High Courts Confront Epidemic of Land Fraud as Forged Deeds and Perjury Threaten Judicial Integrity

Mumbai/Kolkata – A series of high-stakes legal battles unfolding across India’s high courts are shining a harsh spotlight on a growing epidemic of sophisticated land fraud, where forged documents, false affidavits, and organised criminal activity are being used not only to grab high-value property but also to subvert the very foundations of the judicial system. A particularly egregious case before the Bombay High Court, involving allegations of a land-grabbing attempt using a forged sale deed and perjurious statements, has underscored the gravity of the threat and the judiciary's resolve to counter it.

The case, brought by complainant Sh. Kalpesh Jain, alleges a systematic effort by a group of "habitual offenders" to unlawfully seize land in the Mira-Bhayander region. This case serves as a microcosm of a larger national crisis, with recent reports from Pune, Rajasthan, and Goa revealing scams worth hundreds of crores, often involving collusion between developers, criminal gangs, and allegedly, complicit officials. These incidents collectively raise critical questions about the liability of litigants, the ethical duties of legal practitioners, and the courts' power to protect the stream of justice from pollution.

The Anatomy of a Forged Title: The Bombay High Court Case

At the heart of the matter before the Bombay High Court is a petition filed by Sh. Kalpesh Jain, represented by Adv. Nilesh Ojha and Adv. Vijay Kurle, seeking the initiation of criminal prosecution against Pratibha Shah, Naushil Shah, Parin Shailesh Shah, and their advocates. The petition, filed under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (the successor to Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.), accuses the respondents of committing a grave fraud upon the court by tendering a forged sale deed and swearing false affidavits.

The complainant’s counsel argued before the court on September 3, 2025, that the accused fabricated a sale deed dated 1974 for a property lawfully owned by Jain since 2010. The property's lineage traces back to 1952, eventually passing through a protected tenant to Jain, whose possession is reportedly confirmed by extensive government records, including panchnamas, CCTV footage, and electricity bills. The prosecution's case is built on the assertion that the 1974 sale deed is void ab initio , as it was allegedly executed by an imposter without the signature of the true owner, a point of law solidified by the Supreme Court in M. S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula (2025 SCC OnLine SC 448).

The accused are not strangers to such allegations. The court was informed that a police chargesheet already exists against them in a separate case (Crime No. 430 of 2022) for similar offences under IPC Sections 420 (Cheating), 467 (Forgery of valuable security), and 471 (Using as genuine a forged document), among others. This pattern of alleged behavior, including the fabrication of documents by fraudulently signing on behalf of deceased persons, points towards an organized and repeated modus operandi.

The High Court, after hearing the initial arguments, directed the accused to file their reply affidavit by September 16, 2025, setting the stage for a significant hearing on the matter.

The Wider Legal Framework: Accountability for Advocates and Litigants

The petition does more than seek punishment for the accused litigants; it invokes a well-settled but crucial legal principle: the accountability of legal professionals who knowingly participate in misleading the court. Citing a string of Supreme Court and High Court judgments, including Ashok Kumar Sarogi v. State of Maharashtra (2016) and ABCD v. Union of India (2020), the complainant argues that both litigants and their advocates who file false affidavits or rely on forged documents are equally liable for prosecution for perjury and contempt of court.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that such conduct is a direct assault on the majesty of law. In cases like Sundar v. State (2023), the apex court has emphasized that prosecution for perjury is not discretionary but mandatory, and that offenders who pose a "continuing danger to society and to the sanctity of judicial processes" should not be granted bail.

"The acts complained of fall squarely within the ambit of serious penal provisions under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including Section 191 – Giving false evidence, Section 192 – Fabrication of false evidence, and Section 467 – Forgery of valuable security, will, etc., punishable with imprisonment for life."

This robust stance aims to deter fraudulent litigation, which clogs the justice system and erodes public faith. The Bombay High Court case will test the application of these principles, particularly whether the court will direct a full-fledged criminal trial for acts that carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

A Contrasting View: The Civil-Criminal Divide

While the Bombay High Court grapples with a case of alleged blatant forgery, a recent judgment from the Calcutta High Court offers a nuanced perspective on property disputes that blur the line between civil wrongs and criminal offences. In Rajlakshmi Syam vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr , delivered on September 8, 2025, Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das quashed a criminal proceeding for cheating (Section 420 IPC) initiated over a property sale agreement.

The petitioner in that case had entered into a sale agreement while a civil court's status quo order was in effect. She claimed ignorance of the order's applicability to the specific property and, upon realizing the mistake, was granted permission by the Supreme Court to sell the property. The complainant, however, initiated criminal proceedings alleging fraudulent inducement.

Justice Das, relying on Supreme Court precedents like Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma vs State of Bihar , meticulously analyzed the ingredients of cheating. The court observed:

"Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is, the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence."

The Calcutta High Court concluded that the petitioner, being the absolute owner who eventually received Supreme Court clearance to sell, lacked the requisite mens rea or fraudulent intent from the inception. Since the dispute was primarily civil in nature, with a money suit already pending, allowing the criminal prosecution to continue would be an abuse of the process of law.

The National Scourge of Organized Land Scams

The legal principles debated in Mumbai and Kolkata are being tested in the real world by large-scale, organized land scams across the country. Recent actions by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and state police forces reveal a deeply entrenched nexus of crime, business, and alleged corruption:

• Pune: A ₹200 crore scam has implicated prominent developers Rama Group and Vardhaman Developers, accused of using forged documents to seize 36 hectares. The FIR alleges a criminal gang was paid ₹35 crore for intimidation, and that repeated police complaints were ignored, suggesting high-level collusion.
• Rajasthan: The ED is investigating a notorious "land mafia" figure, Gyan Chand Agarwal, who faces over 300 FIRs in Jaipur for an alleged ₹150 crore scam involving the resale of the same land parcels to multiple buyers using counterfeit deeds and diverting funds to shell companies.
• Goa: The ED attached over ₹200 crore in assets under the PMLA in a case involving a criminal syndicate that used forged genealogical records and counterfeit sale deeds to fraudulently claim ownership of high-value properties.

These cases illustrate that land fraud is no longer a matter of simple deception between two parties. It has evolved into a sophisticated criminal enterprise involving forgery, intimidation, money laundering, and the exploitation of systemic loopholes in land governance.

Conclusion: A Call for Vigilance and Accountability

The convergence of these cases presents a formidable challenge to the Indian legal system. The Bombay High Court case highlights the judiciary’s critical role as a gatekeeper, responsible for purging its own proceedings of fraud and perjury. Its outcome will send a strong message regarding the non-negotiable sanctity of court processes and the accountability of all participants, including members of the bar.

Simultaneously, the Calcutta High Court's ruling serves as a vital reminder to distinguish between genuine criminal fraud and disputes that are essentially civil, preventing the weaponization of criminal law to settle commercial disagreements.

For legal professionals, these developments are a stark reminder of their dual duty—to their clients and to the court. As organized syndicates become more adept at manipulating legal and administrative systems, the onus on lawyers to conduct due diligence, verify claims, and uphold the highest ethical standards has never been greater. The judiciary's firm response, coupled with heightened vigilance from the bar, is essential to restoring faith in property transactions and preserving the integrity of the justice delivery system itself.