IMPORTANT POINT
A consent decree obtained by fraud is a nullity and can be challenged in any court, reinforcing the principle that fraud vitiates all judicial acts.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. By means of the instant appeal, the appellant herein seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 03.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in granting the prayers made by the original petitioner for quashing the consent decrees dated 24.08.2000 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 637 of 2000 and dated 17.05.2003 in Regular Civil Suit No. 538 of 2003. Further the direction issued by the learned Single Judge that any action taken pursuant to the aforesaid consent decrees against the petitioner society be also quashed and set aside. A further direction has been given to the appropriate officer as authorised by the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara and the District Collector, to register criminal proceedings against the perpetrators of fraud.

2. We may note that the original Writ petition was filed by the society registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, constituted for the purpose of construction of residential units for its members. The original respondent no.4 who was holding the agricultural land bearing Revenue survey no.640 in the sim of village Gotri, District Vadodara had executed two sale deeds in favour of the petitioner society on 10.11.1985 with regard to an area of 1440 sq. mtrs. of land, which was declared as retainable land under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976. It is noted by the learned Single Judge that the ULC authority disposed of the declaration form submitted by the original owner, viz. respondent no.4 of by order dated 30.03.1991, whereunder an area of 3861 sq. mtrs. of Revenue survey no. 650 was declared surplus and vested with the State Government, while the remaining 1440 sq. mtrs. of land was declared in the holding of respondent no.4. It is also noted that the possession of the surplus land was already taken by the State authorities on 02.11.1985.

3. Much after the completion of the ceiling proceedings and execution of the sale deeds in favour of the original petitioner society, a civil suit was instituted by a third party, viz. respondent no.5 in the original petition before the Court of Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara seeking right in the entire piece of land bearing Revenue survey no. 650 admeasuring 5261 sq.mtrs. by praying for specific performance of an agreement. The said suit was registered as Special Civil Suit No. 637 of 2000. It is pertinent to note that only respondent no.4-original owner of the land in question was impleaded in the said suit and it was got disposed of on a compromise purshis dated 08.08.2000 submitted before the Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara. A decree dated 24.08.2000 in terms of the compromise was passed for execution of the sale deed.

4. It is an admitted fact of the matter that neither the State Government with which the area of 3861 sq. mtrs. of surplus declared land already vested nor the original petitioner society which had purchased the area of 1440 sq. mtrs. vide sale deeds dated 10.11.1985, were joined as parties in the suit. The result is that the suit was decreed on a compromise arrived between the original owner namely respondent no.4 and a third party plaintiff in order to frustrate the interest of the State and the society.

5. On coming to know about the compromise decree dated 24.08.2000, the petitioner society filed a Review application no.301 of 2000 before the Civil Judge (SD) Vadodara pointing out the correct facts.

6. During the pendency of the said review application, the appellant herein viz. the original respondent no.7 instituted a Regular Civil Suit No. 535 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge, Vadodara on 15.05.2003 on the plea of adverse possession over the area of 1440 sq. mtrs. of Revenue survey no. 650. Within a period of 2 days of the institution of the said suit, on a compromise purshis, the decree dated 17.05.2003 was passed granting declaration in favour of the appellant of being in possession of the land