Haryana: Fraud by ‘big landowner’ surfaces after 37 years
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, August 2
A fraud with the court played by a “big” landowner to remain in possession of “surplus land” has surfaced before the Punjab and Haryana High Court nearly four decades later. Holding that the landowner played fraud with the court to obtain a favourable order in 1985, Justice Anil Kshetarpal ruled that her petitioner-legal heir was not entitled to court’s indulgence.
It’s a nullity: HC
A judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. It can be challenged in any court at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. Justice Anil Kshetarpal, Punjab & Hry HC
“Big landowners do make numerous efforts to remain in possession of land by adopting various dubious means. This is also one such case,” Justice Kshetarpal asserted.
“The principle of ‘finality of litigation’ could not be stretched to the extent of an absurdity that it can be utilised as an engine of oppression by dishonest and fraudulent litigants. A judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. It can be challenged in any court at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings,” the court said.
The case has its genesis in the collector’s August 1962 order declaring 50.86 ordinary acres as surplus, leaving 60 ordinary acres with the landowner.
The order was never challenged. State government officials also did not take steps to take over the land’s possession till 1983. Responding to a notice, she provided the “khasra numbers” she chose to retain as permissible area in April 1983. Subsequently, a part of the surplus land was allotted to some persons in February 1985.
Her appeal and the revision petition challenging the allotment order were dismissed the same year. “At that stage, she played a fraud. Instead of challenging the order passed in the revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, she filed a civil suit on November 6, 1985, challenging the orders passed by the allotment authority, the collector as well as the commissioner. However, she did not implead the allottees as parties to the suit,” Justice Kshetarpal asserted.
The allotment authority delivered possession to the allottees on September 24, 1985. But the state officials failed to contest the suit properly, resulting in judgment and decree dated November 17, 1985. She was declared owner in possession of the property and the officials were restrained from dispossessing her.
“Neither the State of Haryana, nor the landowner disclosed to the court that the land’s possession was delivered to the allottees on September 24, 1985, resulting in her dispossession,” Justice Kshetarpal asserted, adding that the entire basis of the decree passed in her favour was against record.
The matter reached the High Court and the petitioner-legal heir applied for the execution of decree. The objections by the allottees were allowed, resulting in the plea’s dismissal.
