Back
2019 Supreme(Ori) 206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
A.K. RATH, J.
Prafulla Kumar Nayak and Another - Appellant
Versus
Khetramohan Nayak & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13939 of 2018
Decided On : 10-07-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Rajat Kumar Rath, Adv., Sandipani Nayak, Adv., Bikram Rath, Adv.
Fraud on the court renders a decree null and void, and it can be challenged in any court, even in collateral proceedings.
Headnote:
Fraud - Land Dispute - Orissa Land Reforms Act - Sec.8A - [OLR Act Sec.8A] - The court discussed the fraudulent practices of the opposite party in obtaining a decree and highlighted the legal principles established in Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, and Badami v. Bhali. The court found that the opposite party had played fraud on the court and obtained a decree, rendering it a nullity.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a land dispute that had a chequered history, including consolidation operations, a civil suit for permanent injunction, and an application for conversion of agricultural land to homestead. The opposite party obtained a decree through fraudulent means.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opposite party had played fraud on the court and obtained a decree, rendering it a nullity. The court quashed the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge and the Tahasildar.
Issues: The main issue was the fraudulent practices of the opposite party in obtaining a decree and the subsequent orders related to the conversion of agricultural land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles established in Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, and Badami v. Bhali to determine that the opposite party had played fraud on the court and obtained a decree, rendering it a nullity.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge and the Tahasildar, allowing the opposite party to make a fresh application for conversion of agricultural land in accordance with the order passed by the Consolidation Officer.
JUDGMENT :
A. K. RATH, J.
1. This petition challenges the order dated 12.4.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagatsinghpur in C.S. No.454 of 2014. By the said order, learned trial court disposed of the suit in terms of the compromise entered into between the plaintiff-opposite party no.1 and defendant no.2-oppoiste party no.1.
2. This case has a chequered history. The area in which the suit land falls, came under the purview of consolidation operation. Opposite party no.1 filed Consolidation Revision No.492 of 1993 before the Commissioner, Consolidation against Jhatu Nayak, father of the petitioners and husband of opposite party no.2. On 31.3.1995, the Commissioner, Consolidation, on the consent of the parties, remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer, Balikuda for effecting compromise. On 21.8.1996, father of the petitioners, opposite party no.1 and husband of opposite party no.2 filed a compromise petition along with the trace map for partition. By order dated 30.9.1996, the Consolidation Officer allotted 1/3rd share to each in accordance with the trace map. The said order has attained finality. Thereafter, opposite party no.1 filed Misc. Case No.51 of 2004 before the Tahasildar, Balikuda, opposite party no.4, for issuance of record-of-rights. Opposite party no.4 issued record-of-rights in the name of the father of the petitioners, opposite party no.1 and husband of opposite party no.2 respectively. While the matter stood thus, after lapse of fourteen years, opposite party no.1 instituted Civil Suit No.454 of 2014 on 28.3.2014 for permanent injunction impleading opposite party no.2 as defendant. A compromise petition was filed by the parties on 4.4.2014. The matter was placed before the Lok Adalat on 12.4.2014. The suit was decreed on compromise. Thereafter, opposite party no.1 filed OLR Case No.40 of 2016 before the Tahasildar, Balikuda for conversion from agricultural land to homestead. The same was allowed. The petitioners filed OLR Appeal No.8 of 2016 before the Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur, which is sub judice.
3. Heard Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Advocate along with Ms. Sandipani Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bikram Rath, learned counsel for opposite party no.1. None appears for opposite party no.2.
4. Mr. R.K Rath, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners argued with vehemence that the Consolidation Officer, Balikuda allotted 1/3rd share to the father of the petitioners, opposite party no.1 and husband of opposite party no.2. He allotted plots horizontally in accordance with the sketch map. Thereafter, opposite party no.4 issued record-of-rights. The order passed by the Consolidation Officer has attained finality. Thereafter, the opposite party no.1 instituted Civil Suit No.454 of 2014 on 28.3.2014 for permanent injunction impleading opposite party no.2. He has produced a forged and imaginary vertical sketch map. Both the parties filed an application on 4.4.2014. The matter was compromised in the Lok Adalat on 12.4.2014. Opposite party no.1 played fraud on the court and obtained the decree. The decree is a nullity. Basing on the same, he filed OLR Case No.40 of 2016 under Sec.8A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act ("OLR Act") for conversion from agricultural land to homestead. He suppressed the facts. The petition was allowed. Being emboldened by the order passed by the Tahasildar, Balikuda, opposite party no.1 stacked earth as well as stone over the land of the petitioners. To buttress the submission, he placed reliance on the decisions of the apex Court in the case of Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao, (1956) AIR SC 593, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) AIR SC 853 and Badami v. Bhali, (2012) 11 SCC 574.
5. Per contra, Mr. Bikram Rath, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 submitted that since the opposite party no. 2 disturbed the possession of the opposite party no.1, he was constrained to institute Civil Suit No.454 of 2014 for permanent injunction. Dur
