Fraud vitiates even the most solemn transactions, and restitution is not applicable when the petitioner was guilty of fraud.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - In A.V.Papayya Sastry vs. Govt of A.P. (AIR 2007 SC 1546), the Apex Court observed that the fraud may be defined as an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing some unfair or undeserved benefit by taking undue advantage of another. Even most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud. Fraud is thus an extrinsic collateral act which vitiates all judicial acts, whether in rem or in personam. The principle of 'finality of litigation' cannot be stretched to the extent of an absurdity that it can be utilized as an engine of oppression by dishonest and fraudulent litigants. A judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. It can be challenged in any court at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. The relevant paragraphs 20, 22, and 23 are extracted as under:-

'20. Now, it is well settled principle of law that if any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. Before three centuries, Chief Justice Edward Coke proclaimed;

"Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal".

It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. Such a judgment, decree or order by the first Court or by the final Court has to be treated as nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings.

22. Fraud may be defined as an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing some unfair or undeserved benefit by taking undue advantage of another. In fraud one gains at the loss of another. Even most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud. Fraud is thus an extrinsic collateral act which vitiates all judicial acts, whether in rem or in personam. The principle of 'finality of litigation' cannot be stretched to the extent of an absurdity that it can be utilized as an engine of oppression by dishonest and fraudulent litigants.

23. XX XX XX

The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean-hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, taxevaders, bank-loan- dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court - process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation". (emphasis supplied)"

2. The decree holder assails the correctness of the concurrent orders passed by the Executing Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

3. Some peculiar facts are required to be noticed. Late Smt. Karnail Kaur wife of Sh. Bachan Singh was owner of 96.55 ordinary acres of land. As per the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The Collector vide order dated 06.08.1962, declared 50.86 ordinary acres of land (15.86 standard acres) as surplus (beyond ceiling limit) after leaving 60 ordinary acres as the permissible area (that is the area under the petitioner's ownership) as per the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. This order has never been challenged before and it remains final till date. During the consolidation of holdings, late Smt. Karnail Kaur remained in possession of whole of the land including the land which was declared as surplus. Till 1983, the officials of the State of Haryana did not take steps to take over possession of the land which was declared surplus (beyond the ceiling limit). In the meantime, in view of the provisions of the Haryana Sealing of Land Holdings Act, 1972, the land which was declared surplus vested in the State i