
under Section 24 of the Act was done on
27.10.1998.
1382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
17. It is also submitted that certain
complaints had been made to the Hon'ble
the Chief Minister, upon which an inquiry
was held which revealed that in the village
in question i.e. Jamkhari Form C.H. 45 was
issued and the objections in this regard
which were received was decided. These
are acts and function which are done in the
official
line
of
duty
and
there
is
presumption in law that all official acts are
in accordance with law unless contrary is
proved.

18. It is further submitted that
reference was initiated bearing No.419 /51
under Section 48 (3) of the U.P. C H. Act
1953 which revealed that fraudulent entries
were existing in the name of certain
persons which included the petitioners and
thereafter the same were corrected and the
fraudulent entries were expunged on
18.08.2005. The then Deputy Director of
Consolidation also directed the Settlement
Officer of Consolidation concerned to
lodge an FIR against erring persons which
inter alia included the petitioners no.1 and
4. They were also apprehended and later
enlarged on bail. In respect of Plot no.65,
the Gaon Sabha had proposed construction
of a water tank and this was opposed and
interfered with by the family members of
the petitioner no.1 and an FIR was lodged
bearing no.170/23 under sections 186, 353,
323, 504, 506 IPC and 2/3 Prevention of
Damages to Public Property Act by the
Laekhpal concerned.

19. It is in this context that the
petitioners no.1 and 5 filed multiple
petitions. The petitioner no.1 Keshav
Prasad alongwith two others had filed writ
petition No.943 (Cons.) of 2005 against the
order dated 18.08.2005 ( i.e. the order by
which
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation in reference had expunged
the fraudulent entries and directed the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation to
lodged an FIR.) Needless to say that the
said writ petition came to be dismissed on
merits on 21.03.2017.

20. The Gaon Sabha had also filed
a petition bearing Writ-C No.15987 of 2021
stating therein that the Gram Panchayat had
reserved the plot for constructing of Gram
Panchayat Bhawan and since there was
certain fraudulent entries which were made
the subject matter of judicial proceedings
and the entries were corrected but the
private respondents of the said petition
No.15987
of
2021
were
creating
interference who are none other than the
petitioners of this petition while Writ-C
No.15987 of 2021 is still pending.

21. It is further urged that for the
cause of action as agitated in the instant
petition, first the petitioners had filed WritC No.2626 of 2024 before the Division
Bench of this Court and the said petition
was dismissed by the Division Bench
granting liberty to the petitioners to assail
the order before the appropriate court. It is
also pointed out that the counsel for the
present petition in the instant case merely
Shri
Rahul
Roshan
Dubey,
was
representing the petitioners in Writ-C
No.2626 of 2024 as well as in another
petition preferred under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India bearing No.1547 of
2024 which also came to be dismissed by
means of order dated 28.03.2024. Another
petition Writ-C No.2882 of 2024 was filed
before another Single Judge of this Court
which was directed to be connected with
Writ-C No.15987 of 2021 (which was filed
by the Gaon Sabha) by means of order
dated 01.04.2024. However, there is no
disclosure of the aforesaid petition either in
the instant petition nor the relevant orders
9 All. Keshav Prasad & Ors. Vs. Consolidation Commissioner, Lko. & Ors.
1383
have been brought on record by ways of
annexures.

22. What has been brought on
record is an order passed by a Division
Bench of this Court wherein the present
petitioners had filed a PIL bearing No.667
of 2024 and the Division Bench of this
Court by means of order dated 07.08.2024
noticing that the present petitioners had not
filed their objections to the basic year
Khatauni, hence their case in the shape of a
PIL was not maintainable. However, liberty
was granted to seek remedy as may be
prescribed in law. It is thus urged that all
the aforesaid facts which gave a cause of
action ought to have been disclosed, hence
non-disclosure leads to misrepresentation
and petitioners have definitely not come
before the Court with clean hands.
Accordingly, the petition deserves to be
rejected.

23. Shri Mohan Singh, learned
counsel has also adopted the aforesaid
arguments of Dr. Krishna Kumar Singh.

24. The Court has heard the
learned counsel for the parties and also
perused the material on record.

25. Before adverting to the
aforesaid
submissions,
it
will
be
worthwhile to take a look at the law
relating to concealment of the material
facts and suppression vis a vis the duty of
the courts especially Constitutional Courts
while dealing with the writ petition.

26. This Court had the opportunity
to examine such an issue in Bhagwan Das
Chela Balram Das Vs. District Magistrate
Ambedkarnagar and others, 2023 (1) ADJ
342 [LB] wherein this Court with the aid of
decision rendered by the Apex Court
relating to the issue of concealment of
material facts had noticed as under:-

"In Ram Chandra Singh
Vs. Savitri Devi and others; (2003)
8 SCC 319 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under:
"15. Commission of fraud
on
court
and
suppression
of
material facts are the core issues
involved in these matters. Fraud as
is well-known vitiates every solemn
act. Fraud and justice never dwells
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 former either by
word or letter.
17. It is also well settled
that
misrepresentation
itself
amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent
misrepresentations 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 willfully 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.
19. In Derry v. Peek,
[1889] 14 A.C. 337, it was held:
In an 'action of deceit the
plaintiff must prove actual fraud.
Fraud is proved when it is shown
that a false representation has been
made knowingly, or without belief
1384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in its truth, or recklessly, without
caring whether it be true or false.
A false statement, made
through carelessness and without
reasonable ground for believing it
to be true, may be evidence of fraud
but does not necessarily amount to
fraud. Such a statement, if made in
the honest belief that it is true, is
not fraudulent and does not render
the person make it liable to an
action of deceit."
20. In Kerr on Fraud and
Mistake, at page 23, it is stated:
"The true and only sound
principle to be derived from the
cases
represented
by
Slim
v.
Croucher
is
this:
that
a
representation is fraudulent not
only when the person making it
knows it to be false, but also when,
as Jessel, M.R., pointed out, he
ought to have known, or must be
taken to have known, that it was
false.
This
is
a
sound
and
intelligible
principle,
and
is,
moreover, not inconsistent with
Derry v. Peek. A false statement
which a person ought to have
known was false, and which he
must therefore be taken to have
known was false, cannot be said to
be
honestly
believed
in.
"A
consideration of the grounds of
belief", said Lord Herschell, "is no
doubt
an
important
aid
in
ascertaining whether the belief was
really entertained. A man's mere
assertion that he believed the
statement he made to be true is not
accepted as conclusive proof that
he did so."
21.
In
Bigelow
on
Fraudulent Conveyances at page 1,
it is stated:
"If on the facts the average
man would have intended wrong,
that is enough."
It was further opined:
"This conception of fraud
(and since it is not the writer's, he
may speak of it without diffidence),
steadily kept in view, will render
the administration of the law less
difficult, or rather will make its
administration
more
effective.
Further, not to enlarge upon the
last matter, it will do away with
much of the prevalent confusion in
regard to 'moral' fraud, a confusion
which, in addition to other things,
often causes lawyers to take refuge
behind such convenient and indeed
useful but often obscure language
as 'fraud upon the law'. What is
fraud upon the law? Fraud can be
committed only against a being
capable of rights, and 'fraud upon
the law' darkens counsel. What is
really aimed at in most cases by
this
obscure
contrast
between
moral fraud and fraud upon the
law, is a contrast between fraud in
the individual's intention to commit
the wrong and fraud as seen in the
obvious tendency of the act in
question."
22. Recently this Court by
an order dated 3rd September, 2003
in Ram Preeti Yadav vs. U.P. Board
of High School & Intermediate
Education & Ors. reported in JT
2003 (Supp. 1 ) SC 25 held:
"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
former either by words or letter.
Although negligence is not fraud
9 All. Keshav Prasad & Ors. Vs. Consolidation Commissioner, Lko. & Ors.
1385
but it can be evidence on fraud.
(See Derry vs. Peek [1889] 14 A.C.
337 ) In Lazarus Estate vs. Berly
[1971] 2 W.L.R. 1149 the Court of
Appeal stated the law thus:
"I cannot accede to this
argument for a moment "no Court
in this land will allow a person to
keep an advantage which he has
obtained by fraud. 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". The Court is careful
not to find fraud unless it is
distinctly pleaded and proved; but
once it is proved it vitiates
judgments,
contracts
and
all
transactions whatsoever."
In
S.P.
Chengalvaraya
Naidu vs. Jagannath 1994 (1) SCC
1 this Court stated that fraud
avoids
all
judicial
acts,
ecclesiastical or temporal."
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.
24. In Arlidge & Parry on
Fraud, it is stated at page 21:
"Indeed, the word sometime
appears to be virtually synonymous
wit "deception", as in the offence
(now repealed) of obtaining credit
by fraud. It is true that in this
context "fraud" included certain
kind of conduct which did not
amount to false pretences, since the
definition referred to an obtaining
of credit "under false pretences, or
by means of any other fraud". In
Jones, for example, a man who
ordered a meal without pointing
out that he had no money was held
to be guilty of obtaining credit by
fraud but not of obtaining the meal
by false pretences: his conduct,
though fraudulent, did not amount
to a false pretence. Similarly it has
been suggested that a charge of
conspiracy to defraud may be used
where a "false front" has been
presented to the public (e.g. a
business appears to be reputable
and creditworthy when in fact it is
neither) but there has been nothing
so concrete as a false pretence.
However, the concept of deception
(as defined in the Theft Act 1968 )
is broader than that of a false
pretence in that (inter alia) it
includes a misrepresentation as to
the defendant's intentions; both
Jones and the "false front" could
now be treated as cases of
obtaining property by deception."
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 f any equitable doctrine
including res-judicata.
26. In Smt. Shrisht Dhawan
vss. M/s. Shaw Brothers 1992
AIR(SC) 1555 ], it has been held
that:
"Fraud
and
collusion
vitiate even the most solemn
proceedings in any civilized system
of jurisprudence. It is a concept
descriptive of human conduct."
27. In S.P. Chengalvaraya
vs. Jagannath [ 1994 (1) SCC 1 ]
1386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
this Court in no uncertain terms
observed:
"...The
principles
of
"finality of litigation" cannot be
passed to the extent of such an
absurdity that it becomes an engine
of fraud in the hands of dishonest
litigants. The Courts of law are
meant
for
imparting
justice
between the parties. One who
comes to the Court, must come with
clean hands. We are constrained to
say that more often than not
process of the Court is being
abused. Property-grabbers, taxevaders, bank-loan dodgers and
other unscrupulous persons from
all walks of life find the court-
process a convenient lever to retain
the illegal gains indefinitely. We
have no hesitation to say that a
person whose case is based on
falsehood, has no right to approach
the Court. He can be summarily
thrown out at any stage of the
litigation.... A fraud is an act of
deliberate
deception
with
the
design of security 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... A
litigant, who approaches the Court,
is bound to produce all the
documents executed by him, which
are relevant to the litigation. If he
withholds a vital document in order
to gain advantage on the other side
then he would be guilty of playing
fraud on the Court as well as on the
opposite party."
28. In Indian Bank vs.
Satyam Fibers (India) Pvt. Ltd. [
1996 (5) SCC 550 ], this Court
after referring to Lazarus Estates
(supra) and other cases observed
that
'since
fraud
affects
the
solemnity,
regularity
and
orderliness of the proceedings of
the Court it also amounts to an
abuse of the process of the Court,
that the Courts have inherent
power to set aside an order
obtained by practising fraud upon
the Court, and that where the Court
is misled by a party or the Court
itself commits a mistake which
prejudices a party, the Court has
the inherent power to recall its
order".
It was further held:
"The judiciary in India also
possesses inherent power, specially
under Section 151 CPC, to recall
its judgment or order if it is
obtained by fraud on Court. In the
case of fraud on a party to the suit
or proceedings, the Court may
direct the affected party to file a
separate suit for setting aside the
decree obtained by fraud. Inherent
powers are powers, which are
resident in all Courts, especially of
superior jurisdiction.