Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 13515

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, R.N. Mathur, Shovit Jhajhariya, A.K. Sharma, Dinesh Yadav, Ankit Yadav, Anand Sharma
For the Respondents: Utkarsh Dubey, Abhishek Mewara, J.K. Moolchandani, Hariom Yadav, S. Kaushal, Neeraj Batra, Ram Kumar Sharma, Virendra Lodha, Jai Lodha, Darsh Pareek

A judgment obtained via fraud or misrepresentation is vitiated and unenforceable, regardless of finality. Furthermore, an agreement to sell serves only as a contract for future conveyance and does not transfer title or create an interest in immovable property without a registered sale deed.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 5A, 6, 9 and 17 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 5, 54 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 3 - Indian Trusts Act, 1882 - Section 91 - Land acquisition process - Fraud and misrepresentation in judicial proceedings - Validity of agreement to sell - A contract for sale does not create any interest or charge on the property - A judgment obtained by fraud or misrepresentation is not sustainable and cannot be allowed to stand as it vitiates all proceedings even if it has attained finality - (Paras 12, 14, 16, 20, 32, 34)

(B) Fraud in judicial proceedings - Consequence - No judgment of a court can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud - An act of fraud on court is always viewed with seriousness and any transaction tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine - (Paras 10, 14, 16)

Facts of the case:
Dispute arose over land acquisition proceedings initiated by a government body. Private entities claimed ownership based on agreements to sell signed with landholders. These entities alleged they formed a residential scheme and sought regularization from the authority. A prior judgment had directed the authority to issue land titles to members of the society based on these agreements. The government body challenged the current claims, contending that the land was duly acquired, the scheme was non-existent prior to acquisition, and the previous judgment was obtained by concealing material facts and through fraudulent representation.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the previous judgment was obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation by omitting to implead necessary parties and suppressing the fact that no such residential scheme existed prior to the land acquisition. The court emphasized that a contract for sale is not a conveyance and does not confer title, nor does it create any interest or charge in the property.

Issues: (i) Whether a judgment or order obtained by fraud or misrepresentation is liable to be set aside even if it has attained finality up to the Supreme Court. (ii) Whether an agreement to sell confers valid title over the property in the absence of a registered conveyance deed.

Ratio Decidendi: Fraud and misrepresentation vitiate the most solemn proceedings and are anathema to equitable principles. A judgment tainted with fraud cannot be saved by the doctrine of finality. Furthermore, as per the Transfer of Property Act, transfer of immovable property must be made through a registered instrument; an agreement to sell is merely a contract to enter into such a deed and does not pass title or create interest in the land.

Result: Petitions of private individuals and the society dismissed; petition of the regulatory board allowed.

Table of Content
1. summary of the factual history and the conflicting claims regarding the land. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. parties' contentions regarding finality of prior judgments versus fraud. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. fraud vitiates all proceedings, even those having attained finality. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. examination of records and inquiry reports revealing absence of scheme and fraud. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
5. unregistered agreement to sell does not confer title. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
6. declaration of acquired land vesting and dismissal of frivolous claims. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)

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 objections before the Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'the LAO').

** The LAO passed the award on 20.07.1993

** On 23.08.1993 the compensation was sent to the learned Civil Judge by the LAO.

** On 18.09.1993 the Kh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 13515

A judgment obtained via fraud or misrepresentation is vitiated and unenforceable, regardless of finality. Furthermore, an agreement to sell serves only as a contract for future conveyance and does not transfer title or create an interest in immovable property without a registered sale deed.

Cases Referred (5)