JUDGMENT Gangele, J.1. This judgment shall govern disposal of Writ Appeal No. 633/2006 and Writ Appeal No. 634/2006 as the facts in both these writ appeals are same. 2. Both these writ appeals have been filed against the common order dated 11.10.2006 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 862/1999 filed by Smt. Sharda Arora (Reported in 2007 RN 54) and in Writ Petition No.1753/2001 filed by appellants- Mandir Shri Garud Govindji Banke, Loharpur, Shivpuri. 3. There is a temple named as “Shri Garud Govindji Banke” situated at Loharpur, Shivpuri. A land area 79 bighas 5 biswas was settled as ''Qamil Sanidhi'' in the Maufi register. The entry was recorded Bandobast (settlement) in Samvat 1978-79. The entries had been continued up-to Samvat 2006. Old khasra numbers and new khasra numbers of the land were as under as mentioned by Collector, Shivpuri in his letter dated 9.3.1982 written to Sub-Divisional Officer:- Present Survey Nos. Old Survey Nos. 320 317,318 321 319, 320, 321, 322,323, 324, 325 322 327 323 328 324 326 333 331,332 326 329 326 320 327 333 329 334 655 694 659 698 660 699/1,699/2,699/3 661 700/1,700/2 897 855,856 906 858 907 859 920 873 4. In Samvat 2007 the entry was changed and name of Smt. Sarvadi Bai, wife of Shri Kisandas Bairagi, Pujari of the temple, was recorded as ''maurusi tenant''. On the basis of the aforesaid entry, Smt.Sarvadi Bai acquired status of ''pakka tenant'' after coming into force of Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act on 2.10.1951. Subsequently, after coming into force of M.P. Land Revenue Code on 2.10.1959, ''pakka tenants'' were conferred rights of Bhoomiswami. Consequently, Smt. Sarvadi Bai became Bhoomiswami of the land. She sold various parcels of the said land to various persons. Shri Jagdish Prasad Verma, an Advocate made a complaint to the Collector, mentioning the facts that Smt. Sarvadi Bai by playing fraud, got recorded her name as ''maurusi tenant'' of the land, however, the land was of a temple in the Samvat 2007. Prior to the aforesaid entry, the land was recorded in the name of the temple. Hence, the matter be enquired and appropriate action be taken in this regard. The said complaint was submitted on 30.9.1981. When no action was taken, Mr. Prior to the aforesaid entry, the land was recorded in the name of the temple. Hence, the matter be enquired and appropriate action be taken in this regard. The said complaint was submitted on 30.9.1981. When no action was taken, Mr. Jagdish Prasad Verma and Shri Vallabh Das Mangal filed a writ petition before Hon'ble the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 163/1986 and Hon'ble the Supreme Court disposed of writ petition vide order 3.3.1983 with an observation that the writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn since the petitioners state that they want to file a writ petition in the High Court. Thereafter, both the petitioners [Mr. Jagdish Prasad Verma and Shri Vallabh Das Mangal] filed a petition before this High Court, which was registered as Miscellaneous Petition No. 242/1987. Number of persons had been added as respondents in the petition. The Division Bench of this High Court vide order dated 17.12.1987 disposed of the aforesaid miscellaneous petition with the observation that the matter be placed before the respondent No. 3- the Collector and Registrar of M.P. Public Trusts, Shivpuri and he shall consider the same in accordance with law. After the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the Collector, Shvipuri considered the matter and ordered the Tahsildar to initiate proceedings under section 115 of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959. The Tahsildar registered a Case No. 03/81-82 in regard to correction of the entries and also published Ishtehar. No person filed any objection or document before him. The Tahsildar observed that from Samvat 1979 up-to Samvat 2006, the land was recorded in the name of temple. There is no order on record on the basis of which the entry has been made in the Samvat 2007 and land has been recorded in the name of Smt. Sarvadi Bai as ''maurusi tenant''. Consequently, the Tahsildar ordered that the revenue record be corrected and the land shall be recorded in the name of temple Shri Garud Govindji Banke as ''Maufi land'' and the Collector, Shivpuri be recorded as Manager. Patwari was directed to correct the entry. 5. Against the aforesaid order of the Tahsildar dated 11.5.1992, Smt. Sharda Arora, wife of Om Prakash Arora [respondent No.1 in Writ Appeal No. 634/2006] filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, that was dismissed. Patwari was directed to correct the entry. 5. Against the aforesaid order of the Tahsildar dated 11.5.1992, Smt. Sharda Arora, wife of Om Prakash Arora [respondent No.1 in Writ Appeal No. 634/2006] filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, that was dismissed. Thereafter, another appeal was filed before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, that was also dismissed. Then, a revision was filed before the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, that was also dismissed vide order dated 16.3.1999. Then, Smt. Sharda Arora filed a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as Writ Petition No.862/1999. She pleaded in the petition that Smt. Sarvadi Bai sold the land on 5.12.1959 to Ganeshilal Jain by registered sale deed and Ganeshilal sold two plots measuring 150 x 101 ft to Ramesh Victor and 150 x 50 ft. to Naresh Chari. Smt. Sharda Arora pleaded that she purchased the land vide registered sale deed dated 4.11.1980 from Ramesh Victor and vide registered sale deed dated 11.1.1980 from Ramesh Chari. Thereafter, her name was recorded as owner of the land in the Municipal Council and she constructed shops over the land with the permission of Municipal Council. It is further pleaded by her that the Tahsildar passed the order without giving any opportunity of hearing to her. Hence, the orders passed by Tahsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer, Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue, are contrary to law. 6. Another petition i.e. Writ Petition No.1753/2001 was filed by appellants- Mandir Shri Garud Govindji Banke through Mr.Jagdish Prasad Verma, an Advocate, for a relief that the authorities be directed to protect the property of deity and Maufi Department be also directed to take action in regard to protection of the land. 7. Learned Single Judge disposed of aforesaid both Writ Petitions by common order dated 11.10.2006 which is under challenge before this Court after holding that the name of Smt. Sarvadi Bai was recorded as “pukhta maurusi'' in the Samvat 2007, however, in the column No. 3 khasra entry is ''Maufi Munjabta”. On coming into force of Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act w.e.f. 2.10.1951, Smt. Sarvati Bai became ''pakka maurusi'' and she acquired status of ''Pakka Tenant'.' Thereafter. on coming into force of MP Land Revenue Code w.e.f. 2.10.1959, she became Bhoomiswami'' because ''pakka tenants'' had been conferred the rights of Bhoomiswami. On coming into force of Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act w.e.f. 2.10.1951, Smt. Sarvati Bai became ''pakka maurusi'' and she acquired status of ''Pakka Tenant'.' Thereafter. on coming into force of MP Land Revenue Code w.e.f. 2.10.1959, she became Bhoomiswami'' because ''pakka tenants'' had been conferred the rights of Bhoomiswami. Hence, she had right to sell the land and Smt. Sharda Arora had valid title of the land. Consequently, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by Smt. Sharda Arora i.e. Writ Petition No. 862/1999 and dismissed Writ Petition filed by the appellants- Mandir Shri Garud Govindji Banke i.e. Writ Petition No. 1753/2001. 8. Shri H.D. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants- Mandir Shri Garud Govindji Banke submitted that the order passed by learned Single Judge is contrary to law. The entry of Samvat 2007 in regard to land was recorded by playing fraud because prior to this, the land was recorded in the name of the deity. There is no order on record that how the entry was changed in Samvat 2007. Hence, Smt. Sarvadi Bai did not get any right over the land. The land was of the ownership of the temple. Hence, it would remain of the ownership of the temple because the deity is perpetual minor and no person has right to sell the land. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kanchaniya (Mst.) and Ors. v. Shiv Ram and Ors., reported in 1992 RN 194. 9. Contrary to this, Shri K.B.Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 in Writ Appeal No. 634/2006 and on behalf of the respondent No. 6 in Writ Appeal No. 633/2006, contended that the order passed by learned Single Judge is in accordance with law. The entry of Samvat 2007 is final. He further submitted that the land of temple was subsequently settled in the name of Smt. Sarvadi Bai by order of council of erstwhile of Gwalior State. Same fact has been mentioned in the khasra entry of Samvat 1968, copy of which was filed along with rejoinder before the writ Court and copy of resolution of Council was filed as Annexure P-20 along with Writ Petition before the writ Court. Same fact has been mentioned in the khasra entry of Samvat 1968, copy of which was filed along with rejoinder before the writ Court and copy of resolution of Council was filed as Annexure P-20 along with Writ Petition before the writ Court. Consequently, her name was recorded as ''maurusi tenant'' in the entry of Samvat 2007. Hence, the order passed by learned Single Judge is in accordance with law. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Krishna Ghosh and Ors. v. Roop Chand Molla and Ors.; (1997)10 SCC 307 and in the case of Shanti (Smt.) and Another v. Lakshman and Ors., 2009 (II) MPWN 23 . He further submitted that the Tahsildar has no power or authority to order change of entry because the limitation for correction of entry is one year. In regard to authority, learned senior counsel relied on Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kamla Singh (Smt.) v. Smt. Alka Singh and Ors; 2011 RN 273 and Full Bench decision of this Court in the Ranveer Singh since dead through L.Rs. Kishori Singh and Ors. v. State of M. P.; 2010 RN 409 = 2010 (3) JLJ 77 = 2010 (4) MPLJ 178 . 10. The history in regard to the temple and allotment of land to the temple was mentioned by Mr.Jagdish Prasad Verma and Vallabh Das Mangal in a letter submitted before the Collector, Shvipuri on 30.9.1981 and in the aforesaid letter, it is mentioned that in Samvat 1824, Tatyaji, Kamavisdar of Sambhaji Jadhavrao granted 25 parts of land to the temple of Shri Garud Govindji and Poojari of the temple was Mahant Govind Das Ji. In the Samvat 1844, Hari Singh Raje Narwarwale granted 89 parts of land to the temple. In all, 124 bighas of land were granted to temple Shri Garud Govindji for the purpose of pooja, sewa, bhog and naivadya. In Samvat 1911, the grant was continued in favour of temple Shri Garud Govindji by Late Shrimant Maharaja Jayajirao Saheb. Shrimant Maharaja Daulat Rao Shinde continued and confirmed the grant in favour of Devasthan. In Samvat 1978 , the lands were recorded in the name of Shri Garud Govindji. In Samvat 1911, the grant was continued in favour of temple Shri Garud Govindji by Late Shrimant Maharaja Jayajirao Saheb. Shrimant Maharaja Daulat Rao Shinde continued and confirmed the grant in favour of Devasthan. In Samvat 1978 , the lands were recorded in the name of Shri Garud Govindji. In Samvat 1979, there was a settlement and in the aforesaid settlement, the entry of the land was recorded as in the name of “Mandir Shree Garud Govindji Govindji Puktha Vako Deh Haja Ba Ahatamam Poojari Laxmidas Photh bewa Khud Musammant Rambha Kom Bairagi Sakin Deh” and total area of the land was 62 bighas 11 biwas. Old khasra numbers and new khasra numbers of the land were as under:- No Khasra Area Khasra No. Area No.(Present ) (Old) Bigha Biswa Hectare Bigha Biswa 1. 320 00 10 0.105 317 00 3 318 00 2 2. 321 1 15 0.366 319, 00 3 320, 00 13 321, 00 3 322, 00 5 323, 00 2 324, 00 7 325 00 2 3. 322 00 6 0.063 327 00 6 4. 323 00 5 0.052 328 00 5 5. 324 00 2 0.021 326 00 2 6. 325 00 12 0.125 331, 00 6 332 00 6 7. 326 00 6 0.063 329 00 6 8. 327 00 1 0.010 330 00 1 9. 328 00 5 0.052 333 00 5 10. 329 00 1 0.010 334 00 1 11. 655 00 1 0.010 694 00 1 12. 659 698 00 1 13. 660 00 19 699/1, 19 699/2 699/3 14. 661 00 13 700/1, 13 700/2 15. 742 9- 1 1.892 771, 8 4,10,10, 772, 773 16. 880 5- 12 1.170 844 855, 17. 897 11 9 856 11 5 2 18. 906 6 7 1.327 858 6 7 19. 907 14 14 3.072 859 14 10 20. 920 9 7 1.954 873 2 5 11. The aforesaid entries were continued up-to Samvat 2006, however, in Samvat 2007 the entry was changed and Smt. Sarvadi Bai has been recorded as ''maurusi tenant''. The case of respondent No. 1 Smt. Sharda Arora which has been put forth in the rejoinder is that on the basis of the resolution of council of erstwhile of Gwalior State, the land was settled in the name of Pujari of the temple. The case of respondent No. 1 Smt. Sharda Arora which has been put forth in the rejoinder is that on the basis of the resolution of council of erstwhile of Gwalior State, the land was settled in the name of Pujari of the temple. Entry to this effect in Samvat 1968 has been filed, however, in the aforesaid entry, name of the temple has been mentioned but it is not mentioned what were the khasra numbers by which the council settled the land in the name of Pujari and consequently, his wife was recorded as ''maurusi tenant''. Contrary to this, Mr. Jagdish Prasad Sharma filed khasra entries of Samvat 1979 in which the land was recorded in the name of temple Maufi Ateeya Sarkar and the entry was continued up-to the time of Bandobast (settlement). Jamabandi was also filed before the Court. When there is no order in regard to recording the land in favour of Smt. Sarvadi Bai up-to Samvat 2006, presumption could only be drawn that the entry was changed in Samvat 2007 by playing fraud in order to get the property of the temple. 12. Shri K. B. Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6 in Writ Appeal No. 633/2006 and on behalf of the respondent No. 1 in Writ Appeal No. 634/2006, has failed to explain that on what basis the entry of '''maurusi tenant'' was recorded in the revenue record of Samvat 2007 contrary to entries which were recorded up-to Samvat 2006 in which the land was mentioned as of ownership of the temple. It means that by playing fraud entry in Samvat was recorded. 13. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam represented by its President and Ors., reported in (2012) 6 SCC 430 , has held as under in regard to duty of the Judge:- “24. The entry journey of a Judge is to discern the truth from the pleadings, documents and arguments of the parties. Truth is the basis of the justice delivery system. The entry journey of a Judge is to discern the truth from the pleadings, documents and arguments of the parties. Truth is the basis of the justice delivery system. This Court in Dalip Singh v. State of UP (2010) 2 SCC 114 observed that:- (SCC p.116, para 1) ''1..........Truth constituted an integral part of the justice delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell the truth in the Courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-Independence period has been drastic changes in our value system.” 25. This Court in Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria, (2012) 5 SCC 370 , had an occasion to deal with the same aspect. According to us, observations in paras 32 to 52 are absolutely germane as these paragraphs deal with relevant cases which have enormous bearing on the fact of this case, so these paragraphs are reproduced hereunder: (SCC pp.383-88) “32. In this unfortunate litigation, the Court's serious endeavour has to be find out where in fact the truth lies. 33. The truth should be the guiding star in the entire judicial process. Truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. The entire judicial system has been created only to discern and find out the real truth. Judges at all levels have to seriously engage themselves in the journey of discovering the truth. That is their mandate, obligation and burden duty. Justice system will acquire credibility only when people will be convinced that justice is based on the foundation of the truth. 34. In Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, 1991 SCC (Cri) 595, this Court observed that in such a situation a question that arises for consideration is whether the Presiding Officer of a Court should simply sit as a mere umpire at a contest between two parties and declare at the end of the combat who has won and who has lost or is there not any legal duty of his own, independent of the parties, to take an active role in the proceedings in finding out the truth and administering justice? It is a well-accepted and settled principle that a Court must discharge its statutory functions- whether discretionary or obligatory-according to law in dispensing justice because it is the duty of a Court not only to do justice but also to ensure that justice is being done.” 14. Hon'ble the Supreme Court further in the case of A.V.Papayya Sastry and others v. Govt. of A.P. and Ors.; reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221 , has held as under in regard to fraud:- “21. Now, it is well-settled principle of law that if any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. Before three centuries, Chief Justice Edward Coke proclaimed: “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.” 22. It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, tribunal or authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of the law. Such a judgment, decree or order—by the first Court or by the final Court—has to be treated as nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. 23. In the leading case of Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley Lord Denning observed: (All ER p. 345 C) “No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud.” 24. In Duchess of Kingstone, Smith's Leading Cases, 13th Edn., p. 644, explaining the nature of fraud, de Grey, C.J. stated that though a judgment would be res judicata and not impeachable from within, it might be impeachable from without. In other words, though it is not permissible to show that the Court was “mistaken”, it might be shown that it was “misled”. There is an essential distinction between mistake and trickery. The clear implication of the distinction is that an action to set aside a judgment cannot be brought on the ground that it has been decided wrongly, namely, that on the merits, the decision was one which should not have been rendered, but it can be set aside, if the Court was imposed upon or tricked into giving the judgment. 25. 25. It has been said: fraud and justice never dwell together (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant); or fraud and deceit ought to benefit none (fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent). 26. Fraud may be defined as an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing some unfair or undeserved benefit by taking undue advantage of another. In fraud one gains at the loss of another. Even most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud. Fraud is thus an extrinsic collateral act which vitiates all judicial acts, whether in rem or in personam. The principle of “finality of litigation” cannot be stretched to the extent of an absurdity that it can be utilised as an engine of oppression by dishonest and fraudulent litigants. 27. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath this Court had an occasion to consider the doctrine of fraud and the effect thereof on the judgment obtained by a party. In that case, one A by a registered deed, relinquished all his rights in the suit property in favour of C who sold the property to B. Without disclosing that fact, A filed a suit for possession against B and obtained preliminary decree. During the pendency of an application for final decree, B came to know about the fact of release deed by A in favour of C. He, therefore, contended that the decree was obtained by playing fraud on the Court and was a nullity. The trial Court upheld the contention and dismissed the application. The High Court, however, set aside the order of the trial Court, observing that “there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to Court with a true case and prove it by true evidence”. B approached this Court. 28. Allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High Court and describing the observations of the High Court as “wholly perverse”, Kuldip Singh, J. stated: (SCC p. 5, para 5) “The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.” (emphasis supplied) 29. The Court proceeded to state: (SCC p. 5, para 6) “A litigant, who approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party.” 30. The Court concluded: (SCC p. 5, para 5) “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.” 31. In Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd. referring to Lazarus Estates and Smith v. East Elloe Rural Distt. Council this Court stated: (SCC pp. 562-63, para 22) “22. The judiciary in India also possesses inherent power, specially under section 151 CPC, to recall its judgment or order if it is obtained by fraud on Court. In the case of fraud on a party to the suit or proceedings, the Court may direct the affected party to file a separate suit for setting aside the decree obtained by fraud. Inherent powers are powers which are resident in all Courts, especially of superior jurisdiction. These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature and the constitution of the tribunals or Courts themselves so as to enable them to maintain their dignity, secure obedience to its process and rules, protect its officers from indignity and wrong and to punish unseemly behaviour. This power is necessary for the orderly administration of the Court's business.” 15. In our opinion, Smt. Sarvadi Bai was made ''Bhoomiswami'' of the land by plying fraud. This power is necessary for the orderly administration of the Court's business.” 15. In our opinion, Smt. Sarvadi Bai was made ''Bhoomiswami'' of the land by plying fraud. When we hold that a fraud has been played then question of limitation in initiation proceedings under section 115 of M. P. Land Revenue Code does not arise. Hence, both the appeals [ Writ Appeal No. 633/2006 and Writ Appeal No. 634/2006] filed by the appellants- Mandir Shri Garud Govindji Banke, Loharpur, Shivpuri, are hereby allowed. The order passed by learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. It is directed that the Collector, District Shivpuri shall take proper steps in accordance with law in regard to protection of land of the temple. No order as to costs.