9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 2025X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of wrong entries in revenue records, to claim any right, title or interest much less compensation under the Ceiling Act as well as under the provisions of the LA Act. Thus, the entire land on the condition being satisfied with the landed holdings of a landowner the annual land revenue of which is ₹ 125 or more, land vested in the State and not excess part over and above the land to which the said land revenue is ascribed, with the saving of personally cultivated land. Effect of the proceedings under the Ceiling Act? - HELD THAT:- The fact is conclusively established that land in question had been declared as surplus and compensation under the Ceiling Act had also been received, even though the land had already vested in the State under the Abolition Act. Once the disputed land had been admittedly declared surplus in Ceiling Act vide order dated 30.6.1980, there was no question of payment of compensation to Rajinder Singh or to his legal representatives in proceedings initiated later on in the year 1987 under the L.A. Act. The Land Acquisition Collector in 1989 was justified in directing that the compensation determined should not be paid due to the effect of the Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been commenced in 1987, the land more than 1000 bighas had been declared a surplus in ceiling case and compensation collected, which indeed disputed land at Jhakari, it would be a perpetuating fraud in case such a person is permitted to claim compensation for same very land. Fraud vitiates the solemn proceedings; such plea can be set up even in collateral proceedings. The label on the petition is not much material and this Court has already permitted the plea of fraud to be raised. Moreover, Appeal arising out of 72 awards is still pending in the High Court in which Reference Court has declined compensation on the aforesaid ground. In the peculiar facts projected in the case the principle fraud vitiates is clearly applicable it cannot be ignored and overlooked under the guise of the scope of proceedings Under Section 18/30 of the LA Act. Whether the Respondents who are claiming on the basis of patta/transfer made by Rajinder Singh, are bona fide transferees and entitled to compensation? - HELD THAT:- In case regular first appeal is pending in the High Court as against the order of reference court against the Respondents who claim to be bona fide transferees, obviously, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Abolition Act'), the late Jagirdar or his legal representatives could have claimed the compensation on the land acquisition being made particularly when land has vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh, the land was not under the personal cultivation, and particularly when they have received the compensation under the Abolition Act, apart from that had also received the compensation under the provisions of H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act ). 3. The facts project how a litigant has filed a slew of litigations one after the other and faced with a situation that it was likely to be dismissed, he would withdraw it; again, file it on new grounds, or having lost it, would withdraw it again at appellate stage, and in the meantime, in different proceedings by playing fraud, getting unjust enrichment by receiving compensation at the expense of public exchequer. 4. The facts in the instant case reveal that Late Rajinder Singh, son of erstwhile ruler Late Maharaja Padam Singh was Jagirdar of the land, and thus was recorded as owner of thousands of bighas of land in Teh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the right, title and interest of the owner in landholding in case land revenue of the holding exceed ₹ 125 per year, would vest free from all encumbrances in the State Government and the vesting is automatic and without being contingent on the happening of any other event. Compensation and rehabilitation grant can be determined and paid later. This Court in the order dated 17.9.1969 made the following observations: It is apparent that Section 27 deals with lands the annual land revenue of which exceeds ₹ 125 per year. It says in unequivocal terms that the right, title and interest of the owner in such lands shall be deemed to have been transferred land vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. This essentially means that on the enforcement of the Act the vesting takes place automatically and without being contingent on the happening of any other event. The High Court in the full Bench decision referred to above took the same view and was right in observing that wherever the legislature intended to defer the date of vesting such as in Section 11 and 15 clear provisions were made to that effect and the reasons thereof were obvious. In 8.11 the tenan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition with liberty to file a civil suit. Thus, the mandate of this Court in the order dated 17.9.1969 to decide the question of personal cultivation was avoided by the withdrawal of writ petition. 11. Late Rajinder Singh then filed Civil Suit No. 15/1970 in which he took a somersault and prayed for a declaration of title and sought a declaration that the suit property was not the 'land' Under Section 2(5) of the Abolition Act and as such it did not vest in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The case of personal cultivation was abandoned by him. The trial court framed the issues; whether the Plaintiff was in possession of the land in dispute and whether the disputed land, in whole or in part, vested in the State Government? The issue was also framed whether the land in dispute is covered under the definition of 'land' in the Abolition Act. What is the effect of the decision dated 12.4.1966? The issue was also framed with respect to the finality of the decision of the Compensation Officer dated 12.4.1966, and whether the suit was barred as the order had attained finality. The trial court also framed the issue with respect to the aspect whether the Plaintiff had receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt on 23.6.1986 permitted the Appellant to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter of the suit on the same cause of action in case there was any necessity to file such a subsequent suit, and the appeal was dismissed as infructuous. It is apparent that the Appellant has accepted the factual position that land was declared surplus and he has received compensation of the disputed land under the provisions of the Ceiling Act, 1972. From which actual factual position and admission, he has tried to wriggle out falsely in the instant matter. 14. The withdrawal of suit C.S. No. 15 of 1970 was aimed at defrauding the court as the trial court has held that the suit land was not personally cultivated as such, it had vested automatically in the State Government and it was the 'land' as defined in the Abolition Act and the Plaintiff was estopped from filing a suit. During the pendency of the aforesaid matter in spite of the land having been vested in the State, under Abolition Act compensation was obtained second time under the provisions of the Ceiling Act, though the compensation was earlier too paid to him as determined by the Compen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner passed an order upholding the mutation order against which revision was filed before the Financial Commissioner. Ultimately the review petition was also dismissed as not maintainable which the Appellant is stated to have questioned. 19. With respect to the present acquisition proceedings out of which appeal arises, notification Under Section 4 was issued on 9.1.1987 for the acquisition of land for H.P. State Electricity Board for construction of an approach road at Jhakri. The Electricity Board was later on replaced by Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation (NJPC) and later on by the Appellant Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam. The Land Acquisition Collector passed an award on 24.2.1989 determining the rate of compensation at the rate of ₹ 20,000 per bigha. However, it was observed in the award that there was a dispute about the ownership of Rajinder Singh. Hence, it was ordered that compensation should not be disbursed in view of the pendency of ceiling proceedings. It be deposited in a bank instead of court. A reference was sought Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act'). The Reference Court vide award dated 23.7.1991 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. 23. After the case was remitted to the High Court, appeals have been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.2.2008. Aggrieved thereby the appeals have been preferred by Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam. 24. The Reference Court decided 72 land reference cases wherein it was held that the Respondents were neither the owner nor in possession of the land under acquisition, and the land in question stood vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The award was challenged by way of Regular First Appeal and the same is stated to be pending in the High Court. 25. Civil Appeals arising out of SLP [C] No. 9281/2014 arise out of a common judgment dated 18.9.2013 passed by the High Court. Writ petitions were filed before the High Court by one of them by Sita Devi and Ors. being CWP No. 2931/2010 with respect to a redetermination of compensation. They were decided by a common judgment and order dated 18.9.2013 and it has been held that notwithstanding the fact that Rajinder Singh may not have a title, the status of the Appellants had been held to be that of bona fide transferees earlier and that order has attained finality and was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t go into the question of the title of Rajinder Singh in the proceedings is wholly incorrect as it is the serious case of fraud, the title has already been adjudicated conclusively and lost in other proceedings. It was not a case of an adjudication of title in the present proceedings. The effect of Section 27 proceeding and that of ceiling Act case was required to be considered. The High Court could not have permitted the perpetuation of fraud while dismissing the first appeal after this Court has remitted the matter to it. 28. It was further urged that the observation made by the LAC in his award in 1989 not to make payment of compensation, due to ceiling case was wholly legal and valid. Even the Reference Court has held in the cases that there was no title with the Respondents and the appeal against the same R.F.A. is pending in the High Court. The High Court ought to have exercised the supervisory power as there was an error apparent on the face of the record and to prevent abuse of process of law. When the principle of 'fraud vitiates' is attracted, the label of proceedings is not material and the court is bound to look into same and relegation to a remedy of the civ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondents further contended that at the time of land acquisition neither the land was finally declared surplus nor possession was taken under the Ceiling Act, as such it did not vest in the State unless the possession was taken. The acquisition of land under the LA Act is protected under the Ceiling Act. The statement made by the counsel on behalf of the Power of Attorney-holder of Rajinder Singh during the course of the first appeal withdrawing Suit No. 15/1970 was incorrect. As the order passed by the Collector in ceiling case declaring the land surplus had been set aside by the Financial Commissioner. As such an incorrect statement was made before the High Court; maybe it was made in ignorance of the facts. Earlier vide order dated 10.6.1980, 10027.5 bighas of land was declared surplus and vide order dated 10.11.1993, additional 9679 bighas total 19706.5 bighas was declared as surplus. Even if compensation was collected, it would not make any difference as the land did not vest in the State unless possession was taken. 32. Following questions arise for consideration: (i) whether land has vested in State under the Abolition Act, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in possession of an estate or any share or portion thereof, or in the enjoyment of any part of the profits of an estate; (3) holding means a share or portion of an estate held by the land-owner or jointly by two or more land-owners. 35. Estate means any area for which a separate record of rights has been made; or which has been separately assessed to land revenue or would have been so assessed if the land revenue had not been released, compounded for or redeemed. Definition of 'land-owner' does not include a tenant or an assignee of land revenue, and holding means a share or portion of an estate held by the landowner or jointly by two or more persons. 36. The word 'holding' as defined in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 would mean an estate which means any area for which a separate record of rights has been made or which has been separately assessed to land revenue, or would have been so assessed to land revenue in case it had not been released, compounded for or redeemed, or has been declared to be an estate by the State Government. Thus, expression 'holding' would include the area of an estate also if it is assessed or would have been assessed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umbrances created in such lands by the landowner. (2) With effect from the aforesaid date - (a) the landowner shall cease to have any right to collect or to receive any rent or any share of the land revenue in respect of such lands and his liability to pay the land revenue in respect of the lands shall also cease; (b) the tenant shall pay direct to the State Government the rent he was liable to pay to the landowners before the date of the notification; and (c) the consequences mentioned in Clauses (b) to (f) of Section 84 shall mutatis mutandis ensue. 39. Section 16 of Abolition Act deals with payment of compensation to the landowners for the acquisition of their rights. Section 16 is extracted hereunder: 16. The landowner whose right, title and interest in lands have been acquired by the State Government Under Section 15 shall be entitled to compensation which shall be calculated as far as practicable according to the provisions of Sections 12 and 13. 40. Interest on compensation is payable Under Section 18 of Abolition Act. Section 19 deals with the claims for compensation and determination of such claims and in case of a dispute, it has to be referred t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r acquired Under Sub-section (1) or (2) shall be transferred by the State Government on the payment of compensation in accordance with Schedule I to such tenant who cultivates such land. (5) The State Government shall give rehabilitation grant according to the Rules framed under this Act, to such small landowner whose right, title and interest have been extinguished and who does not have any other means of livelihood. It is apparent from Section 27 that it contains non-obstante Clause and it is applicable to the land as defined in Section 2(5) which is not occupied as the site of any building in a town or village and is occupied or has been let for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture, or for pasture. The definition is inclusive and wide and it covers the sites of buildings and other structures on such land, orchards, and ghasnies too. Thus, the definition of land being inclusive is very wide and in case the land revenue of the holding of Zamindar exceeds ₹ 125 per year except for the land under personal cultivation, entire land holding would vest in the State Government and such vesting is automatic. 42. A reading of Section 27 makes it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt from the order dated 27.2.1962 Khata No. 1 Kita measuring 1011 bighas 6 Biswas vested in the ownership of Government of Himachal Pradesh in village Jhakri. In the review on 19.9.1964, there was only partial modification with respect to area 14 bighas 12 Biswas. The land revenue of land at Jakhri as apparent from Jamabandi of 1955-56 at the time when the Abolition Act came into force was ₹ 155.58 it was more than ₹ 125 as such the land which was Banjar kadim or otherwise not under personal cultivation had vested in the State. 45. Under the Abolition Act compensation was determined under the provisions of Section 27(1) and was ordered to be paid by the Compensation Officer, Mahasu District, Kasumpti vide order dated 12.4.1966. Sum of ₹ 28,019 had been paid to Rajinder Singh. Though payment of compensation was not a condition precedent for vesting of land it was automatic, Rajinder Singh was paid compensation also for the land mentioned in the order of Compensation Officer. Even if the compensation was not paid for some land, as that was not under personal cultivation had also automatically vested free from all encumbrances in the State. 46. The subsequent a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isaged in the Abolition Act. 48. In Jadab Singh and Ors. v. The Himachal Pradesh Administration and Ors. AIR 1960 SC 1008, this Court considered the question of the abolition of estates which was declared invalid as having been passed by the State legislature which was not duly constituted. A validating Act was passed by the Parliament. This Court considered the legislature competence and constitutional validity of the Abolition Act. It was held that in view of Article 240 as it stood before its amendment by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, the Parliament was competent to enact the validating Act. The provisions of the Abolition Act did not infringe Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India and the Abolition Act fell within the protection of Article 31A of the Constitution and it was not open to challenge on the ground that it infringed Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution. The intent of the Abolition Act is that the agrarian reforms by Abolition of Big Landed Estates have to be given the full effect. Once land has vested in the State, it was not open to Rajinder Singh on the basis of continuation of wrong entries in revenue records, to claim any right, ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove including land under orchards-30 acres. (2) The permissible area for the purposes of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) for the districts of Kinnaur and Lahaul and Spiti, Tehsil Pangi and Sub-Tehsil Bharmaur of Chamba district, area of Chhota Bhangal and Bara Bhangal of Baijnath Kanungo Circle of Tehsil Palampur of Kangra district, and area of Dodra Kowar Patwar Circle of Rohru Tehsil and Pandrabis Pargana of Rampur Tehsil of Shimla district shall be 70 acres. (3) The permissible area of a family Under Sub-section (1) shall be increased by one-fifth of the permissible area Under Sub-sections (1) and (2) for each additional minor member of a family subject to the condition that the aggregate permissible area shall not exceed twice the permissible area of family Under Sub-sections (1) and (2). (4) Every adult son of a person shall be treated as a separate unit and he shall be entitled to the land up to the extent permissible to a family Under Sub-sections (1) and (2) subject to the condition that the aggregate land of the family and that of the separate units put together shall not exceed twice the area permissible under the said Sub-sections: Provided that where the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.11.80 62 10900 00 5.11.80 63 15000 00 29.1.81 64 3935 65 20.3.81 65 9600 00 31.3.81 53. Now, the factum of withdrawal of the amount of compensation was disputed before us by contending that the compensation under the Ceiling Act had not been received. It passes comprehension that how it lies in the mouth to even contend in view of the clear statement made in the order passed by the competent authority and voucher numbers with the date on which payment had been made. Rajinder Singh did not question order dated 30.6.1980. On the contrary, reference was made by the Settlement Officer with respect to the order of the Competent Authority on the ground that his minor son was illegally allotted one unit. Financial Commissioner has taken the matter in Revision No. 224/1982 against the aforesaid order. It was pointed out by the Settlement Officer that Rajeshwar Singh son of Rajinder Singh was minor and was not entitled to any land independently but was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not fact situation that question of the title has been disputed and decided in reference proceedings but whether Rajinder Singh or his L.Rs. were entitled to claim compensation in view of the proceedings and that orders passed under the Abolition Act and Ceiling Act were definitely required to be gone into. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that once land has been declared surplus and compensation has been received. It was not open to receive it again in the land acquisition case. (iii) In Re: Effect of withdrawal of C.S. No. 15/1970 in appeal 55. Civil Suit No. 15/1970 was dismissed on merits. Thereafter in the first appeal, it was withdrawn by Rajinder Singh before the Division Bench on 23.6.1986. Order dated 23.6.1986 passed by the High Court of withdrawal of C.S. No. 15 of 1970 in first appeal No. 9/1973 is extracted hereunder: In the present appeal, the learned Counsel for the Appellant has given the statement that by an order dated 10.06.1980 passed by the Collector Rampur Bushahar in case State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajkumar Rajender Singh, Under Section 8 of Himachal Pradesh Land Ceiling Act, the disputed land has been acquired by the Respondent and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed question of fact was raised in the writ application. It was in order to avoid adjudication in view observation of this Court made against interest of Rajinder Singh in aforesaid order and the fact that as the land was not under personal cultivation, the writ petition was withdrawn and thereafter in C.S. No. 15/1970 that was filed in which, Rajinder Singh had abandoned the case of land being under personal cultivation. On the contrary, raised the plea that it was not the land at all and as such it was not within the clutches of the Abolition Act. 57. A Single Bench of the High Court dismissed the suit on merits and has recorded the finding that the land was not under personal cultivation and it had vested in the State and it was the land as defined in Section 2(5) of the Abolition Act. Thereafter Regular First Appeal which was preferred before the Division Bench was dismissed as infructuous and suit was withdrawn by aforesaid order dated 23.6.1986 on the ground that compensation had been received under the Ceiling Act, and land has been declared surplus. It is clear that once land has been declared surplus and compensation had been paid under the Ceiling Act. It was not th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... surplus area was increased in 1993. By no stretch of any principle of law, Late Rajinder Singh or his successors could have claimed compensation in the proceedings in question initiated under the LA Act in the year 1987. In our considered opinion the Respondents Rajinder Singh and his family were not entitled to claim any monetary compensation under the LA Act for the said land. The amount that had been withdrawn under the LA Act, was wholly impermissible and tantamount to playing fraud upon the legal system. As a matter of fact, compensation has been taken for the land in the proceedings under the Abolition Act. Even if compensation in respect of certain land was not payable or paid, vesting would not depend upon the same. Land not under personal cultivation of Jagirdars had vested in the State, as such it was not open even to obtain compensation for the very same land either under the provisions of the Ceiling Act which has been received or under the provisions of the LA Act. It was wholly impermissible and illegal and tantamount to scam committed by fraudsters. The cases were withdrawn one after the other just to perpetuate the fraud on the legal system by raising the inconsist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing title by reference to the date of the award. So is Section 29, which speaks of 'person interested'. Finality to the award spoken of by Section 12(1) of the Act is between the Collector on one hand and the 'person interested' on the other hand and attaches to the issues relating to (i) the true area i.e. measurement of the land, (ii) the value of the land, i.e. the quantum of compensation, and (iii) apportionment of the compensation among the 'persons interested'. The 'persons interested' would be bound by the award without regard to the fact whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not. The finality to the award spoken of by Section 29 is as between the 'persons interested' inter se and is confined to the issue as to the correctness of the apportionment. Section 30 is not confined in its operation only to 'persons interested'. It would, therefore, be available for being invoked by the 'persons interested' if they were neither present nor represented in proceedings before the Collector, nor were served with a notice Under Section 12(2) of the Act or when they claim on the basis of a title coming into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... permitted the plea of fraud to be raised. Moreover, Appeal arising out of 72 awards is still pending in the High Court in which Reference Court has declined compensation on the aforesaid ground. 64. Reliance has also been placed on the observations made in Meher Rusi Dalal v. Union of India, (2004) 7 SCC 362, in which this Court has dealt with the issue of apportionment of compensation for which claim was raised by the Union of India, not in the capacity of the owner but as a protected tenant. The claim of tenancy was not put forth before the LAO, though represented in the acquisition proceedings. This Court observed that in such a case it could reasonably be inferred that no right was being claimed and it ought to have been made before the LAO if it had any such claim in respect of pre-existing right. The LAO was not under a duty to make an enquiry. The claim of tenancy at the belated stage was an afterthought to frustrate the payment. The decision has no application to the instant case as the LAO in the awards passed, noted the factum of ceiling proceedings as such the effects of the same can always be considered. 65. In Ahad Brothers v. State of M.P., (2005) 1 SCC 545, thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry to satisfy the requirement of the law, whether the representation has been made recklessly or deliberately, indifference or reckless on the part of the representor as the truth or falsity of the representation affords merely an instance of absence of such a belief. In KERR on the Law of Fraud and Mistake, fraud has been defined thus: It is not easy to give a definition of what constitutes fraud in the extensive significance in which that term is understood by Civil Courts of Justice. The Courts have always avoided hampering themselves by defining or laying down as a general proposition what shall be held to constitute fraud. Fraud is infinite in variety... Courts have always declined to define it, ... reserving to themselves the liberty to deal with it under whatever form it may present itself. Fraud ... may be said to include property all acts, omissions, and concealments which involve a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence, justly reposed, and are injurious to another, or by which an undue or unconscientious advantage is taken of another. Al surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and other unfair way that is used to cheat anyone is considered as fraud. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing observations were made: 27. The said order is passed by the State Government only to enquire into the landholding records with a view to find out as to whether original land revenue records have been destroyed and fabricated to substantiate their unjustifiable claim by playing fraud upon the Tehsildar and appellate authorities to obtain the orders unlawfully in their favour by showing that there is no surplus land with the Company and its shareholders as the valid subleases are made and they are accepted by them in the proceedings Under Section 21 of the Act, on the basis of the alleged false declarations filed by the shareholders and sub-lessees Under Section 6 of the Act. The plea urged on behalf of the State Government and the de-facto complainants-owners, at whose instance the orders are passed by the State Government on the alleged ground of fraud played by the declarants upon the Tehsildar and appellate authorities to get the illegal orders obtained by them to come out from the clutches of the land ceiling provisions of the Act by creating the revenue records, which is the fraudulent act on their part which unravels everything and therefore, the question of limitati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 005) 10 SCC 465; (7) Smt. Satya v. Shri Teja Singh, (1975) 1 SCC 120; (8) Mahboob Sahab v. Sayed Ismail, (1995) 3 SCC 693; and (9) Asharfi Lal v. Koili, (1995) 4 SCC 163.] (Emphasis supplied) 70. In State of A.P. v. T. Suryachandra Rao, (2005) 6 SCC 149, it was observed that where land which was offered for surrender had already been acquired by the State and the same had vested in it. It was held that merely because an enquiry was made, the Tribunal was not divested of the power to correct the error when the Respondent had clearly committed a fraud. Following observations were made: 7. The order of the High Court is clearly erroneous. There is no dispute that the land which was offered for surrender by the Respondent had already been acquired by the State and the same had vested in it. This was clearly a case of fraud. Merely because an enquiry was made, Tribunal was not divested of the power to correct the error when the Respondent had clearly committed a fraud. 8. By fraud is meant an intention to deceive; whether it is from any expectation of advantage to the party himself or from the ill will towards the other is immaterial. The expression fraud involves two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... *** *** 13. This aspect of the matter has been considered recently by this Court in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal, (2002) 1 SCC 100, Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, (2003) 8 SCC 311, Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi, (2003) 8 SCC 319 and Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N. and Anr., (2004) 3 SCC 1. 14. Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the court, (see Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust, (1996) 3 SCC 310 and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1). 15. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. Although negligence is not fraud it can be evidence of fraud; as observed in Ram Preeti Yadav, (2003) 8 SCC 311. 16. In Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Beasley (1956) 1 QB 702, Lord Denning observed at pages 712 713: (All ER p. 345C) No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw and needs no further elaboration. Therefore, it has been said that a judgment, decree or order obtained by fraud has to be treated as nullity, whether by the court of first instance or by the final court. And it has to be treated as nonest by every Court, superior or inferior. Supervisory jurisdiction of the court can be exercised in case of error apparent on the face of the record, abuse of process and if the issue goes to the root of the matter. 72. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1, this Court noted that the issue of fraud goes to the root of the matter and it exercised powers Under Article 136 to cure the defect. The Court observed: 5. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that there is no legal duty cast upon the Plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence . The principle of finality of litigation cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an abuse of the process of the court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to re-litigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. 74. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has placed reliance on the decision rendered in Ujjagar Singh v. Collector, Bhatinda, (1996) 5 SCC 14, wherein this Court examined the effect of coming into force of Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 and vesting of the surplus area in the State. In this case, the area in possession of landlord was declared surplus under the Pepsu Act, but possession had not been taken by the State. It was held that area did not vest finally as the surplus area under the Pepsu Act, owing to coming into force of the new Act, the ceiling area must be determined afresh under the new Punjab Act. In the instant case, the order was passed in ceiling matter in the year 1980 and the adjudication order of Collector (Ceiling) was not questioned nor the order of remand to declare land as surplus and then the additional land was declared surplus in 1993. It was not the case of re-opening of the case. In fact, the land has vested in the State under the Abolition Act. Thereafter, compensation ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
