Fraud vitiates every solemn act, and an order obtained by fraud can be recalled by the authority. The judiciary possesses inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud, and fraud unravels everything.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri. Abhishek Krishna for respondent no.3 and Shri. A.P. Singh on behalf of respondent no.4.

2. Petitioners’ application for mutation of their names in place of their father in regard to property in question submitted under Section 147 of Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter called the ‘Act, 1916’) was allowed vide order dated 9.10.2019 on basis of a registered will dated 18.10.2008 in their favour executed by their father as well as despite publication of notice, no objection was filed on behalf of contesting private respondents.

3. Contesting respondents instead of filing an appeal as provided under Section 160 of the, Act, 1916 filed a recall application for recalling above referred order dated 9.10.2019 on ground that it was a case of misrepresentation as petitioners despite knowledge have not disclosed that subsequently a will dated 3.6.2014 was executed in favour of private respondents and therefore said application was allowed by impugned order dated 9.10.2019 and appeal thereof was dismissed by the other impugned order dated 5.9.2022.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that authority under Section 147 of the Act, 1916 has no power to review its own order and remedy available to the private respondents was to file an appeal under Section 160 of the Act, 1916 as provided under Section 147 (4) of the Act, 1916. Petitioner has not misled the authority as he had no knowledge about any subsequent Will and subsequently has availed appropriate remedy available to him to challenge the same by way of filing a civil suit.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Sushila Devi Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad, Hathras & Anr., 2005 (3) AWC 2140, that “a close reading of Sub-section (4) of Section 147 shows that the amendment and alteration of the annual list is final and subject to the result of an appeal under Section 160 of the Act. Admittedly, the petitioner has not preferred an appeal under Section 160 of the Act, therefore, the order passed by the Tax Committee has attained finality and it will relate back to the date of the notice.”

6. Learned counsel for petitioners has also placed reliance on a judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Abdul Hameed & Anr. Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad Bela Patapgarh & Ors., 2019 0 Supreme (All) 237 and relevant paragraph nos.24,25 and 26 are mentioned hereinafter :

“24. This Court has already held in Awadhesh Singh Vs. Additional Commissioner, 2017 (9) ADJ 378 that writ petitions against Mutation Proceedings can be entertained, but on two grounds only (a) if the order impugned has been passed without jurisdiction or going beyond the jurisdiction that is vested in the authority by the Act and the Rules (b) if the order impugned creates, rights in favour of the parties or liabilities against the parties, which are against the settled provisions of the Statute or against a decision given inter-parties by a Competent Court of law.

25. The orders passed in Mutation Proceedings being summary in nature, writ petitions are usually not entertained, except for the exception carved out as referred to herein above.

26. Also, it is not that the petitioners are left remedyless in such matters. The petitioners can approach the competent Court of law for declaration of their rights on the basis of family settlement, if any, that was entered into between the parties in 1966.”

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4 have opposed aforesaid submissions and submitted that an order passed on basis of a fraud could be recalled by the authority who has passed the order. Claim of private respondents was based on their individual right i.e. a Will in their favour, therefore, it would fall within the purview of an application filed under Section 147 of the Act, 1916 for amendment and alteration of list. It was not mandatory to file a