Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, has declared as a nullity and recalled its own previous judgment dated May 5, 2022, and set aside the judgment and order dated October 28, 2021, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The Court found that both orders were obtained through fraud, resulting in a violation of the principles of natural justice. The writ petition has been remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision, with directions to implead Vishnu Vardhan and T. Sudhakar as additional respondents. The Court further directed that the High Court may take oral and documentary evidence if required and that interim arrangements concerning securities and restrictions on alienation of property would continue conditionally.

The dispute arises from a parcel of land located in Sector 18, NOIDA, acquired in 2005 by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA). The land had originally been purchased jointly by Reddy Veeranna, T. Sudhakar, and Vishnu Vardhan on April 24, 1997, from Bansa and Banwari Singh for Rs. 1 crore. The purchased land measured 5-13-10 Bighas at Khasra Nos. 422 and 427M of Village Challera Banger, Gautam Budh Nagar. A portion measuring 2-18-10 Bighas remained unacquired and became the subject of prolonged litigation.

Also Read: State Must Uphold Rights Of Prisoners With Disabilities | Supreme Court Issues Binding Directives To Tamil Nadu For Disability-Compliant Prisons And Police Sensitization

In 1998, the three co-owners instituted Civil Suit No. 416/1998 seeking an injunction to prevent NOIDA from disturbing their possession. On February 16, 2000, the trial court decreed in their favour. NOIDA’s appeal was dismissed on March 30, 2001.

On June 26, 2000, Sudhakar purportedly sold his share to Reddy for Rs. 10 lakhs. Subsequently, Sudhakar filed Civil Suit No. 283/2001 seeking declaration of his 1/3rd share. On May 31, 2001, a compromise agreement declared Reddy the sole owner, but the trial court, suspicious of its bona fides, declined to endorse it. The suit was later dismissed for default on December 5, 2002.

Between 2003 and 2004, NOIDA launched a commercial development project in Sector 18. In 2005, the trio-initiated Execution Petition No. 2/2005 to enforce the 2000 decree, which was rejected. On February 3, 2005, Vishnu purportedly executed an agreement for sale of his share to Reddy and also executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Venkataramana. On August 4, 2005, the power of attorney holders (excluding Reddy) entered into an agreement to sell the entire land to M/s Prabhat Home Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 13.15 crore.

A Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on September 2, 2005. An execution application (No. 6/2005) was rejected on October 3, 2005. Vishnu filed WP(C) 75152/2005 in December 2005 challenging the land acquisition process, having cancelled the PoA on December 21, 2005.

Reddy instituted Civil Suit No. 370/2006 on May 31, 2006, asserting sole ownership. On October 4, 2006, a written statement and joint compromise application were filed by Venkataramana as PoA holder of Vishnu, admitting Reddy’s claim. The suit was decreed as per compromise on November 17, 2006. Vishnu later sold his share to Ranbir Singh Narag on June 7, 2006.

On September 1, 2010, based on the compromise decree, Vishnu’s name was removed from land records. Reddy sought compensation from NOIDA between 2015-2017, which was rejected on January 8, 2018. On January 17, 2019, Reddy filed WP(C) 2272/2019 seeking quashing of the rejection and declaration of acquisition lapse. On October 28, 2021, the High Court allowed the writ, recognizing Reddy as sole owner and enhancing compensation.

NOIDA and Reddy filed appeals. On May 5, 2022, the Supreme Court dismissed NOIDA’s appeal and partly allowed Reddy’s, removing deductions. On January 30, 2023, liberty was granted to Vishnu to pursue co-ownership claims. Vishnu filed a civil appeal, a writ petition, and an application seeking recall of the January 30, 2023 order, alleging fraud and concealment.

The Court stated: "... stated simply, nothing and ... nothing, obtained by fraud, can be sustained, as fraud unravels everything." Quoting Chief Justice Edward Coke: "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal."

The Bench recorded: "The principle of 'finality of litigation' cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants."

It was recorded: "At the inception, the trio – Vishnu, Reddy and Sudhakar – stood as a united front. They consistently projected themselves as co-owners..." The Court noted: "Contrary to the consistent earlier stance, Reddy, in a complete volte-face, asserted his sole ownership..."

On procedural manipulation, the Court observed: "This suit took a particularly curious turn when one Venkataramana, claiming to be Vishnu’s Attorney, filed a written statement admitting the claim... However, records reveal that the Power of Attorney had already been cancelled..." It further recorded: "Venkataramana is also a partner of Reddy in the firm Manyata-Pristine."

The Court stated: "Reddy tailored a situation to suit his convenience by not impleading Vishnu... with the sole intention of obtaining an order... behind Vishnu’s back." It was held: "Suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief."

Further, it observed: "It is almost unprecedented for a written statement and a compromise to be filed the day after a suit is instituted... This sequence... reflects a collusive effort..."

The Court concluded: "Obtaining of the impugned order by Reddy in his favour by playing fraud... is conspicuous by its presence... fraud and justice never dwell together."

On maintainability under Article 32, the Bench stated: "... merely because a litigant barely pleads... breach of Fundamental Rights would not entitle him to maintain..."

Regarding doctrine of merger, it was noted: "Doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited application... should not be wielded to close avenues for addressing genuine concerns."

The Court held: "Given the deception involved, the impugned order and the decision of this Court dated 5th May, 2022... are tainted by fraud and, thus, lack legal sanctity and validity."

The Court ordered and directed that the impugned order of the High Court dated October 28, 2021, passed in WP (Civil) 2272/2019 [Reddy Veeranna v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors.] stands set aside, since fraud has vitiated the entire proceedings.

As a corollary to the above, the judgment and order dated May 5, 2022, in Reddy Veerana (supra) (which too was obtained by playing fraud) is declared to be a nullity and stands recalled in exercise of the Court’s inherent powers.

The order dated January 30, 2023, passed by this Court in MA 255/2023 in C.A. No. 3636/2022 is recalled, also in exercise of the Court’s inherent powers.

WP (Civil) 2272/2019 [Reddy Veeranna v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors.] is remanded in its entirety to the High Court.

As a consequence of the remand, WP (Civil) 2272/2019 will stand revived and restored on the file of the High Court with direction to implead Vishnu Vardhan and T. Sudhakar as additional respondents.

WP (Civil) 2272/2019 will be decided afresh by the High Court in accordance with law, upon hearing all interested parties.

Should any disputed question of fact arise for decision disabling it to decide the same based on affidavit evidence, the High Court may in its discretion permit the parties to lead oral and documentary evidence regarding the claim for compensation as well as re-determination and apportionment thereof amongst the rightful claimants, as if it were exercising powers under Section 54 of the 1894 Act.

Till such time a decision is given by the High Court, the interim order dated January 21, 2025, whereby the Court allowed Reddy to furnish securities through his partnership firm Manyata-Pristine instead of cash deposit, shall continue meaning thereby that the securities furnished by him in the form of title deeds of immovable properties shall remain deposited with this Court and shall be subject to and abide by further orders of the High Court.

However, the interim order dated October 3, 2024, restraining Reddy from entering into any agreement to sell and/or to create third party rights in respect of the immovable assets owned by him (except those for which security has been furnished), his family and the companies created by him or his family members shall remain in abeyance subject to his cooperating with the High Court for early disposal of the writ petition.

In the event of non-cooperation from the side of Reddy, the High Court may pass such restraining order as it may deem fit and proper.

Having regard to the magnitude of fraud which the Court detected in course of consideration of these proceedings, the Court found it just and proper to request the Chief Justice of the High Court to preside over the Division Bench for finally deciding the writ petition as early as possible, and subject to the convenience of the Bench, preferably by the year end.

All questions on merits, other than those decided by this judgment, including re-determination of fair and just compensation for the acquired land and apportionment thereof, are kept open for being urged before the High Court.

Also Read: Acquittal In Terror Arms Case Upheld | J&K High Court Finds Disclosure And Recovery Of AK-56, RDX Marred By Contradictions, Hostile Witnesses And Procedural Lapses

Having regard to the track record of the trio, the possibility of a compromise cannot be totally ruled out and if they file terms of settlement, the Court hopes and trusts that the High Court will carefully examine such terms to ensure that public interest is not hindered in its acceptance.

Pending suits/proceedings, if any before any judicial fora / administrative authority, shall be taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with law.

The civil appeal (CA 7777 of 2023), the appeal against the order of the Registrar (MA Diary No. 6013/2024 in Review Petition Diary No. 33040/ 2023), and the application for recall of the order dated January 30, 2023 (MA 1737/2023 in MA 255/2023 in C.A. No. 3636/2022) are allowed and shall stand disposed of on the above terms together with all other connected applications. The writ petition [WP (C) 673 of 2023] is, however, dismissed.

As indicated in paragraph 137, Vishnu shall be at liberty to cure the defects upon due communication of the additional court fees to be put in by him for making the petition for review in order. Thereafter, the petition for review (Dy. No. 33040/2023) shall be registered, appropriately numbered, and shown to have been disposed of by this order. Should Vishnu fail to cure the defects, the petition shall stand dismissed as infructuous.

SMC (C) No. 3/2024 will be heard separately.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For Appellant(s): Mrs. Sanskruti Samal, Adv.; Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR; Mrs. M.B. Ramya, Adv.; Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Adv.; Mr. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Aniruddha Deshmukh, AOR; By Courts Motion, AOR.

For Respondent(s): Mrs. Sanskruti Samal, Adv.; Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR; Mrs. M.B. Ramya, Adv.; Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Adv.; Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, AOR; Mr. Abhinav Singh, Adv.; Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General; Mr. Sameer Jain, Adv.; Mr. Suvigya Awasthy, Adv.; Mr. Deepesh Raj, Adv.; Mr. Vivek Joshi, Adv.; Mr. Soayib Qureshi, AOR; Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, AOR; Ms. Saloni Meshram, Adv.; Ms. Sneha Deorao Balapure, Adv.; Mr. Pinaki Misra, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Adv.; Ms. Akanksha Thapa, Adv.; M/s. Karanjawala & Co., AOR; Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, AOR.

Case Title: Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 884

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 7777/2023 with W.P. (C) No. 673/2023 and connected matters

Bench: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan