A judicial order or decree obtained by fraud based on a forged document is a nullity; fraud unravels everything. Land classified as a Government Lake (natural resource) cannot be validly granted.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 - Section 4 - Grant of land - Fraud on court - Decree founded on forged document - Principle that fraud unravels everything - Judgment obtained by playing fraud on court is non est and lacks legal sanctity - Absence of original grant order and corresponding government records - Land classified as 'Sarkari Kere' (Government Lake) - Grant of land forming part of natural resources like tanks, ponds, and lakes is impermissible - Such lands are nature's bounty and must be protected for ecological balance and public health under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20)

(B) Evidence - Onus of proof - Party claiming title based on a grant order must produce the original order - Photocopy not bearing signature of competent authority is insufficient - In absence of original, entry in revenue records based on such document is illegal and liable to be set aside. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 21)

(C) Appeal - Scope - Appellate court can interfere if the order below is based on a fraud or a forged document - No interference otherwise. (Para 17, 18)

Facts of the case:
The State and its instrumentalities appealed against a Single Judge order directing the revenue authorities to enter the petitioner's name in revenue records based on a civil court decree declaring his title over land in Sy.Nos.82, 52 and 61 of Dattagalli Village, Mysore Taluk. The petitioner claimed that his ancestor was granted the land by a Grant Order dated 31.03.1954. The civil court decree in O.S.No.96/1997 was upheld up to the Supreme Court. However, the State argued that the land was classified as 'Sarkari Kere' (Government Lake) and that the Grant Order was a forged document as no original existed and no corresponding entries were found in government records.

Findings of Court:
The Division Bench examined the original government records and found no trace of the alleged Grant Order. The photocopy produced (Annexure-B) did not bear the signature of the competent authority. The court concluded that the Grant Order was a fake, dubious, and fabricated document. Consequently, the civil court decree obtained on the basis of such a forged document was held to be non est in law, as it was procured by playing fraud on the court. The court further held that even if a genuine grant existed, land classified as 'Sarkari Kere' is a natural resource and cannot be granted away; it must be preserved for public use and ecological balance under Article 21. The Writ Court's order was set aside, and the Writ Petition was dismissed.

Issues: The main issues were whether the alleged Grant Order was genuine and whether a decree based on a forged document can confer any right in land classified as a Government Lake.

Ratio Decidendi: A judicial order obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity. Fraud unravels everything. The absence of the original grant order and its non-verification from government records establishes that the document is forged. Land forming part of a natural resource (like a lake) cannot be validly granted by the State. Such grants, if made, are void and cannot be enforced.

Result: Appeal allowed. Order of the Writ Court set aside. Writ Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. appeal filed against writ court order, parties referred as per original rankings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. background of land grant and civil court declaration for petitioner. (Para 4)
3. state argues grant order is fake and land belongs to government. (Para 5 , 6)
4. petitioner argues title declared by civil court is final. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. no original grant; document fake; fraud unravels everything; no grant over government lake. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. appeal allowed; writ petition dismissed; no costs imposed. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M NADAF)

This intra court appeal is by the State and its instrumentalities under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.24304/2021.

2. By the impugned order, the Writ Court disposed of the Writ Petition holding that the petitioner acquired title by means of declaration of title by Civil Court which reached up to Supreme court and directed the fourth respondent to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records including the RTC extracts to enable the petitioner to get compensation from the fifth respondent for acquisition of lands by it in a time bound manner with further directions.

3. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Writ Court.

4. Facts leading to file the present appeal are as under:

4.1 The case of the petitioner as put forth by them before the Writ Court was that, one Sheragar Laxma Bhovi was in possession of land bearing Sy.Nos.82, 52 and 61 to an extent of 13 Acres 29 Guntas in Dattagalli Village, Mysore Taluk. It is further stated that land has been granted in favor of said Sheragar Laxma Bhovi as per the Grant Order dated 31.03.1954 (Annexure-B). After the death of Sheragar Laxma Bhovi, the name of the petitioner being the legal representative of said Sheragar Laxma Bhovi came to be entered in the revenue records as per IHR No.4/1983-84 (Annexure-C).

4.2 At the earlier point of time, in view of certain disputes by the State Government denying the title of the petitioner, a suit in O.S.No.96/1997 came to be filed against the Government entities viz., State of Karnataka represented by its Chief Secretary, the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division, Mysore and Mysore Urban Development Authority¹MUDA, for short.The suit on contest, came to be decreed on 30.07.2001 declaring the petitioner and other plaintiffs as absolute owner of suit schedule property.

4.3 The State and other defendants aggrieved by the Judgment and decree stated supra in suit O.S.No.96/1997, filed R.A.No.257/2009 along with an application seeking condonation of delay. The said application came to be allowed after contest. That was the subject matter before the Writ Court in W.P.No.27735/2010 contending that the appeal filed belatedly by five years, and the Appellate Court erroneously allowed the application. The Writ Court vide order dated 30.08.2011 (Annexure-E) allowed the Writ Petition and set-aside the order passed by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.257/2009 allowing the I.A seeking condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State was dismissed. The order in Writ Petition unsuccessfully carried before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition.

4.4 It is further stated in the Writ Petition that respondent No.5 has utilized the land belonging to the petitioner without initiating any acquisition proceedings and accordingly, the petitioner presented the Writ Petition before the Writ Court.

4.5 It was contended before the Writ Court that the petitioner acquired his right through his ancestor Sheragar Laxma Bhovi and by means of declaration of the Civil Court, his title to the land declared, the respondent No.5 without initiating any acquisition proceedings utilized the land for the purpose of laying of road. An application was filed seeking compensation which was not considered on the ground that the petiti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 27517

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAD K SINGH AND T.M.NADAFSTATE OF KARNATAKA – AppellantVersusSRI. L. N. GOVINDASWAMY – RespondentWA 1333/2025

A judicial order or decree obtained by fraud based on a forged document is a nullity; fraud unravels everything. Land classified as a Government Lake (natural resource) cannot be validly granted.

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
D K SINGH AND T.M.NADAF
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Appellant
Versus
SRI. L. N. GOVINDASWAMY – Respondent
WA 1333/2025