Fraud unravels concluded acquisition proceedings and overrides the principle of finality and res judicata.

The State issued notifications in 1988 and 1989 to acquire 41 acres, including the appellant’s land, for the Ex-servicemen House Building Co-operative Society (Respondent No. 5).

The appellant’s father died in 1989, and the appellant, being away on service, claimed ignorance of the proceedings.

Previous challenges to the acquisition were dismissed between 1995 and 2020 on grounds of delay, laches, and res judicata.

A Government-ordered "G.V.K. Rao Committee Report" found the Society was fraudulent, lacking genuine ex-servicemen members, and operating outside its jurisdiction.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) issued an endorsement in 2023 stating no records existed for the "consent award" or payment of compensation.

An official inspection in 2021/2025 confirmed that the appellant remained in physical possession, and no layout or development had ever been formed by the Society.

The Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition in 2025, holding that acquisition finality and the Indore Development Authority precedent barred the claim.

The Court applied the principle that "fraud vitiates every solemn act," relying on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, which holds that a judgment obtained by fraud is a nullity and can be challenged even in collateral proceedings.

The "fraud exception" overrides the doctrine of merger and finality of litigation as established in Vishnu Vardhan v. State of U.P. (2025) and Vipin Kumar v. Jaydeep (2025).

Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki mandate that compensation must be tendered by the State/Collector to the landowner, rather than a Society "paying itself" via an absconding promoter.

Paragraph 366.9 of Indore Development Authority bars stale claims under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act but does not immunize fraudulent acquisition records.

The Court reasoned that this was not a mere re-litigation of old issues but a challenge based on "fresh material" that struck at the factual substratum of the acquisition.

The G.V.K. Rao Committee Report and the SLAO’s 2023 endorsement proved that the "consent award" was non-existent in official records and that compensation was never legally tendered to the appellant.

The court highlighted a gross irregularity where the Society’s promoter allegedly withdrew the award amount using non-existent powers of attorney—effectively the Society paying itself.

The State’s own admission in 2025 that the appellant remained in physical possession and no public purpose (layout formation) had been achieved in 37 years contradicted earlier defenses.

The Court held that since the earlier judgments were founded on a "tainted" factual foundation provided by the respondents, the principle of res judicata could not be used as an "engine of fraud" to protect a fraudulent acquisition.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge’s order dated 25.02.2025, and granted the prayer to quash the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the appellant's lands.