Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.30 and 31 – Reference proceedings under – Decree passed – Allegation of fraud – When not proved – Large extent of land including the land in question belonging to Panchayat/Gaon Sabha was acquired – Respondents claimed that they were lessees of the land in question and thus entitled for compensation – Matter referred to Civil Court u/ss.30,
31 which passed decree holding respondents entitled for compensation to the extent of 87% and gaon sabha for the remaining 13% – Suit filed by appellants inter alia for declaration that the aforesaid decree was obtained by fraud – Decreed – Set aside by High Court – Held: Decree passed by Civil Court became final and was not questioned in any appeal – Land in question was banjar land having shora and Panchayat wanted to give it on lease to make the same fit for cultivation by removing shora – At every stage, the proceedings for grant of lease to respondents were approved by competent authority – It cannot be said that lease was obtained by respondents in collusion with ex-Pradhan of Gaon Sabha – Fraud has to be pleaded and proved – In the present case, except a vague plea, there were no particulars of how the fraud was played – Fraud not established – No case made out to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of High Court – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.53A.
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.53A – Defence under – Discussed – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The judgment and decree dated 28.09.1989 passed in the proceedings under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has become final. Same was not questioned in any appeal. Without filing any appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.09.1989, a separate suit is filed mainly on the ground that the said judgment and decree is obtained by fraud. The land in question was ‘banjar’ land having “shora” and Gram Panchayat wanted to give the said land on lease to make the same fit for cultivation by removing “shora”. The revenue records produced also reveal that the name of the respondent was entered as possessor and cultivator. In the light of documentary evidence it cannot be said that lease was obtained by the respondents in collusion with ex-Pradhan. [Para 11][862-C, E-F; 863-B]
1.2 When the judgment and decree is assailed only on the ground that lease was created in collusion with the ex-Pradhan, as the same is contrary to evidence, the only plea of the respondents was rightly not accepted by the High Court. As at every stage the proceedings for grant of lease were approved by the competent authority/Dy. Director, Panchayat, as such it cannot be said respondents have obtained lease in collusion with exPradhan of the Panchayat. Except such a vague plea, there were no particulars how the fraud was played. Fraud has to be pleaded and proved. More so, when a judgment and decree passed earlier by the competent court is questioned, it is necessary to plead alleged fraud by necessary particulars and same has to be proved by cogent evidence. As the evidence on record discloses that fraud, as pleaded, was not established, in absence of any necessary pleading giving particulars of fraud, no case is made out to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the High Court. [Para 12][863-D-G]
Maneklal Mansukhbhai v. Hormusji Jamshedji
Ginwalla & Sons AIR 1950 SC 1 : [1950] SCR 75; Hamzabi & Ors. v. Syed Karimuddin & Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 414 : [2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 99 – relied on. Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor (1960)
1 SCR 368; C.M. Beena & Anr. v. P.N. Ramachandra Rao (2004) 3 SCC 595 : [2004] 3 SCR 306 – held inapplicable.
S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs & Ors. (1994) 1 SCC 1 : [1993] 3 Suppl. SCR 422; A. V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. v. Govt. of A. P. & Ors. (2007) 4 SCC 221 : [2007] 3 SCR 603;
Madhukar Sadbha Shivarkar (Dead) by LRs v. State of Mahrashtra & Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 557; Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam v. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh (Dead) through Lrs. (2019) 14 SCC 449 : [2018] 12 SCR 282; Shrist Dhawan (Smt.) v. M/s. Shaw Brothers (1992) 1 SCC
534 : [1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 446; Meghmala & Ors. v. G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 383 : [2010]
10 SCR 47; Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Chembur Service Station (2011) 3 SCC 710 : [2011] 3 SCR 632; Ranganayakamma & Anr. V. K.S. Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. (2008) 15 SCC 673 : [2008] 9 SCR
297 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.