Important point
Appellate Tribunal under A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act has power to modify its order to correct the error which occurred due to fraud committed by declarant.

Headnote:(i) Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973—Section 10(3)—Appellate Tribunal determining the ceiling limit of respondent-declarant to be surplus and declared 0.4388 S.H. land to be in excess of ceiling limit on notified date—Additional Revenue Divisional Officer noticed that land which was surrendered had already been acquired under Land Acquisition Act—Show cause notice issued proposing declaration of alternative lands as surplus in lieu of lands which were earlier surrendered—Tribunal passed the order after verifying the records of land acquisition proceedings—Appeal was dismissed by Appellate Tribunal—High Court in revision held that Tribunal earlier having accepted land to be surrendered, it was not open to it to very the order—Appeal—It was a clear case of fraud—Merely because an enquiry was made, Tribunal was not divested of power to correct the error—Tribunal was justified in modifying earlier order—Impugned order of High Court was liable to be set aside.
       Held : Though the High Court accepted on principle that the Tribunal has ample power to reopen the matter when the error is apparent on the face of record, it held that once the enquiry had been conducted question of reopening the matter did not arise. It was held that under Section 10(3) of the Act the Tribunal has to make an enquiry after statement relating to surrender is filed. Merely because in the statement it was indicated that some land was proposed to be surrendered there was no scope for reopening the matter even though the land was not available to be surrendered. (Para 4)
       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, Tribunal was not divested of the power to correct the error when the respondent had clearly committed a fraud. (Para 7)
       Considering the aforesaid principles of law and the background facts, the Tribunal was justified in modifying the earlier order and varying it. The Appellate Tribunal did not commit any error in upholding it. The High Court’s order is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. (Para 18)
       (ii) Words and Phrases—Fraud—Intention to deceive—Whether it is from any expectation of advantage to the party himself or from the ill will towards the other is immaterial—It is an act of deliberate deception with a design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another—Representation to become fraudulent must be of fact with knowledge that it was false. (Paras 8 to 17)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The Appellate Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act has the authority to modify its previous orders to correct errors, especially when those errors are due to fraudulent conduct by the declarant (!) (!) .
The case involved a declaration by a respondent regarding the ceiling limit of land under the relevant land reform Act. The Tribunal initially determined certain land as surplus and in excess of the ceiling limit, and this decision was later accepted after an enquiry (!) .
Subsequently, it was discovered that the surrendered land had already been acquired by the state under land acquisition proceedings. A proposal was made to consider alternative lands as surplus, which was verified and upheld by the Tribunal (!) .
The High Court held that once the Tribunal had accepted the surrender after enquiry, it was not permissible to revisit or modify that order, implying a limitation on reopening cases after acceptance (!) .
The appellate Tribunal was justified in modifying its earlier order because the initial acceptance was based on a fraudulent act—specifically, the respondent's misrepresentation that the land had not been previously acquired, when in fact it had been (!) (!) .
Fraud is characterized as an act of deliberate deception with the intent to secure an unfair advantage. It involves false representation of fact, made knowingly or recklessly, with the knowledge that it is false, and with the intent to deceive (!) (!) (!) .
The concept of fraud encompasses deceit and injury to the deceived party, including non-economic harm such as damage to reputation or well-being. Fraudulent acts can include misrepresentation, concealment, or suppression of material facts (!) (!) .
The law recognizes that even after an enquiry and acceptance of surrender, the Tribunal retains the power to correct errors if it is established that fraud was committed. The act of fraud invalidates the initial order and justifies its modification or reversal (!) .
The legal definition of fraud emphasizes intentional misrepresentation of fact, with knowledge of its falsehood, aimed at misleading and obtaining an unfair advantage or causing harm (!) (!) (!) .
The order of the High Court was found to be erroneous because it did not adequately consider the fraudulent nature of the respondent’s conduct, and the Tribunal’s subsequent correction was justified and upheld (!) (!) .
Overall, the case underscores the principle that fraud vitiates proceedings and that authorities have the discretion and authority to revisit and correct their decisions when fraudulent conduct is proven, regardless of prior acceptance or enquiry (!) (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on these points.

Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh and the Mandal Revenue Officer (in short the ‘Revenue Officer’) Peddapuram, East Godavari call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. By the impugned order the High Court held that the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, East Godavari, Kakinada (in short “the Appellate Tribunal”) and the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada (in short the “Tribunal”) were not justified in holding that the respondents had fraudulently taken advantage by suppression of facts; thereby taking benefit under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, (in short ‘the Act’).

3. Basic features of the case which need to be noted are as under:

The respondent as declarant submitted a declaration as regards determination of his ceiling limit of land under the Act. The Appellate Tribunal passed an order dated 16.11.1978 determining the ceiling limit of the declarant to be surplus and declared 0.4388 S.H. land to be in excess of the ceiling limit on the notified date. Thereafter, certain lands were surrendered and surrender was accepted by order dated 8.5.1991 by the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms Kakinada. Subsequently, it was noticed that the land which was surrendered had already been acquired in proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1898 (in short the ‘L.A. Act’). Therefore, a notice was issued on 8.2.1995 proposing to consider declaration of alternative lands as surplus in lieu of the lands which were earlier surrendered. The Tribunal passed order in this regard after verifying the records of the land acquisition proceedings. An appeal was carried to the Appellate Tribunal and the same was dismissed. A revision was carried under Section 21 of the Act before the High Court, which by the impugned order held that it was for the Tribunal to have considered the correctness of the declaration made by the declarant. After having accepted the land to be surrendered, it was not to open to the Tribunal to vary the order. It was held that even though power was available to the Tribunal to reopen the matter and pass necessary orders when fraud was practiced, in the instant case the Tribunal having accepted the matter after enquiry, it was not open to take a different view.

4. Though the High Court accepted on principle that the Tribunal has ample power to reopen the matter when the error is apparent on the face of record, it held that once the enquiry had been conducted question of reopening the matter did not arise. It was held that under Section 10(3) of the Act the Tribunal has to make an enquiry after statement relating to surrender is filed. Merely because in the statement it was indicated that some land was proposed to be surrendered there was no scope for reopening the matter even though the land was not available to be surrendered.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the approach of the Tribunal is clearly erroneous. There is no dispute that the land which was offered for surrender had already been acquired under the L.A. Act and there was no scope for the respondent to again offer the said land. This was clearly fraudulent act and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in its view.

6. In response, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that having accepted the land offered for surrender after enquiry, it was not open to the Tribunal to take note of any acquisition earlier.

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, Tribunal was not divested of the power to correct the error when the respondent had clearly committed a fraud.

8. By “fraud” is meant an intention to deceive; whether it is from any expectation o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 935

Important pointAppellate Tribunal under A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act has power to modify its order to correct the error which occurred due to fraud committed by declarant.

Cases Referred (10)

Important point
Appellate Tribunal under A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act has power to modify its order to correct the error which occurred due to fraud committed by declarant.