Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Courtbench, comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice S Abdul Nazeer, asserted the principle that fraud vitiates everything and observed, in the case of Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam vs. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh, that fraud vitiates the solemn proceedings and such plea can be set up even in collateral proceedings immaterial of the label of proceedings.
The Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 abolished jagirs andthe jagidars received compensation under the Abolition Act and later under the provisions of H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The issue was whether they could have claimed the compensation on the land acquisition, being made particularly when land vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh; the land was not under personal cultivation, even after receiving compensation as mentioned before.
Noting the history of this litigation, the bench said that the facts project how a litigant has filed a slew of litigations, one after the other, and faced a situation that it was likely to be dismissed, he would withdraw it and file it again on new grounds, or having lost it, would withdraw it again at appellate stage, and in the meantime, in different proceedings by playing fraud, getting unjust enrichment by receiving compensation at the expense of public exchequer.
The reference court awarded Rs.1 lakh per bigha to the jagidar. Before the HC, Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam contended that the land acquisition proceedings were commenced in collusion with the government officials and as the land stood vested in the government, under the Abolition Act, the same could not be acquired. The HC dismissed the appeals. Although the SC remanded the appeals, the HC dismissed it again. The present appeal before the SC assailed the said dismissal.
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the bench observed that in the said case, the principle fraud vitiates is clearly applicable and it cannot be overlooked under the guise of the scope of proceedings under Section 18/30 of the Land Acquisition Act.
The question in the instant case is as to whether an incumbent can be permitted to play blatant fraud time and again while the court is the silent spectator under the guise of label of the various legal proceedings at different stages by taking different untenable stands and whether compensation can be claimed several times as done in the instant case and its effect. Before the land acquisition had commenced in 1987, more than 1000 bighas had been declared a surplus in ceiling case and compensation collected, which indeed disputed land at Jhakari, it would be a perpetuating fraud in case such a person is permitted to claim compensation for the very same land. The bench also added that the label on the petition is not much material and this Court has already permitted the plea of fraud to be raised.
86540
103860
630
114
59824