A single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar while dismissing a petition challenging the order of Special Tribunal which has upheld the order of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms setting aside the Mutation under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act on the basis of Fraud has held that any transaction which is the result of Misrepresentation, Fraud or Deceitful means is Not protected under law on any ground including Limitation. The court further reiterated that Fraud vitiates all solemn acts and any instrument, deed, Judgment, decree and order obtained through Fraud is a nullify in the eyes of law.
The case before the court was that a Mutation under section 8 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act was attested in favour of the petitioners without their being any mutation under section 4 of the Act attested by the competent revenue officer qua the subject land. The owners of the land got the said mutation set aside by an order of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms on the grounds that such a mutation was illegal in absence of any mutation arrested under section 4. There said mutation was held to be an outcome of Fraud. The said order was upheld by the Special Tribunal and concurred with the view taken by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms.
The court while testing the validity of both orders assailed before it observed that the court in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 Cannot take over and assume The character of an Appellate Court and Cannot re-appreciate the concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts below Unless Such findings are shown to be perverse.
On merits the court observed that Through deceitful means and obviously with the connivance of Revenue Officers/Officials, the mutation under Section 8 of the Act was directly attested by making reference to a mutation under Section 4 attested in favour of a different person and with respect to a different land. As is rightly held by the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms that in such cases where a mutation is found to be a result of fraud and deceit, there is no limitation to challenge such action. The Revisional Court has correctly appreciated this aspect of the matter and rightly declined the argument of the petitioners that the Commissioner Agrarian Reforms should not have entertained a time barred appeal. The revenue courts below have clearly unravelled a fraud committed by the petitioners in connivance with the revenue officers.
While relying upon the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Commissioner of Customs(Preventive) vs. M/S. Aafloat Textiles (I) P.Ltd.&Ors, (2009) 11 SCC 18” and “Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam vs. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh” the court held that any benefit obtained by way of a judgment or decree passed by the court or an act or omission of a public servant by playing fraud is a nullity and non-est in the eye of law. The proposition holds equally good in the case of such orders obtained from Revenue Authorities/Revenue Courts by playing fraud or through deceitful means.
Court further held that Any transaction which is the result of misrepresentation, fraud or deceitful means is not protected on the ground of limitation. The court of law is under an obligation to refuse to give effect to such order, decree or judgment passed by any authority, much less to endorse or acknowledge it.
