TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion which arises for our consideration is as to whether even in such a situation, this Court would allow a suppression of fact to prevail. It is now a well settled principle that fraud vitiates all solemn acts. If an order is obtained by reason of commission of fraud, even the principles of natural justice are not required to be complied with for setting aside the same. The allottees have acquired a statutory right. Only because the State was not aware of the factual position and/or the legal implication of the 1999 Act which led to withdrawal of the writ petition from the High Court, the same by itself may not be sufficient to deprive the allottees from their legal right to hold the said land. Therefore, we are of the opinion th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... informed to the parties. 3. All contentions raised by the appellants were considered therein. It was allowed to attain finality. 4. Notification under Section 10(3) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette on 4.5.1989. A notification was also issued under Section 10(5) thereof on 23.8.1989. Allegedly, the directions contained therein were not complied by the appellant. Possession of the properties were said to have been taken over on 20.4.1992. Surplus lands are said to have been allotted to members of the weaker sections as envisaged under Section 23 of the Act. Another round of litigation was initiated by the appellant. Another appeal was said to have been filed before the appellate authority in terms of Section 33 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsequently the same is disposed off accordingly. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. Ad-interim relief vacated. Thereafter notices were issued to the allottees for their eviction. Several correspondences passed between the appellant and the Authorities of the State. Allegedly the Order of the High Court dated 23.3.2000 was accepted by the State. A stand was taken that the said order of the High Court dated 15.6.1999 would not be challenged. 7. Appellant sold the land to one Dineshbai Chhotabhai Patel by a registered deed of sale dated 20.5.2000. The said vendee again sold half of the said land in favour of one Sanjay Kumar Manilal Patel on 25.1.2001. Permission was granted for construction of the buildings. 8. The allottees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court that the Order dated 12.7.1984 had attained finality. It was, furthermore, contended that the stand taken by the Assistant Government Pleader was not binding upon the State as those cases where possession had also been taken over from the owner of the land have explicitly been saved under the provisions of the 1999 Act. 12. Steps indisputably had been taken under the provisions of the Act, pursuant to the final order passed in the said proceeding as not only some lands were declared to be surplus, an appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed, possession had been taken over and even allotments have been made in favour of the members of the weaker sections of the Society. We may notice that even possession of portions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required to be complied with. [Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ajay Kumar Das and Others (2002) 4 SCC 503 A. Umarani v. Registrar, Cooperative societies and Others (2004) 7 SCC 112-para 65] 22. Once it is held that by reason of commission of a fraud, a decree is rendered to be void rendering all subsequent proceedings taken pursuant thereto also nullity, in our opinion, it would be wholly inequitable to confer a benefit on a party, who is a beneficiary thereunder .. 14. The object and purport of a statute must be given effect to. If there is a conflicting interest, the Court may adjust equities but under no circumstance it should refuse to consider the merit of the matter, when its attention is drawn that suppression of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stice that legal process should be finite. To reopen this case after a delay of four years plainly runs counter to that principle. But this is a case where Mr. Smith has been denied the right to which art 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (as set out in Sch 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998) entitled him to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. This, in our view, is the paramount consideration so far as the administration of justice is concerned. 18. For the reasons, aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the merit of the matter as also the question in regard to adjustment of equities may be considered by the High Court. We, for the foregoing in exerci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
