Orders obtained through fraud and collusion are null and void, and the court has the power to quash such orders and direct appropriate action.

( 1 ) THIS petition discloses a great fraud perpetrated by the answering respondents in collusion with the authorities.

( 2 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 24. 11. 2001 Annexure-1 and for a mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to forthwith take back possession of the property in dispute from respondent Nos. 8 to 10. It is further prayed that a C. B. I, enquiry be directed against the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 7 to the writ petition.

( 3 ) HEARD Sri Deepak Jaiswal learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. B. Singh learned counsel for the respondents.

( 4 ) THE property in dispute is plot No. 56, area 1 bigha 5 Biswa situate in the city of Mirzapur which belonged to the late Bhairav Prasad Jaiswal who donated the said land for the purpose of an Eye Hospital by executing a Will on 7. 11. 1954 by which he created a trust for the said purpose in which the District Magistrate and one Anil Banerjee were the trustees. After the death of Bhairav Prasad Jaiswal one of his relatives applied for a letter of administration in testamentary Case No. 3/71 (converted to Suit No. 1/72 ). In this case this Court by its order dated 25. 9. 1973 issued letters of administration in favour of the Administrator General, U. P. (respondent No. 4 in this petition) and the Administrator General took possession of the property in question.

( 5 ) SECTION 51 of the Administrators General Act, 1963 provides: "all assets in the charge of the Administrator General which have been in his custody for a period of twelve years or upwards, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, without any application for payment thereof having been made and granted by him shall be transferred, in the prescribed manner, to the account and credit of the Government : provided that this section shall not authorise the transfer of any such assets as aforesaid, if any suit or proceeding is pending in respect thereof in any Court. In view of the above provision the property which came in the custody of the Administrator general in the year 1973 under the letters of administration granted by this Court stood automatically transferred to the State Government in the year 1985 on the completion of 12 years as provided in Section 51. Hence it is alleged that the Administrator General ceased to have any right of administration in the said property after the year 1985.

( 6 ) IT appears that on 17. 3. 1992 the Administrator General executed a lease deed for 90 years in favour of the respondent Nos. 8 to 10 and gave them possession. It is alleged this was done without any authority as the Administrator General has no right to do so after the year 1985.

( 7 ) THE petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation being Writ No. 24269 of 1994, Virendra kumar Gupta v. D. M. . Mirzapur and Ors. , and a Bench of this Court passed an order on 28. 7. 1994 directing the A. D. M. Mirzapur to take possession of the disputed land from respondent Nos. 8 to 10 In compliance of the letter of the State Government dated 4. 5. 1994. A true copy of the High Court order dated 28. 7. 1994 is Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

( 8 ) ON 3. 6. 1995 possession of the land in dispute was taken by the D. M. , Mirzapur from respondent Nos. 8 to 10 and an F. I. R. was lodged against them on 16. 4. 1997. On 24. 1. 2000 the petitioner filed a Misc. Application in Writ No. 24269 of 1994 informing the Court that possession has been taken by the D. M. pursuant to the order of the Court dated 28. 7. 1994 annexure-2 to the writ petition. Accordingly this Court passed an order dated 17. 4. 2000 vide annexure-7 to the writ petition stating that in view of the averments made in the affidavit of the petitioner Virendra Kumar Gupta, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

( 9 ) IT is alleged that taking the benefit of the word dismissed in the order of the Court dated 17. 4. 2000 the respondent Nos. 8 to 10 procured the Impugned order