2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 13513

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Ganesh Ram Meena, J
Jyoti Sejwani – Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan Housing Board – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 336/2019 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13563/2019 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15576/2019 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16978/2019

Fraud and misrepresentation vitiate all judicial and administrative orders, rendering them void, even if they have attained finality. Furthermore, an agreement to sell does not convey title to immovable property under the Transfer of Property Act; only a registered sale deed can legally transfer ownership.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4, 6, 9 - Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 - Section 52 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 80 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54 - Fraud and Misrepresentation - Vitiation of court orders - An order or judgment obtained by playing fraud or misrepresentation is non-est and can be declared ineffective even if it has attained finality at the highest judicial level. Fraud vitiates all solemn acts and administrative or judicial orders procured through deception. (Paras 14, 16, 18, 20)

(B) Specific Relief and Property Title - Transfer of immovable property - Agreement to sell - An agreement to sell does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on the property under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. A valid conveyance can only be made through a registered sale deed. Without such a deed, no title is transferred and no proprietary rights are conferred by an agreement to sell. (Paras 32, 33)

(C) Non-joinder of parties - Judicial proceedings - Failure to implead necessary parties in a litigation, while suppressing material facts to obtain favorable orders, constitutes fraud on the court. Such conduct renders the resulting judgment voidable and liable to be set aside. (Paras 28, 30)

Facts of the case:
Public authorities initiated land acquisition proceedings for a residential housing project. Challenges were filed against the acquisition. During the process, a housing society claimed it had purchased the land via agreements to sell and attempted to regularize its colony scheme. Following an earlier round of litigation where the court directed the approval of the scheme and issuance of land titles, the authority later discovered that no such scheme existed and that the previous court orders were obtained by suppressing facts and withholding the identify of necessary parties. Subsequent inquiries confirmed the absence of any valid scheme existence or documentary evidence of land transfer pre-acquisition.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners in the earlier litigation suppressed material facts, including the status of the land as acquired property. The inquiry reports corroborated that the residential scheme in question was never floated prior to the land acquisition. The court held that the judgment relied upon by the petitioners was obtained through fraud and, therefore, was non-enforceable.

Issues: Whether a judgment obtained by fraud or misrepresentation remains valid after attaining finality; and whether an agreement to sell confers valid title to the property without a registered sale deed.

Ratio Decidendi: Fraud and collusion vitiate the most solemn proceedings. When a party obtains an order by deceiving the court or suppressing material facts, that order is a nullity. Furthermore, as per settled law on the Transfer of Property Act, an agreement to sell is not a conveyance and does not confer title; it only provides a right to specific performance.

Result: Petitions filed by private parties and the housing society are dismissed. The petition filed by the public authority is allowed; acquisition proceedings stand concluded and the previous order secured by fraud is declared ineffective.