Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1871 (ALL)

COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT v. STATE OF U P

2003-08-22

MARKANDEY KATJU, R.S.TRIPATHI

body2003
M. KATJU, J. In these two writ petitions common question of law and fact are involved and hence they are being disposed off together. 2. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35036 of 2003 has been filed by the Committee of Management of an educational institution and Writ Petition No. 34309 of 2003 has been filed by some of the students. 3. The institution in question is an Intermediate College known as Hina Shiksha Niketan Shree Saiyed Asghar Husain Inter College, Kura Muridan, Sirathu, District Kaushambi (hereinafter referred to as the College) and it is alleged that the said college has been recognized by the U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad. The recognition for High School Classes was granted in the year 2000 and for Intermediate Classes was granted in the year 2002 vide Annexures 1 and 2 of the Writ Petition No. 34309 of 2003. 4. It is alleged in paragraph 10 of the Writ Petition No. 34309 of 2003 that on 4-8-2003 when the petitioners (students) reached the college they found that the college was locked and on enquiry they came to know that the college premises was established on the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha which had granted a lease in favour of the college and the college building was built after the grant of lease in favour of the college. That lease has been cancelled by the Additional Collector, Kaushambi under Section 198 (4) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. 5. Against the order of the Additional Collector, Kaushambi, the petitioner Committee of Management filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad vide Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition No. 35036 of 2003. We have been informed that against the order of the Additional Commissioner a writ petition was filed in this Court which was dismissed and against the order of the High Court an SLP is pending in the Supreme Court. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court should pass an order directing continuation of the classes otherwise the students would suffer. In our opinion since the earlier writ petition has been dismissed by this Court and an SLP is pending in the Supreme Court it would not be appropriate for us to pass any such order in these writ petitions. 7. In our opinion since the earlier writ petition has been dismissed by this Court and an SLP is pending in the Supreme Court it would not be appropriate for us to pass any such order in these writ petitions. 7. A perusal of the order of the Additional Commissioner, Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition No. 35036 of 2003 shows that the land in dispute was usar land of the Gaon Samaj and illegally patta was granted in respect of that land. It has been mentioned in the order of the Additional Commissioner that by U. P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 (U. P. Act No. 30 of 1975) Section 198 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act has been amended and educational institutions have been deleted from the list of bodies in favour of whom patta could be granted. Despite this amendment to the law patta was illegally granted of the Gaon Sabha land in favour of the educational institution and this was done in collusion between the Members of the Land Management Committee, Government Servants and the Members of the Managing Committee of the institution. The Additional Collector has hence rightly cancelled this patta after hearing the parties concerned. The Manager, Mrs. Neelam Khan has illegally taken over possession of the land in dispute in connection with which an FIR has been registered in the police station under various provisions of the I. P. C. e. g. , Sections 447, 456, 120-B, etc. The learned Additional Commissioner in his order Annexure 8 to the writ petition has stated that Mrs. Neelam Khan and the members of the Managing Committee have committed criminal offences and are illegally in possession of the land in dispute. 8. Against the order of the Additional Commissioner Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition No. 35036 of 2003 a writ petition has already been dismissed by this Court as stated in para 14 of Writ Petition No. 35036 of 2003, though the order of this Court has not been annexed to this writ petition. 9. It may be mentioned that before the amendment in Section 198 by U. P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 land could be allotted in favour of an educational institution in view of Section 198 (1) (a), but Section 198 was drastically amended by the 1975 Amendment, and thereafter, no such allotment could be made. 9. It may be mentioned that before the amendment in Section 198 by U. P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 land could be allotted in favour of an educational institution in view of Section 198 (1) (a), but Section 198 was drastically amended by the 1975 Amendment, and thereafter, no such allotment could be made. Since the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 35036 of 2003 have committed fraud and illegalities by getting Gaon Sabha land allotted in favour of their educational institution despite the amendment to the law by U. P. Act No. 30 of 1975 we are not inclined to exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. It may be unfortunate that the students may suffer but we cannot interfere in a matter in which blatant illegalities have been committed in allotment of land and a writ petition had already been dismissed by this Court and against the order of the High Court an SLP is pending in the Supreme Court. It is well- settled that fraud vitiates everything vide Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 ; Dr. R. P. Singh v. Director of Higher Education, U. P. , 2003 (52) ALR 185, etc. 10. It is a settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an order by making representation or playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained vide S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and others, 1994 (1) SCC 1 . 11. In Andhra Pradesh Financial Corporation v. Gar Re- Rolling Mills, 1994 (2) SCC 647 and State of Maharashtra and others v. Prabhu, 1994 (2) SCC 481 , the Honble apex Court has observed that a writ Court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should act so as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud as the Courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith and honesty. Equity is always known to defend the law from the crafty evasions and subtleties invented to evade law. 12. Equity is always known to defend the law from the crafty evasions and subtleties invented to evade law. 12. The ratio laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation and in such circumstances the Court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining the petitions on their behalf vide District Collector and Chairman, V. S. W. School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, 1990 (3) SCC 655 and Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran, 1995 (Suppl)4 SCC 100. 13. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh and others, 2000 (3) SCC 581 , the apex Court observed that "fraud and justice never dwell together" (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. In Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Ltd. , 1996 (5) SCC 550 , it was held that the Court has inherent power to recall an order obtained by fraud. Similar view has been reiterated in R. G. Ashok and others v. Kerala Public Service Commission and others, 2001 (5) SCC 419 ; Biswanath Poddar v. Archana Poddar and another, 2001 (8) SCC 187 and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, 2003 (1) LBESR 957 (All) : 2003 (97) FLR 117. 14. In Upen Chandra Gogai v. State of Assam and others, 1998 (3) SCC 381 , the apex Court held that the Court should not "validate an action which was not lawful at inception," nor can the Court permit an appointment made by giving a go-buy to the essential mode of recruitment as provided by the Statutory Rules as the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution have binding force and the same cannot be permitted to be over-looked/violated vide R. K. Trivedi and others v. Union of India and others, 1998 (9) SCC 58 . 15. Similarly, in New India Assurance Co. Shimla v. Kamla and others, 2001 (4) SCC 342 , the apex Court held that an order which is null and void remains in-executable and unenforceable for ever as it cannot acquire legal validity by any process of sanctification whatsoever for the reason that forgery is anti- thesis to legality and law cannot afford to validate a forgery. 16. Shimla v. Kamla and others, 2001 (4) SCC 342 , the apex Court held that an order which is null and void remains in-executable and unenforceable for ever as it cannot acquire legal validity by any process of sanctification whatsoever for the reason that forgery is anti- thesis to legality and law cannot afford to validate a forgery. 16. For the reasons given above both these writ petitions are dismissed. Petition dismissed. .