Fraud vitiates all judicial acts; claims of land ownership based on fraudulent documents cannot establish valid title.

JUDGMENT :

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

'Fraus Omnia Vitiat, the maxim can be translated as fraud unravels all. The issue that we are called upon to consider in this batch of writ appeals is whether the maxim applies to the facts of the instant case.

2. Writ Appeals No.322/2023, 309/2023, 349/2023, 388/2023, 362/2023, 354/2023 are preferred against the common judgment dated 07.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions No.9482/2020 connected with Writ Petitions No.9179/2020, 9196/2020, 9203/2020, 9275/2020, 9502/2020, 9529/2020, 14796/2020, 10434/2021 (KLR-RES).

Writ Appeal No.789/2023 is filed by respondents No.3, 4 and 5 in Writ Petition No.9179/2020 being aggrieved by the common judgment dated 07.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge inasmuch as it allows Writ Petition No.9179/2020 filed by Shri. K.R. Sudhir and Shri. A.Mahaboob Pasha.

3. We have heard Shri. D.R Ravishankar, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Prashanth M.M, learned advocate and Shri. Narayanaswamy P.M, learned advocate; Shri. S.M. Chandrashekar, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Chandrashekar Reddy R.A, learned advocate; Shri. Vinod Prasad, learned counsel; Shri. K.N Krishna Rao, learned counsel; Shri. S.H. Kazi, learned counsel; Shri. Chandrashekar Patil, learned counsel; Shri. Shamnaz Abubakar, learned counsel for Shri. Ponnanna M.B learned advocate and Shri. K. Lokesh, learned counsel along with Shri. Vijaya Kumar K, learned counsel appearing for the private parties.

Shri. B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for BWSSB.

Shri. Kempanna, learned Additional Advocate General, Shri. Kiran V. Ron, learned Additional Advocate General along with Smt. Mamatha Shetty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

4. The learned Single Judge has succinctly stated the facts of the instant case.

The basic facts are not in dispute. By virtue of a Notification issued under Section 1(4) of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, the entire K.G. Chokkanahalli Village of Yelahanka Hobli stood vested in the State of Karnataka. The appellants herein contended that they had derived title over the respective properties which are the subject matter of these appeals from five orders of grant dated 15.02.1965, 17.10.1966, 30.07.1975, 31.09.1978 and 23.06.1984 or from purchases made from the grantees or their successors in interest under these grants. They also rely on the Sale Deed executed on 19.01.1920 by one Kollegal Sheebanna in favour of six persons, namely, Muninarasimha Reddy, Nadappa @ Nadukala, Narasimha Reddy, Anjani, Huchappa, Mudaiah and Munishamy.

5. Relying on the orders of grant, rights in succession and Sale Deeds allegedly executed by the grantees, then successors in interest and further successive sale deeds, the writ petitioners sought mutation of the respective parcels of land in their favour. On 30.04.1996, the Tahasildar directed the names of the grantees under the alleged 1978 grant to be entered in column No.12(2). This Order was challenged by Krishnappa and Mariyappa before the Assistant Commissioner. By an order dated 08.08.1997, their appeal was allowed and the mutation was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tahasildar. While so, on 17.08.2000, a direction was issued by the Special Officer to the Hon'ble Chief Minister to the Deputy Commissioner to conduct an enquiry regarding entries made in respect of Survey No.75/4. The Deputy Commissioner called for a report from the Tahasildar by communication dated 17.08.2000. The said report has been considered extensively at paragraphs No.50 to 54 of the j