Judgment Or Order Obtained By Playing Fraud Can Be Challenged Before Any Court At Any Point In Time: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court reiterated that any judgment or order obtained by playing fraud can be challenged in any Court at any point in time.
In that context, the Bench of Justice Alok Mathur observed that, "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."
Counsel DR Shukla, along with others, appeared for the petitioner, while CSC Karunakar Srivastava, along with others, appeared for the respondent.
The case centred on disputed land originally owned by Bhaiya Jagdish Dutt Ram Pandey, declared surplus in 1964 under the 1960 Act. A portion of this land was allotted to Kishore, a landless laborer, in 1970. Allegations arose against Ram Naresh, a lekhpal, who allegedly committed forgery to replace Kishore’s name with his own in the revenue records. Despite investigations confirming the forgery and legal proceedings dismissing Ram Naresh’s appeals, he succeeded in having Kishore’s lease canceled in 1996 under Section 11(2) of the Ceiling Act.
Eventually, in 2011, Ram Naresh’s application led to the cancellation of Kishore’s lease and the inclusion of Ram Naresh’s name in the revenue records, concluding a lengthy legal battle over land ownership.
The respondents argued that the initial order passed by the prescribed authority concerning the land of the original tenure holder was made without giving any opportunity to the respondent, and that the petitioner's land was also declared surplus illegally and arbitrarily. The issue before the bench was whether Ram Naresh (Lekhpal) had abused his official position and fraudulently altered the revenue record to have his name recorded against Gata No. 521.
The High Court observed that, "The golden thread of fraud is found in the entire action of Ramnaresh (Lekhpal). He himself got his name included in the revenue records illegal and unauthorizedly. The said mutation was not only without jurisdiction, there was no semblance of any legality, nor was any order passed for mutating the name of Ramnaresh in place of Kishore, who resisted compliance of the order of the Chief Revenue Officer when directions were issued for deletion of his name and restoration of the name of Kishore. The aforesaid facts clearly indicate active connivance and indulgence of Ramnaresh in the aforesaid acts of fraud and manipulation in the revenue records."
With that background, it was held that there was no doubt that all the orders passed in favour of Ramnaresh were obtained by playing fraud upon the authorities at each stage, and accordingly, all the orders deserved to be set aside, restoring the land in favour of Kishore and his successors.
Consequently, the petition was allowed with costs of Rs 50,000 to be paid to the petitioner.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Counsels DR Shukla, Anurag Narain Srivastava, MD Shukla, Manoj Kr Singh, Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, Sudhanshu Tripathi
Respondent: CSC Karunakar Srivastava, Mohd Askam Khan, Nitin Srivastava
Cause Title: Ganga Prasad vs State of UP
Click here to read/download the Judgment
