The Supreme Court has set aside a High Court order in Reddy Veeranna v. State of Uttar Pradesh that had declared one claimant as the sole owner of land in Sector 18, NOIDA, and awarded enhanced compensation. The dispute traces back to land jointly purchased in 1997, which was later acquired by the development authority in 2005.
The case concerns a long-standing dispute over ownership and compensation for land in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, jointly purchased in 1997 and later acquired by NOIDA in 2005. In 2019, one co-purchaser approached the Allahabad High Court, claiming exclusive ownership and seeking enhanced compensation. The High Court, in 2021, upheld this claim and awarded higher compensation.
Another co-owner challenged the order before the Supreme Court, alleging fraud. It was contended that the claim of sole ownership was based on a compromise decree of 2006 obtained through a forged power of attorney, and that material facts including the existence of co-owners and pending suits were suppressed.
The Supreme Court found deliberate concealment and contradictory stands by the claimant across different proceedings. It held that such conduct amounted to fraud on the court, which vitiates all judicial acts. Accordingly, the 2021 High Court order and the Court’s own 2022 ruling (which had partly affirmed the compensation) were nullified.
The matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh adjudication, with directions to implead all co-owners and allow proper evidence on compensation. The claimant was restrained from creating third-party rights in assets derived from compensation. The Court underscored that procedural rules cannot shield fraudulent litigations, reaffirming that “fraud unravels everything.”
The Supreme Court found that the claimant had taken contradictory positions across different litigations projecting joint ownership in some proceedings while asserting sole ownership in others. Importantly, the pendency of a civil suit questioning the validity of a compromise decree, which formed the basis of the claim of exclusive ownership, was not disclosed before the High Court.
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