### Judgment Procurement via Fraudulent Grant Orders for Public Water Bodies Is Non Est and Lacks Legal Sanctity Brief Summary: The Karnataka High Court set aside a Single Judge's order that had directed revenue entries based on a civil court decree. The Division Bench held that the underlying "Grant Order" was a fabricated document for land classified as a Government Lake (*Sarkari Kere*). Reaffirming that "fraud unravels everything," the Court ruled that judicial decrees obtained by deceiving the court are a nullity. Furthermore, it emphasized the State's constitutional obligation under Article 21 to protect community resources and natural bodies from illegal alienation.

The Petitioner (Respondent No. 1) claimed title to 13 Acres 29 Guntas in Sy. Nos. 82, 52, and 61 of Dattagalli Village via a 1954 Grant Order

Relying on a 2001 Civil Court decree in O.S. No. 96/1997 which declared him the absolute owner—a decree that attained finality after the State’s appeals were dismissed on grounds of delay—the Petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to enter his name in revenue records (RTC) and receive compensation for land utilized by the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA)

The Writ Court allowed the petition

The State appealed, contending that the lands are classified as "Sarkari Kere" (Government Lake/Tank Bed), making them "B-Kharab" land and legally non-grantable

Upon inspection of original records, no evidence of the alleged 1954 grant was found

1. Whether a person can claim title based on a Grant Order that is found to be non-existent/fraudulent in original government records, despite a prior Civil Court decree

2. Whether land classified as "Sarkari Kere" (Government Lake) can be validly granted to a private individual

The court applied the doctrine that "fraud unravels everything" (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant), relying on Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Meghamala Ors. v. G. Narasimha Reddy, holding that judicial orders procured through deception or concealment lack legal sanctity.

Environmentally, the court applied the principle from Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi, which mandates that material resources like tanks, ponds, and forests are nature's bounty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be allotted for private use

The Court conducted a de novo review of the original revenue records and found no entry corresponding to the Petitioner’s alleged 1954 Grant Order

It determined the document produced as "Annexure-B" was a "dubious, fake, and created" fabrication

The Court reasoned that since the underlying grant was fraudulent, the resulting Civil Court decree—obtained by "playing fraud on the court"—was non-est and a nullity

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that since the land was classified as "Sarkari Kere" (Government Lake), it is "B-Kharab" land belonging to the community; the State is constitutionally obligated under Article 21 to preserve such water bodies and lacks the authority to grant them to private parties

The Court held that the Writ Court erred by focusing solely on the procedural finality of the civil decree while ignoring the substantive fraud and the ecological nature of the land

The High Court allowed the Writ Appeal and set aside the Writ Court’s order. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed, and the State was not required to update the RTC or pay compensation based on the fraudulent claim