Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 13514

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Ganesh Ram Meena, J
Rajasthan Housing Board – Appellant
Versus
Jaipur Development Authority – 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

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.M. Ranjan, Naman Pareek, Ashish Sharma
For the Respondents: R.N. Mathur, Shovit Jhajhariya, Mohammad Alam, A.K. Sharma, Dinesh Yadav, Ankit Yadav, Anand Sharma, Utkarsh Dubey, Abhishek Mewara, J.K. Moolchandani, Hariom Yadav, S. Kaushal, Neeraj Batra, Ram Kumar Sharma, Virendra Lodha, Jai Lodha, Darsh Pareek

An order obtained through fraud or misrepresentation is vitiated and unenforceable, regardless of its finality. Furthermore, an agreement to sell, without a registered conveyance deed, does not transfer title or create an interest in immovable property, failing to provide grounds for claiming ownership against valid acquisition proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 5, 54 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, 9 - Contract for sale of immovable property - Does not create interest or charge on property - Property transfer requires registered conveyance deed - Fraud on court vitiates solemn proceedings. (Paras 14, 16, 32)

(B) Fraud and Misrepresentation - Vitiates orders obtained by their means - Even if such orders have attained finality before higher courts, they are subject to being set aside if fraud is demonstrably proven. (Paras 16, 18, 20)

Facts of the case:
The litigation arose regarding land acquisition proceedings for a housing colony development. Various petitions were filed by private individuals claiming rights through agreements to sale, and by a housing society, against authorities. Previous court orders had directed regularisation and issuance of allotment deeds based on claims of valid schemes. The current focus centers on whether these earlier orders were obtained through fraud and whether an agreement to sell, in the absence of a registered sale deed or decree for specific performance, confers title over acquired property.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the earlier judgments were obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation on the court, specifically by suppressing the fact that no valid residential scheme existed and failing to implead necessary stakeholders. The court held that such fraud renders the previous orders unenforceable.

Issues: (1) Whether a judgment obtained by fraud or misrepresentation remains effective if it has attained finality up to the Supreme Court. (2) Whether an agreement to sell creates any right, title, or interest in immovable property compared to a registered sale deed.

Ratio Decidendi: Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings. A contract for sale of immovable property, not being a registered deed of conveyance, does not create any interest or charge on the property; thus, claimants relying solely on such agreements for acquired land have no valid title.

Result: Petitions filed by the claimants and the housing society were dismissed, and the petition filed by the authority was allowed, declaring the acquisition valid.

Table of Content
1. summary of factual history and diverse writ petition prayers regarding land acquisition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. parties' contentions regarding the finality of previous court orders versus allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. fraud vitiates all, and courts have inherent power to set aside orders obtained by deception. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. inquiry findings confirm fraud in obtaining previous judicial orders due to non-existent scheme creation. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
5. agreements to sell do not confer title; acquisition deemed valid, and deceptive orders declared null. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)

Reportable:

Order

Arguments concluded on ::: February 04, 2026

Order reserved on ::: February 04, 2026

Order pronounced on ::: April 09, 2026

1. The facts of the case in brief, as per the pleadings made by the original petitioners i.e. private persons, Rajasthan Housing Board and Shree Ram Colony B Vikas Samiti (for short 'the Housing Society'), in the petitions, which have been filed separately, are as under:-

** On 12.10.1979 the Urban Improvement Trust (for short 'the UIT') issued a notice under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, with regard to acquiring the land.

** By way of an agreement to sale dated 31.07.1981 the Jawaharpuri Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samity Limited (for short 'the Vikas Samiti), Jaipur purchased the land, came into possession, prepared the plan for residential scheme named as Shri Ram Colony and made allotment of plots to its members.

** An another agreement was executed on 31.07.1986 for extension of time for payment. Further on 13.12.1988 one another agreement was executed, which was signed by the successors and also by the original signatories to the agreement dated 31.07.1981.

** On 02.09.1989 the RHB published a scheme for construction of residential houses upon the agricultural land, measuring 42 Bighas 10 Biswas, situated in village Chainpura and Durgapura in Jaipur City.

*** On 10.01.1990 a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act of 1894) was issued by the State Government for construction of a housing colony by the RHB.

** On 09.04.1990 the Khatedars/Tenants filed objections against the said acquisition.

** On 19.07.1990 the State Government published a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, which was followed by another notification dated 04.01.1991, whereby, invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 (a), declaration was made under Section 6 and a direction was given to the concerned authority under Section 9 to take possession of the land in question.

** Few persons claiming to be the Khatedars, submitted a representation on 09.04.1990 to the State Government in regard to the land in question.

*** On 13.04.1991 the Housing Cooperative Society issued a notice under Section 80 of CPC opposing the acquisition and for dropping the same.

** A declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, was issued dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A of the said Act by resorting to Section 17(4) of the said Act, which was published in the official gazette on 13.06.1991.

** S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5561/1991 was filed by the Khatedars/Tenants by which validity of both the acquisition notifications were challenged.

** On 05.12.1991 physical possession of the land in question was taken by the concerned authority of the State Government which was handed over to the representatives of the RHB.

** On 16.12.1991 an interim order to maintain the status quo was passed in SBCWP No.5561/1991 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. The Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an order for appointment of Commissioner and also directed to maintain the status quo in respect of the land and the houses thereon.

** Vide order dated 25.07.1992 the interim order dated 16.12.1991 was confirmed.

** The Khatedars submitted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 13514

Cases Referred (2)