Any order obtained by a party by fraud can be avoided at any time and even in collateral proceedings.

S.S.Nijjar, J.

1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length.

2. it has been vehemently argued by Mr. Goyal, learned senior counsel that the Financial Commissioner was not competent to invoke suo moto powers under Section 18(6) of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972, after a period of 18 years. It has been further argued by the learned counsel that the Financial Commissioner has erred in holding that the petitioners has committed a fraud on the government while intimating number and ages of his children. In any event, the learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence on the record to show that the petitioners has committed any fraud. The earlier orders do not suffer from any illegality and had been acted upon for the last 18 years. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Loku Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors., (1999-3)123 P.L.R. 590 (S.C.).

3. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner shows that the ground of delay and laches was argued by the learned counsel before the Financial Commissioner. It was stated that the case had been brought after an in ordinate delay of 18 years and should be dismissed on that basis. It was further stated that Smt. Krishni, widow of Bhartu, Ram Singh Lambardar and Ram Chand, Sarpanch are illiterate and must have put their thumb marks without reading what was written in their statements. It was further stated that it was possible for the landlord to have four children between 1966 and 1969 since these four years contained 48 months and illiterate villagers did not practice family planning. Counsel has argued that every child had two names, one real name and another nickname and this had led to the confusion about the number and ages of the children.

4. After noticing the aforesaid submissions, the learned Financial Commissioner has given findings of fact. She has considered the evidence placed on record. Even verbal as well as written arguments but forward by both the sides have been taken into consideration. The matter had been remanded back to the Prescribed Authority by this Court in C.W.P. NO. 4675 of 1981 with a direction that the case may be decided afresh after giving the landowner adequate opportunity to establish number and ages of his children.

5. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the Prescribed Authority had passed order dated March 23, 1982. He accepted the fact that the landlord had six minor children on the appointed day. After allowing one primary unit and three additional units, the Prescribed Authority concluded that there was no surplus land.

6. The Financial Commissioner adverted to the contrary statements made by the claimants about the youngest child. It is further held that the Prescribed Authority has il-logically held that the youngest child would have been two years old on January 24, 1971 and, therefore, the number of minor children would be six on January 24, 1971. It is held that the aforesaid finding of the Prescribed Authority is based on no evidence. It has been further held that the statements made by the land owner in the declaration form about the number and ages of his children and the statements made by Smt. Krishni on March 16, 1982 regarding this subject and by Ram Singh Lambardar on March 16, 1982 on the same subject, all paint a different picture which puts a question mark on the veracity of these contradictory statements. The Financial Commissioner has also held that these contradictions also prove that efforts have been made to hide the truth. After examining all the aforesaid evidence, the Financial Commissioner had given a finding that the landlord had committed a fraud on the government while indicating the number and ages of his children. Thereafter, again, the Financial Commissioner points out that there are three certificates of the Additional Distr