Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Alok Mathur, J.
Ganga Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P.Through Secy. Finance And Revenue Deptt.Lko. – Respondent
WRIT - C No. - 3000027 of 2011
Decided On : 22-03-2024
Fraud - Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings - Section 27(4) of the Act, 1960 - Section 11(2) of the Act of 1960 - Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act - Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holding Act - Section 109A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act - Section 11(2) of the Act, 1960 - Section 27(4) of the act of 1960
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged several orders related to the cancellation of patta and mutation of land holdings. The petitioner claimed that the revenue records were fraudulently manipulated by a Lekhpal, resulting in the cancellation of the petitioner's patta and the substitution of another person's name.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Lekhpal had fraudulently manipulated the revenue records, leading to the cancellation of the petitioner's patta. The court held that all orders obtained through fraud were null and void, and set aside the impugned orders in favor of the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Lekhpal had misused his official position to fraudulently manipulate the revenue records, leading to the cancellation of the petitioner's patta.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that fraud vitiates all judicial acts, and any judgment, decree, or order obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity. The court applied the principles of fraud as established in various Supreme Court judgments to set aside the impugned orders obtained through fraud.
Final Decision: The court set aside all orders obtained through fraud, restored the land in favor of the petitioner, and directed respondent nos. 5 and 6 to pay costs to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Anurag Narain Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Nitin Srivastava, learned counsel for the private respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged:
(ii) the order dated 21.06.2011, passed by Additional Commissioner, deleting the name of Kishore on account of his death without substituting the legal heirs of Kishore.
(iii) the order dated 16.07.2011, passed by the Additional Commissioner whereby the recall application seeking recall of order dated 21.06.2011 has been rejected on the ground that registered will dated 18.10.2007 executed by Kishore in favour of the petitioner since declaration was not obtained by the petitioner from the competent Court in relation to the petitioner that he is legal heir of Kishore on the basis of registered will.
(iv) order dated 26.10.1964, pertaining to declaration of surplus land in relation to plot no. 1300, were set aside ex-parte and the recall application was also rejected on the ground that lease holder has got no right of opportunity of hearing and the petitioner has no right to file objections.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 26.10.1964, the land of tenure holder Bhaiya Jagdish Dutt Ram Pandey was declared surplus under the provisions of the Act, 1960. The land was entered in the name of Bhaiya Jagdish Dutt Ram Pandey which is evident from the Khatauni and after about six years on 31.08.1970, out of surplus land of Bhaiya Jagdish Dutt Ram Pandey plot No. 521/1.70 acres was allotted to Kishore S/o Ram Karan being a landless labourer, it is pertinent to point out that over the patta document Ram Naresh (Lekhpal) @ Nanhe Lal Lekhpal was a witness and on the basis of patta name of Kishore was entered in the khatauni and the mutation register prepared under Rule 24.
4. It has been submitted by the petitioner that Ram Naresh (Lekhpal) had committed forgery in the revenue record as well as in UPCH Form - 45 and fraudulently got his name entered into the khatauni with intention to grab the land which was declared surplus by means of order dated 26.10.1964 by the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority had declared surplus land in relation to the original tenure holder - Bhaiya Jagdish Dutt Ram Pandey under section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 and the said order attained finality as it was never challenged by the recorded tenure holder in appeal.
5. It is stated that Ram Naresh (Lekhpal) had taken advantage of his posting as Lekhpal and entered his name in the revenue records without there being any order or title deed in his favour. Due to aforesaid act of fraud committed by Ram Naresh (Lekhpal) he got his name mutated in the revenue records pertaining to Plot No. 521/1.50 acres and also manipulated the same in UPCH Form - 45 fraudulently.
6. When the predecessor in interest of the petitioner namely Kishore (Patta holder) came to know about the fraudulent entry having been made by Ram Naresh (Lekhpal), he made a complaint, and an inquiry was ordered by the Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda. The matter was enquired into by Tehsildar, Karnelganj, Gonda. The inquiry report revealed that Ram Naresh (Lekhpal) has unauthorisedly without any order of competent authority entered his name into the revenue records pertaining to Plot No. 521/1.50 acres. It was stated that said entries in the name of Ram Naresh were fictitious and forged and they were liable to be rectified under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act. There are allegations of manipulation in the revenue records regarding two other Gata Nos. also and after
Fraud vitiates every solemn act – Fraud and justice never dwell together and it cannot be perpetuated or saved by application of any equitable doctrine.
Fraud vitiates all judicial acts; claims of land ownership based on fraudulent documents cannot establish valid title.
Third-party objections regarding surplus land must be adjudicated on merits, recognizing unchallenged decrees and continuous possession as valid evidence despite procedural technicalities.
Fraud vitiates all judicial acts; judgments obtained by fraud are null and void, as established in the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Fraud vitiates all solemn acts and any instrument obtained through fraud is void.
Fraud vitiates every solemn proceeding, and no right can be claimed by the fraudsters on the ground of technicality.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
