Fraudulent consent decrees and unilateral cancellation deeds are void and non est in law; the court can quash such documents under Articles 226 and 227, asserting that fraud must not be tolerated in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ.

At the outset, we may note that on the request made by Mr. P.K.Shukla, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant in F/Letters Patent Appeal No. 38284 of 2025 that one more appeal against the common judgment and order dated 16.10.2025 has been filed by the appellant herein, we have summoned the record of F/Letter Patent Appeal No. 5050 of 2026 from the Registry which has been filed yesterday only, i.e. 12.02.2026 by the appellant herein, and is still under scrutiny.

2. Further, as the issues raised in both the Letters Patent Appeal, namely the present one and F/Letters Patent Appeal No. 5050 of 2026 are one and the same, inasmuch as, they are arising out of a common judgment of the learned single Judge, we have proceeded to hear both the appeals, including F/Letters Patent Appeal No. 5050 of 2026 at the filling stage itself, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties.

3. The delay in filling the Letters Patent Appeals has not been explained to the satisfaction of the Court in the delay condonation applications supporting the memo of the appeals. We do not find any good ground to condone the delay. However, since the learned counsel for the appellants has argued on the merits of the case, we have proceeded to consider the case of the appellants on merits, as well.

4. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, for the fact that both the Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned single Judge, they are being decided by this common judgment.

5. The facts, in brief, relevant to decide the controversy at hands are that the writ petition, namely Special Civil Application No. 12559 of 2002, was filed by the respondent No.1 herein, namely Rajdhani Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. for the main reliefs prayed therein as under :-

“6(A) The Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or writ of certiorari or writ in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order securing the name of the petitioner society in revenue record with the protection and its title (1) to quash and set aside the order recording the said Consent Terms and the consequential decree dated 27th March, 2002 passed in the Regular Civil Suit No.30 of 1998.

(B) Be pleased to declare that the registration of the Cancellation Deeds dated 30th June, 2000, Cancellation Deeds dated 10^th June, 2000 and the deed extending the so called oral tenancy of Gopalbhai C. Amin, dated 30th June, 2000 and 10th July, 2000, are void and to command the respondent see not to register the said deeds of Cancellation and the Deeds extending oral tenancy dated 30th June, 2000 and 10th July, 2000. Copies of the Index II whereof are at Annexure-L and M.

(C) Pending hearing of this petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to command the respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to make any changes in the Revenue Records on the basis of the Deeds of Cancellation dated 30th June, 2000 and 10th July 2000 (copies of the Index – II whereof are Annexure – L above) as well as on the basis of the so called documents extending the oal tenancy dated 30th June, 2000 and 10th July, (sic June) 2000.”

6. Another writ petition namely Special Civil Application No. 4881 of 2002 though initially had been filed by the Members of Rajdhani Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., but the society had been impleaded as the petitioner therein under the order dated 09.07.20