A judgment obtained by fraud is a nullity and can be challenged at any time; decisions must be based on the pleadings presented.

ORDER

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is preferred against the order dated 18.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Commissioner Gwalior, Division Gwalior in Case No.27/2024-25/Appeal whereby while allowing the appeal preferred by the present respondent No.1 the order passed by the SDO dated 15.02.2024 was set aside whereby order dated 18.03.2020 effecting the partition between the predecessor-in-title of the present petitioner and the respondents was set aside.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that under the garb of correction in the village map, the present respondents No.1 and 2 is trying to grab the land of the petitioner, who had purchased it from the other co- tenure holders Suman Gupta W/o Rajendra Gupta and Rajendra Gupta S/o Late Mohanlal Gupta in the year 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that earlier vide order dated 18.03.2020 a partition had taken place between the present respondents No. 1 and 2 and the other co-sharers and on the basis of the said partition an application for correction in the village map was moved alleging that after the partition proceedings out of the survey No.163/1/1 the present respondents No. 1 and 2 had received certain share, which was recorded in the revenue records as 163/1/1/min-4 admeasuring 2.914 hectares, but the min. was wrongly inserted, therefore, the present application was moved, which was allowed by Tehsildar vide order dated 7.8.2020.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that being aggrieved by the aforesaid order an appeal was preferred by the present petitioner which was numbered as 6/Appeal/2023-24 in which the learned SDO found that the order of partition itself suffers from patent illegality and perversity, therefore, the same is required to be set aside and matter is required to be remitted back to Tehsildar for fresh adjudication on the question of partition, which was an incorrect proposition in light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the matter of Yashoda vs. Sukhwinder Singh & others, reported in AIR 2022 SC 4623, wherein it has been held by quoting another judgment in the matter of A.V. Papayya Sastry and others vs. Govt. of A.P. and others, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221 that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the court, tribunal or authority is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law and such a judgment, decree or order by the first court or by the final court has to be treated as nullity by every court, superior or inferior and it can be challenged in any court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in the collateral proceedings and as the present proceedings were collateral proceedings, therefore, the order dated 18.03.2020 whereby partition was effected between the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner and the respondents was rightly quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the Additional Commissioner without considering the aforesaid legal position has allowed the second appeal and had set aside the order passed by SDO dated 15.02.2024 holding that since in the said appeal the order under challenge was dated 7.8.2020 whereby directions were issued to correct the village map and as the order dated 18.03.2020 was never under challenged in the First Appeal before the SDO, adjudicating upon the said order and setting it aside was perverse. Apart from the aforesaid on other grounds also the appeal was wrongly allowed and the order passed by the SDO was illegally set aside which deserves to be quashed. On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 18.10.24 be set aside and that the order passed by the SDO be restored and Tehsildar may be directed to conduct the proceedings of partition fresh in the light of said order.

6.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents by