Jharkhand High Court
Shri Gobind Ram Kataruka Charity ... vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 16 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
WP(C) No. 2438 of 2020
Shri Gobind Ram Kataruka Charity Trust ..... ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. .... .... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate
For the Respondents-State : Mr. K.K. Singh, SC-V
--------
The matter is being taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the parties
have no objection with it and submitted that audio and video qualities are good.
Order No.11/Dated: 16th November, 2022
Mr. K.K. Singh, learned SC-V appearing on behalf of the
respondents-State has submitted, that a supplementary counter affidavit has
been filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi on 17.08.2022, annexing the
return paper submitted by ex-landlord of Palkot Estate, Gumla, copy of
which has been obtained from the Gumla record room, whereby it has been
alleged that the plot No. 496 of Khata No. 383 Pundag of Mouza Pundag has
never been settled in favour of Sk. Sahamat and Sk. Ajmad in the year 1947,
as per registered kabuliat dated 09.01.1947.
Mr. Ayush Aditya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted, that the order dated 09.08.2006 passed by the
Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 1119 of 2006 has been
affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 474 of 2006
in terms of order dated 15.10.2008, paragraph No.2 of which may profitably
be quoted hereunder:
"2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the land in
question was settled by the ex-intermediaries in favour of the
ancestors of the respondent in the year 1947 followed by grant
of rent receipts and delivery of possession. The original settlee
also executed a registered Kabuliat in favour of exe-
intermediaries on 09.01.1947. ............"
Mr. K.K. Singh, learned SC-V has placed reliance upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "A.V. Papayya
Sastry & Ors. V. Govt. of A.P. & Ors." reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221.
Paragraph No. 38 to 40 of which may profitably be quoted hereunder:
"38. The matter can be looked at from a different angle as well. Suppose, a
case is decided by a competent court of law after hearing the parties and
an order is passed in favour of the plaintiff applicant which is upheld by all
the courts including the final court. Let us also think of a case where this
Court does not dismiss special leave petition but after granting leave
decides the appeal finally by recording reasons. Such order can truly be
said to be a judgment to which Article 141 of the Constitution applies.
Likewise, the doctrine of merger also gets attracted. All orders passed by
the courts/authorities below, therefore, merge in the judgment of this Court
and after such judgment, it is not open to any party to the judgment to
approach any court or authority to review, recall or reconsider the order.
39. The above principle, however, is subject to exception of fraud. Once it
is established that the order was obtained by a successful party by
practising or playing fraud, it is vitiated. Such order cannot be held legal,
valid or in consonance with law. It is non-existent and non est and cannot
be allowed to stand. This is the fundamental principle of law and needs no
further elaboration. Therefore, it has been said that a judgment, decree or
order obtained by fraud has to be treated as a nullity, whether by the court
of first instance or by the final court. And it has to be treated as non est by
every court, superior or inferior.
40. Hence, the argument of Mr Venugopal cannot be upheld. Even if he is
right in submitting that after dismissal of SLPs, the respondent herein could
not have approached the High Court for recalling its earlier order passed
in April 2000 and the High Court could not have entertained such
applications, nor the recalling could have been done, in the facts and
circumstances of the case and in the light of the finding by the High Court
that fraud was committed by the landowners in collusion with the officers
of the Port Trust Authorities and the Government, in our considered view,
no fault can be found against the approach adopted by the High Court and
the decision taken. The High Court, in our opinion, rightly recalled the
order, dated 27-4-2000 and remanded the case to the authorities to decide
the same afresh in accordance with law."
Mr. K.K. Singh, learned SC-V appearing for the respondents-
State is directed to place the fact before this Court that:
(I) Earlier, why this fact has not been brought to the knowledge of the
Court, on which the State is relying today? It means that the officers,
who have filed counter affidavit in LPA No. 474 of 2006 and in
WP(C) No. 1119 of 2006 were callous and they have admitted the
claim of the petitioner.
(II) What action has been taken against those officers by the State
Government? If the officers of the State have caused loss to the State,
why criminal cases have not been lodged against them till date,
because document of return was always in possession of the State.
Learned counsel for the respondents-State is further directed to
substantiate his argument by bringing the entire return paper, submitted by
the ex-landlord of Palkot Estate, so as to clarify the stand, as because the
matter has been decided against the State in several writ petitions with
respect to Khata No.383, Mouza Pundag, the then Gumla under the Palkot
Estate.
As prayed by Mr. K.K. Singh, learned SC-V appearing on behalf
of the respondents-State, put up this case on 05.01.2023 under the same
heading.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Madhav/-
