STATE OF KARNATAKA vs SRI. L. N. GOVINDASWAMY
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
Reserved on : 17.04.2026
Pronounced on : 04.06.2026
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 04 DAY OF JUNE, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1333 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT,
MYSURU-571 129.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MYSURU SUB DIVISION,
MYSURU-571 129.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
MYSURU HUNSUR ROAD,
MYSURU-571 105.
(NOW AT NAZARBAD,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
MYSURU TALUK,
MYSURU-570 010).
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA)
Digitally
signed by
REKHA R
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
AND:
1.
SRI. L. N. GOVINDASWAMY
S/O. LATE SRI. RAMA BHOVI,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 90/9,
NAACHANAHALLI PALYA,
J. P. NAGARA,
MYSURU DISTRICT,
MYSURU-570008.
2. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MUDA)
JHANSI LAXMI BAI ROAD,
MYSURU-570 005,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.P.SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.MANJUNATH G.KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI.M.B.CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE FOR
PSD R3 TO 7)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
27.11.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
No-24304/2021 (KLR-RES) BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL b)
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WP NO-24304/2021 (KLR-RES)
ST
FILED BY THE 1 RESPONDENT.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED/ PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
- 3 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M NADAF)
This intra court appeal is by the State and its
instrumentalities under Section 4 of the Karnataka High
Court Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 27.11.2024
passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.24304/2021.
2. By the impugned order, the Writ Court disposed
of the Writ Petition holding that the petitioner acquired
title by means of declaration of title by Civil Court which
reached up to Supreme court and directed the fourth
respondent to enter the name of the petitioner in the
revenue records including the RTC extracts to enable the
petitioner to get compensation from the fifth respondent
for acquisition of lands by it in a time bound manner with
further directions.
3. The parties are referred to as per their rankings
before the Writ Court.
4. Facts leading to file the present appeal are as
under:
- 4 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
4.1 The case of the petitioner as put forth by them
before the Writ Court was that, one Sheragar Laxma
Bhovi was in possession of land bearing Sy.Nos.82,
52 and 61 to an extent of 13 Acres 29 Guntas in
Dattagalli Village, Mysore Taluk. It is further stated
that land has been granted in favor of said Sheragar
Laxma Bhovi as per the Grant Order dated
31.03.1954 (Annexure-B). After the death of
Sheragar Laxma Bhovi, the name of the petitioner
being the legal representative of said Sheragar
Laxma Bhovi came to be entered in the revenue
records as per IHR No.4/1983-84 (Annexure-C).
4.2 At the earlier point of time, in view of certain
disputes by the State Government denying the title
of the petitioner, a suit in O.S.No.96/1997 came to
be filed against the Government entities viz., State of
Karnataka represented by its Chief Secretary, the
Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division,
1
Mysore and Mysore Urban Development Authority .
1
MUDA, for short
- 5 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
The suit on contest, came to be decreed on
30.07.2001 declaring the petitioner and other
plaintiffs as absolute owner of suit schedule property.
4.3 The State and other defendants aggrieved by the
Judgment and decree stated supra in suit
O.S.No.96/1997, filed R.A.No.257/2009 along with
an application seeking condonation of delay. The said
application came to be allowed after contest. That
was the subject matter before the Writ Court in
W.P.No.27735/2010 contending that the appeal filed
belatedly by five years, and the Appellate Court
erroneously allowed the application. The Writ Court
vide order dated 30.08.2011 (Annexure-E) allowed
the Writ Petition and set-aside the order passed by
the Appellate Court in R.A.No.257/2009 allowing the
I.A seeking condonation of delay. Consequently, the
appeal filed by the State was dismissed. The order in
Writ Petition unsuccessfully carried before the
Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition.
- 6 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
4.4 It is further stated in the Writ Petition that
respondent No.5 has utilized the land belonging to
the petitioner without initiating any acquisition
proceedings and accordingly, the petitioner
presented the Writ Petition before the Writ Court.
4.5 It was contended before the Writ Court that the
petitioner acquired his right through his ancestor
Sheragar Laxma Bhovi and by means of declaration
of the Civil Court, his title to the land declared, the
respondent No.5 without initiating any acquisition
proceedings utilized the land for the purpose of
laying of road. An application was filed seeking
compensation which was not considered on the
ground that the petitioner's name was not found in
the RTC. Accordingly, a representation was filed
requesting the State authorities to enter the name of
the petitioner and his family members in the RTC
records as the request was not favoured and the
petition filed seeking relief with further direction
against respondent No.5 to grant compensation in
- 7 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
respect of the portion of land utilized belonging to
the petitioner.
4.6 This contention of the petitioner was refuted by both
the Government as well as MUDA, stating that there
is a cloud in so far as title of the property in question
and also disputed the grant made in favor of
Sheragar Laxma Bhovi.
4.7 Before the Writ Court, learned counsel appearing for
the MUDA submitted that in terms of the order
passed by the Writ Court dated 29.01.2014 and
12.02.2024, respondent No.5 has deposited
Rs.51,50,161/- for the portion of the land utilized
belonging to the petitioner and further contended
that entire extent of land as claimed by the petitioner
has not been acquired in view of the report made by
Assistant Director of Land Records produced along
with the memo dated 26.02.2024 and sought to
dispose of the Writ Petition.
4.8 The Writ Court having considered the rival
submissions was of the opinion that the petitioner
- 8 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
acquired title under the Grant Order to Sheragar
Laxma Bhovi dated 31.03.1954 as per Annexure-B
and the same is confirmed in the suit by declaring
title of the petitioner against the Government, which
though challenged in R.A.No.257/2009 along with
application for delay condonation, which was allowed
by the Appellate court and subsequently set-aside by
the Writ Court in W.P.No.27735/2010 consequently
dismissing the appeal and attained finality and
unsuccessfully called before the Supreme Court.
4.9 Further, the Writ Court observed that the
Government preferred RSA No.2026/2012 against
the Judgment dated 24.11.2011 in R.A.No.257/2009
which came to be dismissed by this Court on the
submission made by learned counsel appearing at
the bar that portion of land has been utilized by
respondent No.5 for the purpose of formation of road
and drainage facility and to make way for the general
public. In view of the order passed by the competent
Civil Court which has attained finality regarding the
- 9 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
right of the petitioner in respect of the land on the
basis of Grant order, the Writ Court on the basis of
survey report regarding the extent of land which has
been utilized by respondent No.5, in terms of
direction issued on 12.02.2024, produced report as
per memo dated 26.02.2024 stating the position of
the land and in the backdrop of these documents,
held that respondent No.5 utilized the land belonging
to the petitioner for the purpose of formation of road
and drainage facility and to make way for the general
public, directed respondent No.4 to enter the name
of the petitioner in the revenue records including RTC
extracts to enable the petitioner to get the
compensation from respondent No.5 in a time bound
manner. Further, directed the Registry to return the
deposit made by respondent No.5 through RTGS with
an intimation to the learned counsel for the
respondent No.5. Further kept it open for the
petitioner to approach respondent No.5 seeking
enhancement of compensation if so advised since no
acquisition proceedings has been initiated by
- 10 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
respondent No.5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was
disposed of. It is this order passed by the Writ Court
is called in question in this Writ Appeal.
5. Heard, Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the appellants, Sri.S.P.Shankar,
learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri.Manjunath
G.Kandekar, learned counsel for respondent No.1,
Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel for respondent No.2
and Sri.M.B.Chandrachooda, learned counsel for proposed
respondent 3 to 7 on I.A.No.4/2025 for impleading.
6. Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned AGA placing
reliance on the written submission filed on 23.03.2026,
copy of which was served on the opponent long back,
submits that the land claimed to be granted in favor of
Sheragar Laxma Bhovi was in the land classified as Sarkari
Kere i.e., Government Lake and the same was also shown
and entered in the RTC from 1970-71 as B-Kharab and
Sarkari Kere in respect of Sy.No.52, 61 and 82 of
Dattagalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District.
- 11 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
He further stated regarding history of the land in the
written submissions, which reads as under:
II. History of Sy.No.52 of Dattagalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk
and District.
•
Land measures 1 Acre and 34 Guntas.
•
RTC extract from 1970-71 shows the land as
B-Kharab land or "Kharabu Katte".
•
MUDA utilized 34 Guntas for construction of
storm water drain for its adjoining layout.
•
Remaining 1 acre is occupied by water
spread area.
•
The said land is never granted to anyone.
III. History of Sy.No.61 of Dattagalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk
and District.
•
Land measures 1 Acre and 35 Guntas.
•
Revenue records from 1970-71 shows the
land as "Kharabu Katte".
•
Land has never been granted to anyone.
IV. History of Sy.No.82 of Dattagalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk
and District.
•
Land measures 161 Acres and 10 Guntas.
•
It originally measured 168 Acres and 30
Guntas. Out of this extent, a total of 07
Acres and 20 Guntas were bifurcated
through Durasti.
•
It is classified as "Sarkari Kere" of
Government Lake. RTC from the years 1970
to around 1980 shows that the land is
classified a Government Tank Bed.
•
From the year 1980 onwards, an illegal
entry was made in MR No.20/53-54 and RTC
stood in the name of Shergar Laxma Bhovi,
the late father of the petitioner.
•
The illegal entry so made is cancelled vide
the order of the Assistant commissioner in
case no. Audit.4/85-86 dated 05/08/1989.
- 12 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
Thereafter, from the year 1994-95, the RTC
shows the name "Sarkari Kere" or
Government Lake.
•
Petitioner filed O.S.No.96/1997 for
Declaration that he is the owner of the suit
schedule property and for permanent
injunction. The said suit came to be decreed
on 30.07.2001 in favour of the petitioner/
plaintiff.
•
State Government filed R.A.No.257/2009
(Old No.135/2006). I.A. 1 for condonation of
delay was filed to condone the delay of 6
years in filing of the appeal. The said I.A
was allowed.
•
The petitioner challenged the same before
the Hon'ble High Court vide Writ Petition
No.27735/2010 (GM-CPC). The said Writ
Petition was allowed vide order dated
30.08.2011.
•
Based on the said order, the
R.A.No.257/2009 stood dismissed.
•
The said order of the Hon'ble High court in
W.P.No.27735/2010 was challenged before
the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing a Civil
Appeal No.20866/2012. The same came to
be dismissed.
•
The State filed RSA No.2026/2012 against
the Judgment and Decree passed in
R.A.No.257/2009. The said RSA came to be
dismissed on 22.04.2012, relying on the
order passed in W.P.No.27735/2010."
6.1 It was further argued by Mr.Hegde, that as per the
Government Letter bearing No.RD 86 LGN 2001
dated 08.07.2003, the Deputy Commissioner/
Appellant No.2, has issued an Official Memorandum
dated 28.08.2003 excluding 25 Acres out of 161
Acres and 10 Guntas in Sy.No.82 and the remaining
extent o 136 Acres and 10 Guntas are transferred to
- 13 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
the Forest Department after notifying them as
Reserved forest. This action of the Government was
the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.84/2015 filed
by the petitioner against the Forest Department. An
application seeking temporary injunction-I.A.No.1 in
the said suit came to be rejected vide order dated
04.07.2015 and ended unsuccessfully in M.A filed
against the said order by means of order passed by
the Appellate Court on 19.06.2016. Subsequently,
the suit also came to be dismissed.
6.2 He further submits that in respect of the same set of
land as claimed by the petitioner, another person by
name Srinivas filed a suit for declaration, possession
and permanent injunction in O.S.No.321/1995. The
said suit was a collusive suit as the petitioner herein
himself testified and said that the said land belonged
to the State and thereafter was granted to one
Chinnabhovi, father of Srinivas. The petitioner
further stated as a witness that the lands were
granted in the 1956 in favor of predecessor of
- 14 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
Srinivas, as such the land remained under the
ownership of Srinivas.
6.3 Mr.Sudev Hegde, further submitted that this stance
of the petitioner goes against his claim itself staking
rights as absolute owner in respect of the very same
land which he has sought in the earlier suit stated
supra. The suit in O.S.No.321/1995 was decreed,
ended in dismissal in R.A and RSA i.e.,
R.A.No.7/2004 and R.S.A.No.588/2011. The said
Judgment was assailed before the Supreme Court in
SLP (Civil) Diary No.32076/2018 and the same is
pending consideration, wherein the Supreme Court
directed both the parties to maintain status-quo vide
order dated 05.10.2018.
6.4 It is further argued by Mr.Sudev Hegde, that both
the R.A and R.S.A filed by the State in respect of suit
filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.96/1997 ended in
dismissal only on the ground of delay, as such the
contentions of fraud taken by the State has not been
considered. This fact is also not considered by the
- 15 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
Writ Court. He further submits that mere entry of
name of the petitioner in RTC will not confer any
right, title in respect of the land. Admittedly, lands
are Sarkari Kere i.e,. Government Lake, as such
comes under B-Kharab land and no grant order can
be made in respect of B-Kharab land i.e.,
Government Lake and submits that the Writ Court
has failed to consider these settled principles of law.
6.5 Mr.Hegde, further submitted that the grant order on
the basis of which the petitioner got declaration in
his favor does not finds place in any of the record, as
such the same is fabricated and created and by
means of playing fraud on the Court got the decree,
as such, the said Judgment and Decree is non-est in
law.
6.6 Learned AGA in order to support his contention,
relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in
HINCH LAL TIWARI VS. KAMALA DEVI AND
2
OTHERS to contend that material resources of the
2
AIR 2001 SC 3215
- 16 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock,
mountain, etc, are natures bounty and need to be
protected for a proper and healthy environment
which enables people to enjoy a quality life which is
the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21
of the Constitution and relied on Paragraph No.13 of
the said Judgment.
6.7 Further, he has taken support of the Judgment in
JAGPAL SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF
3
PUNJAB AND OTHERS and relied on Paragraphs
No.13, 14 and 23 to contend that merely because
unauthorized occupation is subsisting for several
years, the same cannot be regularized and the lands
should be restored to the Government and illegal
occupants should be evicted.
6.8 He further relied on the Judgment in VISHNU
VARDHAN @ VISHNU PRADHAN VS. STATE OF
4
UTTAR PRADEHS AND OTHERS to contend that
3
AIR 2011 SC 1123
4
2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1501
- 17 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
fraud unravels everything. Accordingly, learned AGA
sought to dismiss the Writ Petition.
7. In contrast, Sri.S.P.Shankar, learned Senior
counsel appearing for the contesting respondent/
petitioner submits that the Writ Court is right in concluding
that the petitioner has perfected his title by means of
declaration by the competent Civil Court which attained
finality up till Supreme Court. The petitioner has perfected
his right by means of Grant order in favor of his ancestor
as well as declaration by the competent Civil Court on the
basis of subsequent order. Once there is a declaration by
the competent Civil Court declaring the rights which has
attained finality by means of unsuccessful challenge up till
Supreme Court, the State is now estopped from staking
any stand on the Grant Order or the title of the petitioner.
Once the title has been declared, the revenue authorities
are bound under law to effect the name of the petitioner in
the RTCs to enable them to claim compensation for the
portion of land utilized by respondent No.5. The Grant
order was passed in 1954 and till date, the said order has
- 18 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
not been challenged by anyone including the Government
Authorities and standing still today and the name of the
petitioner finds place in the RTC by means of Mutation in
the year 1983-84 and continued, as such the claim by the
Government as the lands claimed by the petitioner coming
within the survey number which is Government Lake
cannot be countenanced, when the same was contended
and negated against the State by the Civil Court. Learned
Senior counsel further submits that the Judgments relied
on by the appellant-Government are not applicable to the
facts of the present case, as they are clearly
distinguishable on facts and in view of the declaration by
competent Civil Court declaring the rights of the petitioner.
Accordingly, he sought to dismiss the appeal.
8. Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing
for the MUDA argued in line with the Government
Advocate. However, has stated that the MUDA had already
deposited amount in terms of the direction before the Writ
Court though ordered to be returned is ready to deposit
the amount for the portion of land utilized by it.
- 19 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
9. The impleading applicants herein are the legal
representatives Srinivas, who initiated suit in
O.S.No.325/1995. They have contended that they are also
entitled for the lands in the very same survey number in
terms of judicial pronouncements by the competent Civil
Court in their favor which has attained finality.
10. Having heard the rival submissions, we have
directed the learned AGA to produce the entire records
pertaining to the lands claimed by the Government as well
as the petitioner and impleading applicants. Accordingly,
Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned AGA produced entire
records pertaining to the lands on 17.04.2026 before us.
We have perused the original records produced by learned
AGA. After careful perusal, nothing is there to reflect the
name of the petitioner or their predecessor as grantees of
the land in question, the same applies to the impleading
applicants also.
11. At this juncture, to the query of the Court
regarding the original Grant Order, learned Senior counsel
Sri.S.P.Shankar, except showing the order at Annexure-B
- 20 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
which is photocopy of the order, has not produced any
original Grant Order. The photocopy produced at
Annexure-B and the Certified copy of the same produced
by AGA subsequently obtained from the records of the
Civil Court in O.S.No.96/1997 are the photocopies of the
order and not the original. The documents does not bear
the Signature of the competent authority in respect of the
order, but shows signed as Amaldar. Nothing has been
placed by the petitioner to contend in support of his
contention regarding grant of land. However, a feeble
attempt is made by producing certain documents such as
Copy of FIR, B Report, Copy of Order sheet and other
documents, along with affidavit by learned Senior counsel
on behalf of Sri.K.Sreedhar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, to contend that all the actions taken by the
Government ended in favor of the petitioner. As such, the
appeal filed by the appellant required to be dismissed.
12. In the absence of original Grant Order, we have
made enquiry with the Government Advocate and directed
him to produce the entire documents pertaining to the
- 21 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
lands. No corresponding entries are found in the
documents produced by the authorities with respect to
alleged grant order at Annexure-B. We have perused the
entire records pertaining to the lands. Nothing is found to
show the names of either the petitioner or his ancestors
reflecting their names as grantees of the land in
question. Same also applies to impleading applicants. As
such the application does not survive to consider and is
accordingly, rejected.
13. In the absence of corresponding record by
means of register and the corresponding order of grant
produced as Annexure-B to this Writ Petition, we have no
other option than to accept the contention of the learned
AGA that the order produced is a fake, dubious and on the
basis of such fake and dubious order by playing fraud on
the Civil Court, the decree has been obtained.
14. We find force in the argument of Mr.M.N.Sudev
Hegde, learned AGA that fraud unravels everything. The
Supreme Court in the case of VISHNU VARDHAN supra
at Paragraph No.60 has held as under:
- 22 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
"60. Be that as it may, obtaining of the impugned order by
Reddy in his favour by playing fraud on the High Court is
conspicuous by its presence. Thus, we find Vishnu's core
argument to be creditworthy and compelling for us to hold that
judicial orders procured by Reddy by subverting the judicial
process through fraud and concealment of material facts
cannot be permitted to stand."
15. In the said Judgment, the Supreme Court
referred to several decisions in Paragraph No.61 and
concluded in Paragraph No.64 holding that given the
deception involved, the impugned order and the decision
of the Court procured are tainted by fraud and thus, lack
legal sanctity and validity. The said paragraphs read as
under:
"61. In decisions abound, the Courts have consistently
nullified orders obtained through fraudulent means. Key
excerpts from some of these decisions read thus:
a. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh,
this Court reiterated that fraud unravels everything:
3. “Fraud and justice never dwell together”
(fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine
maxim which has never lost its temper over all
these centuries. Lord Denning observed in a
language without equivocation that “no judgment of
a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to
stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for, fraud
unravels everything” (Lazarus Estates
Ltd. v. Beasley, [[1956] 1 Q.B. 702 : [1956] 1 All
ER 341 : [1956] 2 WLR 502 (CA)]).
b. In Shrisht Dhawan (Smt) v. Shaw Bros, it was held:
20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most
solemn proceedings in any civilised system of
- 23 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human
conduct. Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton's
sorcerer, Comus, who exulted in his ability to, ‘wing
me into the easy-hearted man and trap him into
snares’. It has been defined as an act of trickery or
deceit. In Webster's Third New International
Dictionary fraud in equity has been defined as an
act or omission to act or concealment by which one
person obtains an advantage against conscience
over another or which equity or public policy forbids
as being prejudicial to another. In Black's Legal
Dictionary, fraud is defined as an intentional
perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing
another in reliance upon it to part with some
valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal
right; a false representation of a matter of fact
whether by words or by conduct, by false or
misleading allegations, or by concealment of that
which should have been disclosed, which deceives
and is intended to deceive another so that he shall
act upon it to his legal injury……..
c. In A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P., this Court held:
21. Now, it is well-settled principle of law that if
any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it
cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law.
Before three centuries, Chief Justice Edward Coke
proclaimed:
“Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or
temporal.”
22. It is thus settled proposition of law that a
judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud
on the court, tribunal or authority is a nullity and
non est in the eye of the law. Such a judgment,
decree or order—by the first court or by the final
court—has to be treated as nullity by every court,
superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any
court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even
in collateral proceedings.
23. *
24. In Duchess of Kingstone, Smith's Leading
th
Cases, 13 Edn., p. 644, explaining the nature of
fraud, de Grey, C.J. stated that though a judgment
would be res judicata and not impeachable from
within, it might be impeachable from without. In
other words, though it is not permissible to show
that the court was “mistaken”, it might be shown
- 24 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
that it was “misled”. There is an essential distinction
between mistake and trickery. The clear implication
of the distinction is that an action to set aside a
judgment cannot be brought on the ground that it
has been decided wrongly, namely, that on the
merits, the decision was one which should not have
been rendered, but it can be set aside, if the court
was imposed upon or tricked into giving the
judgment.
25. It has been said: fraud and justice never
dwell together (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant);
or fraud and deceit ought to benefit none (fraus et
dolus nemini patrocinari debent).
d. The judgment by Denning, L.J. in Lazarus Estates
Ltd. (supra), which has since been quoted with
approval by this Court in a catena of decisions
including Nidhi Kaim (supra), asserted intolerance for
fraud in legal proceedings in the following words:
No court … will allow a person to keep an
advantage which he has obtained by fraud. […]
Fraud unravels everything. The court is careful not
to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and
proved; but once it is proved, it vitiates judgments,
contracts and all transactions whatsoever….
64. In light of the above discussion, we feel no hesitation
to hold that given the deception involved, the impugned order
th
and the decision of this Court dated 5 May, 2022 in Reddy
Veerana (supra) procured by Reddy are tainted by fraud and,
thus, lack legal sanctity and validity."
16. The Supreme Court in the case of
MEGHAMALA AND OTHERS VS. G.NARASIMHA REDDY
5
AND OTHERS , at paragraphs No.28 to 36 has held that
the fraud is an intrinsic, collateral act, and fraud of an
egregious nature would vitiate the most solemn
5
(2010) 8 SCC 383
- 25 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
proceedings of courts of justice. Fraud is an act of
deliberate deception with a design to secure something,
which is otherwise not due. The said Paragraphs read as
under:
"28. It is settled proposition of law that where an
applicant gets an order/office by making misrepresentation or
playing fraud upon the competent Authority, such order cannot
be sustained in the eyes of law.
"Fraud avoids all judicial acts ecclesiastical or
temporal." (vide S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by
L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath. In Lazarus Estate Ltd. Vs. Besalay,
the Court observed without equivocation that "no
judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be
allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for
fraud unravels everything."
29. In Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Vs.
M/s. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs.
Prabhu this Court observed that a writ Court, while exercising
its equitable jurisdiction, should not act as to prevent
perpetration of a legal fraud as the courts are obliged to do
justice by promotion of good faith. "Equity is, also, known to
prevent the law from the crafty evasions and sub-letties
invented to evade law."
30. In Smt. Shrisht Dhawan Vs. M/s. Shaw Brothers. it
has been held as under:- (SCC p.553, para 20)
"20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn
proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It
is a concept descriptive of human conduct."
31. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra
Singh, this Court observed that "Fraud and justice never dwell
together" (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine
- 26 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
maxim which has never lost its temper over all these
centuries.
32. The ratio laid down by this Court in various
cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the
fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or made
misrepresentation and in such circumstances the Court should
not perpetuate the fraud. (See District Collector & Chairman,
Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society. Vs. M.
Tripura Sundari Devi ; Union of India Vs. M. Bhaskaran,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Girdharilal Yadav; State of
Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar ; Himadri
Chemicals Industries Ltd. Vs. Coal Tar Refining
Company and Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar.
33. Fraud is an intrinsic, collateral act, and fraud of an
egregious nature would vitiate the most solemn proceedings of
courts of justice. Fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a
design to secure something, which is otherwise not due. The
expression "fraud" involves two elements, deceit and injury to
the person deceived. It is a cheating intended to get an
advantage. (Vide Dr. Vimla Vs. Delhi Administration, Indian
Bank Vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., State of Andhra
Pradesh Vs. T.Suryachandra Rao ; K.D. Sharma Vs. SAIL and
Central Bank of India Vs. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir.
34. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously.
A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of
the others in relation to a property would render the
transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are
synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not
amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles
and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or
saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res
judicata. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false
representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without
belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true
- 27 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
or false. Suppression of a material document would also
amount to a fraud on the court. (Vide S.P. Changalvaraya
Naidu; Gowrishankar Vs. Joshi Amba Shankar Family
Trust. Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi, Roshan Deen Vs.
Preeti Lal, Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School &
Intermediate Education and Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. State of
T.N ).
35. In kinch Vs. Walcott, it has been held that
"....mere constructive fraud is not, at all events after
long delay, sufficient but such a judgment will not be
set aside upon mere proof that the judgment was
obtained y perjury."
Thus, detection/discovery of constructive fraud at a much
belated stage may not be sufficient to set aside the judgment
procured by perjury.
36. From the above, it is evident that even in judicial
proceedings, once a fraud is proved, all advantages gained by
playing fraud can be taken away. In such an eventuality the
questions of non-executing of the statutory remedies or
statutory bars like doctrine of res judicata are not attracted.
Suppression of any material fact/document amounts to a fraud
on the court. Every court has an inherent power to recall its
own order obtained by fraud as the order so obtained is non
est."
17. When the law laid down by the Supreme Court
in the above two cases and other cases referred by the
Supreme Court applied to the case on hand, it becomes
empathetically clear that in view of absence of original
order of Grant and in the absence of corresponding
records in the records maintained by the Government in
- 28 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
respect of the lands wherein the petitioner staking a claim,
on the order of Grant produced at Annexure-B required to
be stated as dubious, fake and created and fabricated
document. The Judgment procured on such a shady
document would not stand in law as the same goes to the
roots of claim.
18. Learned Senior counsel is unable to counter this
aspect of the matter when queried again and again with
respect to the document produced at Annexure-B and the
documents produced i.e., land records maintained by the
concerned authority before this Court. This fact has
deceived the Civil Court and the said fact deceived the
Writ Court, but nothing deceives more than an obvious
fact. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that
the Writ Court ignored these aspects of the matter, though
the same was pleaded and contended before the Writ
Court by the Government and failed to consider the same
and held that in view of the declaration of title by the
competent Civil Court, the petitioner has perfected his title
and as such the revenue authorities are under obligation
- 29 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
to enter the name in the revenue records. In these
circumstances, in the absence of grant order, the
petitioner has no legs to stand to claim a right over the
property.
19. There is one more reason for us to allow this
appeal and dismiss the Writ Petition, and that is, the land
stated to have been granted even as per the document
produced at Annexure-B (which we have already held as
false document) stated to be in the land in Survey number
which is Government Lake i.e., Sarkari Kere. The point on
grant of land in the properties belonging to the
Government which are essentially material resources of
the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock,
mountain, etc, are natures bounty and need to be
protected for a proper and healthy environment which
enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the essence
of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution
is no more res integra as no grant be made in respect of
natural resource available to the public at large. Our stand
gain strength from the Judgment relied on by the learned
- 30 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
AGA in HINCH LAL TIWARI supra, wherein the Supreme
Court in the concluding paragraph held as under:
"It is important to notice that the material
resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds,
hillock, mountain etc. are nature's bounty. They
maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be
protected for a proper and healthy environment which
enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the
essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the
Constitution. The Government, including the Revenue
Authorities i.e. Respondents 11 to 13, having noticed
that a pond is falling in disuse, should have bestowed
their attention to develop the same which would, on one
hand, have prevented ecological disaster and on the
other provided better environment for the benefit of the
public at large. Such vigil is the best protection against
knavish attempts to seek allotment in non-abadi
sites.For the aforementioned reasons, we set aside the
order of the High Court, restore the order of the
Additional Collector dated 25-2-1999 confirmed by the
Commissioner on 12-3-1999. Consequently,
Respondents 1 to 10 shall vacate the land, which was
allotted to them, within six months from today. They
will, however, be permitted to take away the material of
the houses which they have constructed on the said
land. If Respondents 1 to 10 do not vacate the land
within the said period the official respondents i.e.
Respondents 11 to 13 shall demolish the construction
and get possession of the said land in accordance with
law. The State including Respondents 11 to 13 shall
restore the pond, develop and maintain the same as a
recreational spot which will undoubtedly be in the best
interest of the villagers. Further it will also help in
maintaining ecological balance and protecting the
environment in regard to which this Court has
repeatedly expressed its concern. Such measures must
begin at the grass-root level if they were to become the
nation's pride."
20. In view of the judicial pronouncement stated
supra, even if there is a Grant by means of Annexure-B
(which we have already held as fake), the Government
ought not to have ventured to grant lands out of the lands
- 31 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
reserved for Government Lake i.e., Sarkari Kere. Such an
action goes against the statutory mandate of preserving
natural sources as held by the Supreme Court in HINCH
LAL TIWARI supra. The Government is duty bound and
obliged to protect and develop the lakes in order to
prevent any ecological disaster and to provide better
environment for the benefit of the public at large.
21. For the above said reasons, we deem it
appropriate to allow the appeal and set-aside the order
passed by the Writ Court.
22. We place our appreciation for the able
assistance provided by Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned AGA
for his painstaking work in collecting all the records to
protect the Government lands from the hands of the
persons who are seeking their claims on forged
documents. Though we are inclined to impose cost while
allowing the appeal, however, considering the financial
position of the contesting respondent/petitioner as
contended by his counsel, in the interest of justice, we
refrain ourselves from imposing any costs on the
- 32 -
WA No. 1333 of 2025
contesting respondent/petitioner. With these observations,
the Writ Appeal is allowed . The order passed by the Writ
Court is set-aside. Consequently, the Writ Petition filed is
dismissed.
23. In view of disposal of Writ Appeal, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
TKN