# Vishu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 884
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-07-23
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 7777 of 2023
- **Bench:** Surya Kant, Dipankar Dutta, Ujjal Bhuyan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/vishu-vardhan-vishnu-pradhan-v-the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-38413
- **Pages:** 80

## Headnote

Issue arose whether the impugned order having merged with this
Court's order in Reddy Veerana's case, as claimed by R, renders
the present appeal which lays a collateral challenge to an order of
this Court itself not maintainable; whether the present writ petition
is not maintainable, as it seeks to challenge a judicial order which,
by its very nature, can never be said to violate Fundamental
Rights; whether the appellant can pursue a civil appeal against the
impugned order as well as a petition for review of the decision of
this Court in which the impugned order has merged, as claimed,
simultaneously; whether the appellant has engaged in forum
shopping; and whether the R obtained the impugned order, as
well as this Court's order in Reddy Veerana's case, by practising
fraud and deception upon the courts and, thus, liable to be set
aside/recalled.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India - Arts.32, 226 - Dispute in respect
of ownership of land - Fraud played by one on courts to
reap benefits - Land acquired by the New Okhla Industrial
Development Authority in 2005 and now forms a part of Sector
18, NOIDA - Land jointly purchased in 1997 by R, one S and
the appellant - Relying on joint ownership, the trio initiated
various legal proceedings seeking multiple relief from time to
time, before and after the acquisition of the land by NOIDA -
Appellant's case that R made several attempts to assert his
exclusive ownership in proceedings where the appellant and
S were not joined as parties; that in one such proceeding,
R succeeded and the High Court, by the impugned order,
declared him the sole owner - Appellant alleging the conduct
* Author
1372
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of R as fraudulent, filed instant appeal, petition for review and
application for recall:
Held: Fraud unravels everything - R tailored a situation to suit
his convenience by not impleading the appellant as a party with
the sole intention of obtaining an order in respect of not only the
quantum of compensation payable for acquisition of the subject
land but also a declaration as to his entitlement thereto all, behind
the appellant's back, is all fraud - R's failure before the High Court
to disclose the earlier series of litigation where he consistently
asserted joint ownership with the appellant and S being a fact
having a bearing on the merits of the case, sufficient to vitiate the
impugned order - Suppression of material facts before the High
Court by R is writ large; highlights the fraudulent intent behind
R's claim however, his fraudulent conduct not confined to that
forum alone - Rapid pleadings, exclusion of a necessary party,
and abandonment of the suit clearly reflects a collusive effort by
R to manufacture support for his claim of sole ownership - All
this confirms that his deceptive practices date back over two
decades - Judicial orders procured by R by subverting the judicial
process through fraud and concealment of material facts cannot
be permitted to stand - Fact of the appellant being a co-owner of
the property could not have been discovered by either the High
Court or this Court unless the same were placed before such
courts - Impugned order and the decision of this Court in Reddy
Veerana's case procured by R are tainted by fraud and, thus,
lack legal sanctity and validity - As regards the maintainability
of petition, writ petition did not disclose violation of any of the
fundamental rights including, inter alia, the right to have access
to an effective legal remedy, since all the available options for
relief are being sought to be explored by him and, hence, is not
maintainable - Writ petition cannot lie against a judicial order -
There being no challenge to any judicial order, this ground of
challenge rejected - Furthermore, this Court is not exercising
any "intra-court appeal" jurisdiction - Fraud is an exception
to the doctrine of merger and considering that the impugned
order of the High Court and the decision of this Court in Reddy
Veerana h

## Text

_Characters 0–39,571 of 170,684. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39571 for what follows._

[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1371 : 2025 INSC 884
Vishu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan
v.
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 7777 of 2023)
23 July 2025
[Surya Kant, Dipankar Dutta* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the impugned order having merged with this
Court's order in Reddy Veerana's case, as claimed by R, renders
the present appeal which lays a collateral challenge to an order of
this Court itself not maintainable; whether the present writ petition
is not maintainable, as it seeks to challenge a judicial order which,
by its very nature, can never be said to violate Fundamental
Rights; whether the appellant can pursue a civil appeal against the
impugned order as well as a petition for review of the decision of
this Court in which the impugned order has merged, as claimed,
simultaneously; whether the appellant has engaged in forum
shopping; and whether the R obtained the impugned order, as
well as this Court's order in Reddy Veerana's case, by practising
fraud and deception upon the courts and, thus, liable to be set
aside/recalled.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India - Arts.32, 226 - Dispute in respect
of ownership of land - Fraud played by one on courts to
reap benefits - Land acquired by the New Okhla Industrial
Development Authority in 2005 and now forms a part of Sector
18, NOIDA - Land jointly purchased in 1997 by R, one S and
the appellant - Relying on joint ownership, the trio initiated
various legal proceedings seeking multiple relief from time to
time, before and after the acquisition of the land by NOIDA -
Appellant's case that R made several attempts to assert his
exclusive ownership in proceedings where the appellant and
S were not joined as parties; that in one such proceeding,
R succeeded and the High Court, by the impugned order,
declared him the sole owner - Appellant alleging the conduct
* Author
1372
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of R as fraudulent, filed instant appeal, petition for review and
application for recall:
Held: Fraud unravels everything - R tailored a situation to suit
his convenience by not impleading the appellant as a party with
the sole intention of obtaining an order in respect of not only the
quantum of compensation payable for acquisition of the subject
land but also a declaration as to his entitlement thereto all, behind
the appellant's back, is all fraud - R's failure before the High Court
to disclose the earlier series of litigation where he consistently
asserted joint ownership with the appellant and S being a fact
having a bearing on the merits of the case, sufficient to vitiate the
impugned order - Suppression of material facts before the High
Court by R is writ large; highlights the fraudulent intent behind
R's claim however, his fraudulent conduct not confined to that
forum alone - Rapid pleadings, exclusion of a necessary party,
and abandonment of the suit clearly reflects a collusive effort by
R to manufacture support for his claim of sole ownership - All
this confirms that his deceptive practices date back over two
decades - Judicial orders procured by R by subverting the judicial
process through fraud and concealment of material facts cannot
be permitted to stand - Fact of the appellant being a co-owner of
the property could not have been discovered by either the High
Court or this Court unless the same were placed before such
courts - Impugned order and the decision of this Court in Reddy
Veerana's case procured by R are tainted by fraud and, thus,
lack legal sanctity and validity - As regards the maintainability
of petition, writ petition did not disclose violation of any of the
fundamental rights including, inter alia, the right to have access
to an effective legal remedy, since all the available options for
relief are being sought to be explored by him and, hence, is not
maintainable - Writ petition cannot lie against a judicial order -
There being no challenge to any judicial order, this ground of
challenge rejected - Furthermore, this Court is not exercising
any "intra-court appeal" jurisdiction - Fraud is an exception
to the doctrine of merger and considering that the impugned
order of the High Court and the decision of this Court in Reddy
Veerana have been found to be vitiated by fraud, the plea of R
as regards the non-maintainability of the present proceedings
based on the merger doctrine of no significance - When the Court
has been the victim of fraud, it's hands cannot be tied down by
procedural laws in a manner to defeat the interests and rights of
other parties - An appeal against a decree or order, passed or
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1373
Vishu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
made by an inferior court, before a superior court and a review
of the same decree/order before the court which passed/made it
cannot simultaneously be pursued by the same party - However,
on facts there is an absence of a two-pronged assail in two
different proceedings by the appellant to the same decree or
order: whereas the civil appeal is directed against the impugned
order, a petition has subsequently been filed by the appellant for
review of the decision in Reddy Veerana's case (which had the
occasion to modify the impugned order) - Thus, neither s.114
nor Or.XLVII r.1, CPC would create a legal bar for entertaining
the two proceedings-appeal and review that have been initiated
by the appellant - Due to fraud having been played by R, the
doctrine of merger does not apply and, thus, the impugned order
is open to interference notwithstanding the decision of this Court
in Reddy Veerana's case - Impugned order set aside, since fraud
has vitiated the entire proceedings - As a logical corollary of the
impugned order, the decision of this Court in Reddy Veerana's
case, which too was obtained by playing fraud, will also be
a nullity, and thus stand recalled in exercise of the inherent
powers - Application for recall of the order whereby this Court
directed the appellant to approach the court u/s.30 of the 1894
Act for appropriate relief allowed. [Paras 49, 51, 54, 60, 63, 64,
80-82, 84, 89, 122-124, 133, 134, 138-140, 144]
Doctrines - Doctrine of Merger - Application of - Explanation:
Held: When an appeal is limited to a specific part of the judgment
and order of the first-instance court, the merger occurs only to that
extent, leaving the rest intact and available for future consideration -
Extent of merger is determined by the subject matter of the appeal -
Merger can only operate on issues which were the subject-matter
of the appellate court's judgment and order and cannot have any
application to issues which are not being taken on appeal by
either party or which had not been touched upon by the appellate
court - Application of the doctrine of merger, in every case, should
be accompanied by an awareness of its limitations and should not
be wielded to close avenues for addressing genuine concerns -
Prioritizing justice and fairness should supersede an absolute
insistence on finality - While the latter is commendable, the former
is superior - These doctrines, even though are grounded in sound
and justifiable public policy arguments, yet, do not limit the powers
of the courts in cases where larger public interest is at stake - They
have been adapted to accommodate exceptions and qualifications,
1374
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
leaving room for acknowledging special circumstances, particularly
in matters of public significance - Doctrine of merger may not have
any application in all cases of cognate civil appeals being carried
from the same order (obviously at the instance of a party different
from the appellant who approached this Court first in point of time).
[Paras 110, 111, 113, 122, 123]
Case Law Cited
Ramesh B. Desai v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta [2006] Supp. 3 SCR 414 :
(2006) 5 SCC 638 - relied on.
E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N. [1974] 2 SCR 34 : (1974) 4 SCC 3;
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] 2 SCR 621 : (1978) 1 SCC
248; Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel [1985] Supp. 2 SCR 131 :
(1985) 3 SCC 398; D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab : (1971) 2
SCC 269; Ramdas Athawale v. Union of India [2010] 3 SCR 1059 :
(2010) 4 SCC 1; Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra
[1966] 3 SCR 744 : AIR 1967 SC 1; Nidhi Kaim v. State of Madhya
Pradesh [2017] 4 SCR 527 : (2017) 4 SCC 1; S.P. Chengalvaraya
Naidu v. Jagannath [1993] Supp. 3 SCR 422 : (1994) 1 SCC 1;
Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Bhoopendra Singh (2022) 14 SCC
277; Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (LAPSE-5 J.)
[2020] 3 SCR 1 : (2020) 8 SCC 129; Reddy Veerana v. State of U.P.
[2022] 3 SCR 663 : (2022) 14 SCC 252; Sathyanath v. Sarojamani
[2022] 4 SCR 46 : (2022) 7 SCC 644; Poonam v. State of U.P.
[2015] 14 SCR 565 : (2016) 2 SCC 779; Ajay Ishwar Ghute and
Ors. v. Meher K. Patel and Ors. [2024] 5 SCR 155 : 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 681; Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd. v. Special Tahsildar
(Land Acquisition) Neyvely [1994] Supp. 4 SCR 567 : (1995) 1
SCC 221; S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar
[2004] 3 SCR 56 : (2004) 7 SCC 166; United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh [2000] 2 SCR 264 : (2000) 3 SCC 581;
Shrisht Dhawan (Smt) v. Shaw Bros. [1991] Supp. 3 SCR 446 :
(1992) 1 SCC 534; A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. [2007]
3 SCR 603 : (2007) 4 SCC 221; Shri Krishnan v. Kurukshetra
University [1976] 2 SCR 722 : (1976) 1 SCC 311; Amina Marwa
Sabreen v. State of Kerala (2018) 14 SCC 193; Amrit Lal Berry v.
CCE [1975] 2 SCR 960 : (1975) 4 SCC 714; Harbhajan Singh v.
State of Haryana [2022] 12 SCR 1113 : (2023) 11 SCC 693; Anita
Kushwaha v. Pushap Sadan [2016] 9 SCR 560 : (2016) 8 SCC
509; Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India [2023] 14 SCR 477 :
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1334; Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1375
Vishu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Union of India [1985] Supp. 3 SCR 382: (1986) 1 SCC 133;
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India
Ltd. [1979] 3 SCR 1014 : (1979) 3 SCC 489; Basudeo Tiwary v.
Sido Kanho University [1998] Supp. 1 SCR 633 : (1998) 8 SCC
194; Shivdev Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909; Inderjit
Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab [2011] 10 SCR 557 : (2011) 12
SCC 588; Natvarlal Punjabhai v. Dadubhai Manubhai [1954] 1
SCR 339 : (1953) 2 SCC 489; State of Madras v. Madurai Mills
Co. Ltd [1967] 1 SCR 732 : 1967 AIR 681; Collector of Customs,
Calcutta v. East India Commercial Co. Ltd. and Others [1963]
2 SCR 563; Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] Supp. 1
SCR 538 : (2000) 6 SCC 359; Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Sri
Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Kollegal
[2019] 3 SCR 411 : (2019) 4 SCC 376; Commissioner of Sales Taxv.
Vijai International Udyog (1984) 4 SCC 543; MRF Ltd. v. Manohar
Parrikar [2010] 5 SCR 1081 : (2010) 11 SCC 374; Commissioner
of Central Excise, Delhi v. Pearl Drinks Ltd. [2010] 7 SCR 808 :
(2010) 11 SCC 153; S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of T.N. [2002]
Supp. 2 SCR 498 : (2002) 8 SCC 361; Jatan Kumar Golcha v.
Golcha Properties (P) Ltd. [1971] 3 SCR 247 : (1970) 3 SCC 573;
State of Punjab v. Amar Singh [1974] 3 SCR 152 : (1974) 2 SCC
70; State of Punjab v. Shamlal Murari [1976] 2 SCR 82 : (1976)
1 SCC 719; M.V. "Vali Pero" v. Fernandeo Lopez [1989] Supp. 1
SCR 187 : (1989) 4 SCC 671 - referred to.
Bhoopendra Singh & Ors. v. Awas Vikas Parishad, 2005 (2)
Uttaranchal Decision 295; Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Tejaji
Farasram Kharawalla, 1953 SCC OnLine Bom 28 - referred to.
Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, (1956) 1 Q.B. 702; King v. Hoare,
(1844) 13 Meeson and Welsby 494; Kendall v. Hamilton, (1879)
4 App. Cas. 504; Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v. Zodiac Seats UK
Ltd., [2013] UKSC 46 - referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
Black's Law Dictionary (10th Edition) - referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Land
Acquisition Act, 1894; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013;
Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
1376
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Fraudulent conduct; Fraud; Subverting the judicial process through
fraud; Concealment of material facts; Suppression of material
facts; Doctrine of merger; Forum shopping; Joint ownership;
Exclusive ownership; Quantum of compensation payable for
acquisition of the subject land; Violation of fundamental rights;
Actus curiae neminem gravabit; Public policy; Public interest;
Ownership of a land; suggestio falsi nor suppressio veri; Writ
jurisdiction; Deception upon the courts; Fraud played by one
on courts to reap benefits; New Okhla Industrial Development
Authority; Petition for review; Application for recall; Fraud unravels
everything.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7777 of 2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 2272 of 2019
With
W.P. (C) No. 673 of 2023, MA No. 1737 of 2023 in MA 255 of
2023 in C.A. No. 3636 of 2022, CONMT. PET. (C) No. 23-24 of
2024 in W.P. (C) No. 673 of 2023, Diary No. 6013 of 2024 and
SMC (C) No. 3 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
By Courts Motion (for Appellant)
Advs. for the Appellant:
Dushyant Dave, Niranjan Reddy, Nikhil Goel, Shyam Divan,
Devadatt Kamath, Sr. Advs., Aniruddha Deshmukh, Vipin Nair,
Sughosh Subramanyam, Udayaditya Banerjee, Ms. Sanskruti
Samal, Mohd Aman Alam, M.B. Ramya, Aditya Narendranath,
Ms. Madhavi Yadav.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. A.A.G,
Shyam Divan, Devakatt Kamath, Pinaki Mishra, Shoaib Alam, Sr.
Advs., Vipin Nair, Sughosh Subramanyam, Udayaditya Banerjee,
Ms. Sanskruti Samal, Mohd Aman Alam, Ms. M.B. Ramya, Aditya
Narendranath, Ms. Madhavi Yadav, Yashvardhan Singh, Shashank
Shekhar Singh, Abhinav Singh, Sameer Jain, Suvigya Awasthy,
Vivek Joshi, Deepesh Raj, Soayib Qureshi, Ashutosh Ghade, Ms.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1377
Vishu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Ruby Singh Ahuja, Pravin Bahadur, Amit, Ms. Kanika Gomber,
Ms. Akanksha Thapa, Ms. Uzma Sheikh, Tribhuvan Narain Singh,
M/s. Karanjawala & Co., Abhinav Agrawal.
Advs. for Intervenor:
Ms. Shalini Kaul, Chaman Choudhary.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Dipankar Datta, J.
Index*
Introduction ................................................................................
3
Facts ...........................................................................................
6
Impugned Order ..........................................................................
20
Before This Court In Civil Appeal No 3636-37 Of 2022 ..........
22
Contentions ................................................................................
24
Arguments by Vishnu ............................................................
24
Arguments by Reddy .............................................................
25
Arguments by NOIDA ............................................................
28
Reply by Vishnu regarding objections to maintainability ....
29
Issues ..........................................................................................
29
Analysis .......................................................................................
30
I.
Has Reddy Played Fraud On The Courts? .........................
33
II. Maintainability .......................................................................
47
A. Maintainability of the Writ Petition ..............................
47
B. Maintainability of Civil Appeal/Jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court ...............................................................
56
Intra-Court Appeal ........................................................
56
Merger ...........................................................................
59
Procedure, If An Impediment To Exercise Jurisdiction .
76
C. Vishnu pursuing the civil appeal as well as the review
petition and application for modification/recall,
simultaneously ................................................................
78
D. Forum Shopping ..............................................................
81
Conclusion ..................................................................................
82
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
1378
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Introduction
1.
In Nidhi Kaim v. State of Madhya Pradesh1, a three-Judge Bench
of this Court emphatically asserted "... stated simply, nothing ...
nothing ... and nothing, obtained by fraud, can be sustained, as
fraud unravels everything."
2.
At the end of the last century, this Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya
Naidu v. Jagannath2 noticed the growing trend of abuse of the
process of law by dishonest litigants playing fraud on courts. Fraud
was held to be an act of deliberate deception with the design of
securing something by taking unfair advantage of another: a deception
in order to gain by another's loss. The opening paragraph of such
decision reads as follows:
"Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal"
observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about
three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law
that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on
the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such
a judgment/decree - by the first court or by the highest
court - has to be treated as a nullity by every court,
whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any
court even in collateral proceedings.
This Court then warned that:
5. 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 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, tax-evaders,
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, who's case is based on falsehood,
1
(2017) 4 SCC 1
2
(1994) 1 SCC 1
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1379
Vishu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily
thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
3.
"Fraud unravels everything" was famously said by Lord Denning
in Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley3, emphasising that fraud can
invalidate judgments, contracts and all transactions. The principle
highlights the importance of honesty and transparency in legal
proceedings and transactions. However, it is a cardinal principle of
law that fraud has to be pleaded and proved. Order VI Rule 4, of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 19084 may be referred to ordaining that
particulars, inter alia, of fraud have to be stated in the pleadings.
4.
From the multiple decisions of this Court on 'fraud', what follows is
that fraud and justice cannot dwell together, the legislature never
intends to guard fraud, the question of limitation to exercise power
does not arise, if fraud is proved, and even finality of litigation
cannot be pressed into service to absurd limits when a fraud is
unravelled.
5.
The issue of fraud unravelling everything is pertinent here due to the
nature of dispute we are tasked to adjudicate; hence, its reference
at the beginning of our judgment.
6.
The primary parties involved in these proceedings are the appellantwrit petitioner-applicant, Vishnu Vardhan5, and the respondent no.7,
Reddy Veeranna6. Vishnu has alleged that fraud has been played by
Reddy on courts to reap benefits behind Vishnu's back. The tangled
facts involved in these proceedings, the complex web of activities of
the primary parties and their associates and the relief claimed in the
civil appeal as well as the writ petition by Vishnu would have to be
examined in great depth to ascertain whether fraud, as alleged by
him, is established; and, if so, how it has affected the flow of judicial
proceedings and the manner in which the same has to be dealt with.
In the process, other petitions/applications that are on record would
also require due consideration.
3
(1956) 1 Q.B. 702
4
CPC
5
Vishnu
6
Reddy
1380
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
7.
In the civil appeal, by special leave, Vishnu has assailed the judgment
and order7 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad8 dated 28th
October, 2021, whereby the High Court allowed a writ petition9 filed
by Reddy.
8.
Concurrently with the civil appeal, Vishnu has presented a writ petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution. He has prayed for diverse relief
therein, which we propose to notice a little later.
9.
The present lis concerns rival claims in respect of ownership of a land10
situated in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, which was acquired
by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority11 in 2005 and now
forms a part of Sector 18, NOIDA. The land was jointly purchased
in 1997 by Reddy, one T. Sudhakar12 and Vishnu13. Relying on their
joint ownership, the trio initiated various legal proceedings seeking
multiple relief from time to time, before and after the acquisition
of the land by NOIDA. Vishnu alleges that Reddy made several
attempts to assert his exclusive ownership in proceedings where
Vishnu and Sudhakar were not joined as parties. He further alleges
that in one such proceeding, Reddy succeeded and the High Court,
by the impugned order, declared him the sole owner. Aggrieved by
the conduct of Reddy (which, according to Vishnu, is fraudulent)
and the impugned order, Vishnu has sought relief from this Court
by presenting the civil appeal.
10. While the relief claimed in the civil appeal is for setting aside of the
impugned order, what is prayed in the writ petition is (i) a declaration
that Reddy is not the sole owner of the subject land, (ii) an order
setting aside NOIDA's decision (reflected in its letter dated 17th
January, 2023) to sanction full compensation for acquisition of the
land to Reddy, (iii) a declaration that the trio, as co-owners of the
land, be jointly awarded compensation for acquisition thereof and (iv)
ordering an inquiry to unearth the fraud and to initiate appropriate
legal proceedings against the persons responsible.
7
impugned order
8
High Court
9
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2272/2019
10
referred to as land, subject land or property, interchangeably, hereafter
11
NOIDA
12
Sudhakar
13
the trio, wherever referred to collectively
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1381
Vishu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
11. Inter alia, there is a petition for review (defective) and an application
for recall, both at the instance of Vishnu. While the former seeks
review of the judgment and order dated 5th May, 2022 of this Court
in C.A. No. 3636/2022, the latter seeks recall of an order dated 30th
January, 2023 in MA 255/2023 in Civil Appeal 3636/2022.
Facts
12. Since it is essential to delve deep into the facts for a proper
determination of the claims raised by Vishnu against Reddy and the
officials of NOIDA, for the sake of clarity and convenience, the full
factual details are set out in the table below.
17th April, 1976
Vide Notification No. 4157 dated 17th April, 1976
issued under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh
Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, NOIDA
was constituted by declaring large tracts of land
comprising of several villages in Gautam Budh
Nagar District, including lands in the village of
Chhalera Banger.
1985-1986
Between 1985 and 1986, NOIDA acquired a
certain portion of land from one Banwari and
Bansha Singh and compensation was received
by them.
24th April, 1997
The trio jointly purchased a land measuring 5-1310 Bighas at Khasra No. 422 and 427M of Village
Challera Banger, Gautam Budh Nagar, for a sum
of Rs. 1 crore from Bansa and Banwari Singh.
Only 2-18-10 Bighas of land14 which was unacquired by NOIDA is the subject of the present
proceeding. The names of the trio were entered
in the revenue records and the record of rights.
1998
First Suit
The trio instituted a suit15 seeking a permanent
injunction against NOIDA from disturbing their
possession and title in the subject land.
14
subject land
15
Civil Suit No. 416/1998
1382
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
16th February, 2000
The trial court by its decree restrained NOIDA from
interfering with the possession of the unacquired
land admeasuring 2-18-10 bighas.
26th June, 2000
Vide an agreement to sell, Sudhakar purportedly
relinquished his share in the subject land to Reddy
for Rs. 10 lakh.
2001
Aggrieved, NOIDA carried an appeal16 from the
trial court's decree dated 16th February, 2000
before the First Appellate Court.
30th March, 2001
The First Appellate Court dismissed the civil
appeal filed by NOIDA and this decision not being
challenged, attained finality.
30th May, 2001
Second Suit
Sudhakar instituted a civil suit17 against Reddy,
seeking a declaration of his 1/3rd share in the
subject land.
31st May, 2001
Reddy filed his written statement in the said suit.
On the same day, a compromise agreement was
signed by and between Sudhakar and Reddy,
conceding that Reddy was the absolute owner
of the land.
12th September, 2002
The trial court, declaring that the compromise
agreement was not bona fide, refused to act
upon it.
5th December, 2002
The civil suit instituted by Sudhakar was dismissed
for default by the trial court.
2003-2004
NOIDA introduced a scheme for development of
a commercial hub at Sector 18, NOIDA.
11th November, 2003
Sudhakar requested the Deputy CEO to convert
the subject land for use from agricultural to
commercial, which was denied on 13th January,
2004.
27th March, 2004
An office order set the rates for commercial land
at Rs. 1,10,000 per sq. metre and for residential
land at Rs. 4000 per sq. metre.
16
Civil Appeal No. 61/2000
17
Civil Suit No. 283/2001
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1383
Vishu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
2003 - 2005
NOIDA allegedly made several attempts
to dispossess the trio from the subject
land.
12th April, 2004
NOIDA issued an acceptance letter to DLF
Universal for allotment of the commercial hub.
2005
The trio filed Execution Petition No. 2/2005 for
execution of the decree of the trial court dated
16th February, 2000, restraining NOIDA from
dispossessing them from the land.
3rd February, 2005
Agreement for Sale
Vishnu purportedly executed an Agreement for
Sale for his share of the land with Reddy for a
sum of Rs. 25 lakh.
3rd February, 2005
PoA
Vishnu executed a General Power of Attorney
(PoA) in favour of one Venkataramana.
25th February, 2005
NOIDA and DLF Universal entered into a lease
deed for Plot No. M-3, Sector 18, NOIDA for
a total premium of Rs. 173 crore for an area
admeasuring 54,320.18 sq. metre.
2nd August, 2005
Execution Petition No. 2/2005 was rejected.
4th August, 2005
The trio, through their power of attorney holders,
except for Reddy who was himself present,
agreed to sell land measuring 5-13-10 Bighas in
favour of M/s Prabhat Home Pvt. Ltd. for 50%
of the undivided share of the entire land, for a
consideration of Rs. 13.15 crore.
2nd September, 2005
Land Acquisition
A Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition
Act, 189418 in respect of the subject land was
issued.
3rd October, 2005
The trio had filed another execution application
bearing Execution Application No. 6/2005. This
application was rejected on 3rd October, 2005.
18
1894 Act
1384
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
November/December
2005
WP(C) 66797/2005 was filed before the High
Court by the trio, challenging the orders dated
2nd August, 2005 and 3rd October, 2005 whereby
Execution Petition No. 2/2005 and Execution
Application No. 6/2005, respectively, were
rejected.
22nd November, 2005
A notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act in
respect of the subject land was issued.
21st December, 2005
PoA - Cancellation
The General Power of Attorney dated 3rd February,
2005 was purportedly cancelled by Vishnu.
December 2005
Vishnu filed WP(C) No. 75152/2005, challenging
the land acquisition proceedings initiated by
NOIDA authorities.
28th April, 2006
WP(C) 66797/2005 filed by the trio was allowed,
and the matter was remanded to the executing
court to decide whether the land in question stood
acquired by NOIDA.
31st May, 2006
Third Suit
Reddy filed a civil suit19 against Vishnu, praying
for a declaration that he was the sole owner of
the land.
7th June, 2006
Vishnu executed a registered agreement for sale,
agreeing to sell his 1/3rd share of the subject land
to one Ranbir Singh Narag for Rs. 3 crore.
4th October, 2006
Vishnu, through his Power of Attorney holder
(Venkataramana), filed a written statement in
Civil Suit No. 370/2006, admitting Reddy's claims.
4th October, 2006
A Joint Compromise Application was filed by
Reddy and the PoA holder of Vishnu.
Note: Vishnu argues that Venkataramana had
no authority to file the written statement or a
compromise application, as the PoA had already
been cancelled on 21st December, 2005.
19
Civil Suit No. 370/2006
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1385
Vishu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
17th November, 2006
Civil Suit No. 370/2006, i.e., the third suit, was
decreed as per the compromise.
18th December, 2006
Execution Petitions, which had been remanded,
were rejected by the executing court on 1st August,
2008 because the lands were already acquired by
NOIDA. Challenging the rejections, the trio filed
WP(C) 70088/2006 on 18th December, 2006. At
paragraph 3 (three) of this WP, the trio pleaded
that they are the co-owners of the property.
10th December, 2009
While WP(C) No. 75152/2005, filed by Reddy,
challenging the land acquisition proceedings was
pending, Sudhakar and Vishnu filed impleadment
application claiming themselves to be the coowners of the property. The said application was
allowed.
10th December, 2009
WP(C) No. 75152/2005 for compensation was
allowed by the High Court in light of the decision
of the Uttaranchal High Court in Bhoopendra
Singh & Ors. v. Awas Vikas Parishad20.
Note: This Court has upheld the decision of the
Uttaranchal High Court in Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad v. Bhoopendra Singh21.
2010
NOIDA challenged the order of the High Court
dated 10th December, 2009 in SLP (C) No.
20196-97/2010.
1st September, 2010
Reddy had Vishnu's name deleted from the
land records qua the subject land using the
compromise decree dated 17th November, 2006.
In this regard, Khatauni Entry of Fasli Year 14071412 dated 26th September, 2010 shows Reddy
as the sole owner.
20
2005 (2) Uttaranchal Decision 295
21
(2022) 14 SCC 277
1386
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
10th January, 2011
Notice was issued by this Court in the SLP
filed by NOIDA, and operation of the impugned
judgment dated 10th December, 2009 in WP(C)
No. 75152/2005 was stayed. On leave being
granted, this SLP was numbered as Civil Appeal
No. 731/2013.
30th January, 2011
An award for compensation of the subject land
was made. This award has not been placed on
record.
4th January, 2013
Vishnu was served by paper publication but did
not enter appearance before this Court.
4th November, 2015
Civil Appeal No. 731/2013 filed by NOIDA was
dismissed by this Court.
2015-17
Reddy made representations to NOIDA and the
District Magistrate seeking compensation in terms
of the judgment dated 4th November, 2015 passed
by this Court.
8th January, 2018
The District Magistrate rejected Reddy's
representation.
22nd October, 2018
Reddy initiated action for contempt by filing
Contempt Petition No. 1841-42/2018 in Civil
Appeal No. 731/2013 and alleged wilful and
deliberate non-compliance with the order dated
4th November, 2015. The petition was withdrawn
with liberty to avail appropriate remedies before
the High Court.
17th January, 2019
Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court,
Reddy filed WP(C) 2272/2019 before the High
Court praying for:
quashing of the order dated 8th January, 2018.
quashing of the award dated 31st January, 2011.
a declaration that the land acquisition
proceedings have lapsed and to direct NOIDA to
either initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings
or pass a fresh award or hand over possession
to Reddy.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1387
Vishu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
7th August, 2020
Fourth Suit
Vishnu instituted Civil Suit No. 471/2020 before
the trial court claiming that the compromise decree
dated 17th November, 2006, was null and void.
11th October, 2021
Served with summons, Reddy filed his written
statement in Civil Suit No. 471/2020. However,
it has not been placed on record.
28th October, 2021
Impugned order
in C.A. No. 7777/2023
The High Court allowed WP(C) 2272/2019 filed
by Reddy and accepted the plea that he was the
sole owner of the property. The compensation
was enhanced from Rs.181.87 per sq. yard (or
Rs.152.04 per sq. metre) to Rs.1,10,000 per sq.
metre, with a deduction for development charges
at 50%, i.e., Rs. 55,000 per sq. metre, along with
a 30% solatium and interest @ 15%.
30th October, 2021
Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, Reddy
challenged the same in SLP (C) No. 19035/2021
which, on leave being granted, was numbered as
Civil Appeal No. 3636/2022.
8th March, 2022
NOIDA filed a counter in Civil Appeal No.
3636/2022.
24th March, 2022
Aggrieved by enhancement of compensation by
the order dated 28th October, 2021 of the High
Court, NOIDA too challenged the same in SLP
(C) No. 5500/2022. Upon leave being granted,
the SLP was numbered as Civil Appeal No.
3637/2022.
5th May, 2022
Challenge to the
impugned order was
dismissed by this
Court
This Court vide a common judgment and order,
dismissed the civil appeal filed by NOIDA (C.A.
No. 3637/2022) and partly allowed the civil appeal
filed by Reddy (C.A. No. 3636/2022), setting aside
deduction of the development charges ordered
by the High Court.
10th August, 2022
Review Petition (C) Nos. 874-875/2022 filed by
NOIDA were dismissed by this Court.
15th September, 2022
Due to the financial implications arising out of the
order dated 5th May, 2022, the then CEO, NOIDA
issued a letter to the Deputy Secretary, Govt. of
Uttar Pradesh seeking guidance from for filing a
curative petition.
1388
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
19th September, 2022
Vishnu filed IA No. 155895/2022 in C.A. No.
3636/2022 seeking modification of the order dated
5th May, 2022.
30th September, 2022
Pursuant to letter dated 15th September, 2022, the
matter was examined by the Law Department and
letter dated 30th September, 2022 was issued to
NOIDA requesting that instead of filing a curative
petition, an attempt be made to negotiate the
compensation amount with Reddy.
7th October, 2022
A meeting/negotiation took place between
NOIDA and Reddy, where they agreed to have
the compensation payable reduced from Rs.359
crore to Rs.295 crore, which was paid to Reddy
on 28th December, 2022.
30th January, 2023
IA No. 155895/2022 in C.A. No. 3636/2022 was
disposed of by a Bench of two-Judges [of which
one of us (Surya Kant, J.) was a member], granting
Vishnu liberty to agitate his claim regarding coownership before the Reference Court.
3rd July, 2023
Vishnu approached this Court with the civil
appeal and the writ petition, which are under
consideration.
3rd July, 2023
Vishnu filed MA 1737/2023 in MA 255/2023 in
Civil Appeal 3636/2022 seeking recall of order
dated 30th January, 2023.
13th August, 2023
MA Diary No.
6013/2024
(tagged with the
present set of
matters)
Vishnu filed a defective Review Petition Diary no.
33040/2023 praying for review of the judgment
dated 5th May, 2022. As the defects were not
cured within time, registration thereof was
declined22 by the Registrar (J-A) vide order
dated 4th January, 2024. Vishnu filed an appeal23
against the Registrar's order, registered as MA
Diary No. 6013/2024 in Review Petition Diary
No. 33040/ 2023. On 24th October, 2024, the
Chamber Judge ordered that the said appeal be
tagged with Civil Appeal 7777/2023 and the other
connected matters.
22
under Order VIII Rule 6(3) and 6(4) of Supreme Court Rules, 2013
23
under Order VIII Rule 6 (5) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1389
Vishu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT
14th August, 2023
Notice and stay by
this Court
Notice on the special leave petition, writ petition,
miscellaneous application as well as on the
application seeking condonation of delay was
issued by a bench of this Court (cor. Surya Kant
and Dipankar Datta, JJ.). Reddy was directed to
keep the compensation amount received by him
in an FDR and to file affidavits with details of such
FDR along with an undertaking not to encash the
FDR without prior permission of this Court.
21st November, 2023
Reference to a larger
bench
After noting his pleading that the compensation
amount had been invested in immovable
properties, Reddy was directed to furnish details of
the immovable properties/lands and investments
in the business within three weeks. The two-Judge
Bench (cor. Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, JJ.)
condoned the delay in filing the SLP, granted leave
to appeal, issued Rule Nisi in the writ petition and
considering the issues likely to be raised in the
civil appeal directed that these matters be placed
before a larger Bench after obtaining necessary
orders from the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.
10th January, 2024
Vishnu filed Contempt Petition No. 23-24/2024 in
WP (C) 673/2023 for violation of the orders dated
14th August, 2023 and 21st November, 2023.
8th May, 2024
This Court disposed of the IAs filed by Reddy
seeking recall/modification of orders dated 21st
November, 2024 and 14th August, 2023 by
directing him to file details of the investments
made by him (out of the compensation amount)
in a sealed cover, duly signed by him, along with
an affidavit/undertaking inter alia stating : (i) that
he shall not create any third-party rights in respect
of the said properties; (ii) that the compensation
amount has been invested only in the assets to
be disclosed by him in the sealed cover; (iii) that
the said assets have been disclosed in his Income
Tax Returns; and (iv) that there are no third-party
interests or encumbrances on the said assets, and
if any exist, the same shall be disclosed.
1390
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
August 2024
SMC (C) No. 3/2024
(tagged with the
present set of
matters)
Suo Moto Contempt Petition (C) No. 3 of 2024
was registered against NOIDA for not having filed
the counter affidavit within the time prescribed as
per order dated 8th May, 2024.
September 2024
The civil appeal, the writ petition and the
connected matters were heard on several dates.
3rd October, 2024
This Bench, during the final hearing, opened the
sealed cover and, upon perusal of its contents,
noted that instead of making full disclosures,
Reddy had submitted a vague and misleading
certificate from Pradeep Reddy & Co., Chartered
Accountants, omitting essential details regarding
the parties involved, the nature and manner of the
investments, the terms securing such investments,
and the particulars of the properties and loans.
Accordingly, the affidavit submitted by Reddy was
rejected and he was granted one final opportunity
to deposit a sum of Rs. 300 crore with the Registry.
Reddy was further restrained from entering into
any agreement to sell and/or creating any thirdparty rights in respect of immovable assets owned
by him, his family and the companies created by
him or his family members.