JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

The issue raised in this writ petition has been partially dealt with in a judgment passed by this Court on 29.08.2023 in a bunch of cases, leading being Writ B No. 947 of 2023 (Basdev v. State of U.P. and 5 others)(Neutral Citation No. 2023:AHC:173700) that Section 11 -A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 would not have any bar in reopening a case, if the revenue entries in regard to nature of land was such that it not be a part of consolidation and relevant part thereof are mentioned hereinafter -:

"29. The argument that Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken cognizance of application at very belated stage i.e. after more than 2 decades, may be relevant but since there is per se presence of element of 'fraud on statute' and that Assistant Consolidation Officer has allotted a public land to petitioners without any 'necessity' or 'expediency' and without any alternative land being earmarked for said public purpose ('pasture land'), therefore, as it is well settled that a 'fraud' which also includes a 'fraud on statute', if detected, can be considered even at any later stage. Legal principle that 'fraud vitiates every solemn act' which also amounts to an abuse of the process, and the court or concerned Authority has inherent power to set aside, an order obtained by fraud practised upon it or a statute also and for that few paragraphs of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Smriti Madan Kansagra v. Perry Kansagra, 2021 SCC Online SC 909, would be relevant and being quoted below -:

"49. xxxx

23. Since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the court and also amounts to an abuse of the process of court, the courts have been held to have inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud practised upon that court. Similarly, where the court is misled by a party or the court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party, the court has the inherent power to recall its order.

xxxx

50. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 581, this Court observed:-

"16. Therefore, we have no doubt that the remedy to move for recalling the order on the basis of the newly-discovered facts amounting to fraud of high degree, cannot be foreclosed in such a situation. No court or tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim."

2. Facts of present case on basis of record available are that during consolidation proceedings, a Consolidation Officer by an order dated 23.01.1962, vendor of land in dispute was entered as a bhoomidhar. It is not on record whether this order was challenged further and on basis of such order, different forms were prepared.

3. At later stage, it was revealed that land in dispute was recorded as 'bhita' in old revenue records which was either not brought before the Consolidation Officer or if brought, was not considered and, therefore, on instructions of officials of department, an appeal was preferred before Appellate Court, which was decided on merit and it was held that -:

^^bl izdkj eq[; jktLo vf/kdkjh egksn;k }kjk ftykf/kdkjh egksn;k dks izsf"kr fjiksVZ fnukad 28-12-2022 ls Li"V gS fd fookfnr [kkrk esa vafdr xkVk la[;k 350 dk iqjkuk uacj 854 HkhVk ds uke vafdr Fkk tks tehankjh fouk'k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&132 rFkk jktLo lafgrk dh /kkjk 77 dh Hkwfe Fkh mDr vkjkth dks pdcanh vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k fnukad 23-01-1962 }kjk [kkrsnkjksa ds uke oxZ&1 vafdr dj fn;k x;k gS tks {ks=kf/kdkj ls ijs gS] tks fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA

tcfd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; flfoy vihy la[;k 4787@2001 fgapyky frokjh cuke deyk nsoh ekuuh;