IMPORTANT POINT
A decree obtained by fraud is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. The court emphasized the need for a proper inquiry into allegations of fraud and collusion, and the wrongful registration of deeds.

JUDGMENT :

(Sunita Agarwal, J.)

The two connected Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 518 of 2024 and 519 of 2024 are arising out of a common judgment and order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the learned single Judge in dismissing two writ petitions namely Special Civil Application No. 4881 of 2002 and Special Civil Application No. 12559 of 2002. The Special Civil Application No. 4881 of 2002 was filed by the persons, who claim to be the members of the Society namely Rajdhani Co-operative Society Ltd.; whereas the Special Civil Application No. 12559 of 2002 was filed by the said society itself through its Secretary. On an Application filed by the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 4881 of 2002, the aforesaid society has been impleaded as a party in the said petition.

2. The reliefs claimed in the writ petitions have been noted by the learned single Judge in the judgment impugned, which are -

(i) To quash and set aside the order recording the consent terms and consequential decree dated 27.03.2002 passed in the Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 1998;

(ii) To declare the registration of the cancellation deeds dated 30.06.2000 and 10.06.2000 and further deeds extending oral tenancy dated 30.06.200 and 10th July, 2000, registered by the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar unilaterally, to be void;

(iii) To command the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (in the original petition) namely the State respondents including the Sub-Registrar, not to make any changes in the revenue records on the basis of the aforesaid deeds of cancellation dated 30.06.2000 and 10.07.2000 as well as the oral tenancy documents dated 30.06.2000 and 10.06.2000;

(iv) To restrain the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (in the original petition) from making changes in the revenue records pertaining to the lands-in-question on the basis of the aforesaid deeds of cancellation and the deeds for creation of oral tenancy;

(v) To stay the execution and operation of the consent terms recorded on 27.03.2002 in the Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 1998.

3. Both the writ petitions admitted in the year 2002, had been dismissed vide the impugned common judgment relegating the original petitioners namely the Society and its members to avail the alternative remedy of filling Civil Suit seeking for cancellation of the consent decree. The reasoning given by the learned single Judge to arrive at the said conclusion is that on consideration of the relevant aspects of the matter, a full-fledged trial is needed in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

4. The appellant-original petitioner Society seek to challenge the judgment impugned; firstly, on the ground that once the writ petitions were admitted and the affidavits were exchanged between the parties, the learned single Judge was required to decide the matter on merits instead relegating petitioners society to file a Civil Suit. It was argued by Mr. R. S. Sanjanwala, the learned senior counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) that the prayer made in the writ petition to set aside the consent decree dated 27.03.2002 in the Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 1998 was made by bringing the factum of fraud played by the private respondents in obtaining the said decree. Once the allegations were of fraud committed by the respondents in obtaining the consent decree, the learned single Judge ought not to have relegated the petitioners to approach the Civil Court, inasmuch as, a decree or order obtained by playing fraud is a nullity and non est in the eye of law.

5. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors. vs. Govt. of A.P. and Ors. [(2007) 4 SCC 221] as also on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 02.08.2023 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 865 of 2023 to assert that any judgment and order, if obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a decision in law. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. It was submitted that the Apex Court has observed that in A