JUDGMENT : (Sunita Agarwal, J.) The two connected Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 518 of 2024 and 519 of 2024 are arising out of a common judgment and order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the learned single Judge in dismissing two writ petitions namely Special Civil Application No. 4881 of 2002 and Special Civil Application No. 12559 of 2002. The Special Civil Application No. 4881 of 2002 was filed by the persons, who claim to be the members of the Society namely Rajdhani Co-operative Society Ltd.; whereas the Special Civil Application No. 12559 of 2002 was filed by the said society itself through its Secretary. On an Application filed by the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 4881 of 2002, the aforesaid society has been impleaded as a party in the said petition. 2. The reliefs claimed in the writ petitions have been noted by the learned single Judge in the judgment impugned, which are - (i) To quash and set aside the order recording the consent terms and consequential decree dated 27.03.2002 passed in the Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 1998; (ii) To declare the registration of the cancellation deeds dated 30.06.2000 and 10.06.2000 and further deeds extending oral tenancy dated 30.06.200 and 10th July, 2000, registered by the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar unilaterally, to be void; (iii) To command the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (in the original petition) namely the State respondents including the Sub-Registrar, not to make any changes in the revenue records on the basis of the aforesaid deeds of cancellation dated 30.06.2000 and 10.07.2000 as well as the oral tenancy documents dated 30.06.2000 and 10.06.2000; (iv) To restrain the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (in the original petition) from making changes in the revenue records pertaining to the lands-in-question on the basis of the aforesaid deeds of cancellation and the deeds for creation of oral tenancy; (v) To stay the execution and operation of the consent terms recorded on 27.03.2002 in the Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 1998. 3. Both the writ petitions admitted in the year 2002, had been dismissed vide the impugned common judgment relegating the original petitioners namely the Society and its members to avail the alternative remedy of filling Civil Suit seeking for cancellation of the consent decree. 3. Both the writ petitions admitted in the year 2002, had been dismissed vide the impugned common judgment relegating the original petitioners namely the Society and its members to avail the alternative remedy of filling Civil Suit seeking for cancellation of the consent decree. The reasoning given by the learned single Judge to arrive at the said conclusion is that on consideration of the relevant aspects of the matter, a full-fledged trial is needed in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. The appellant-original petitioner Society seek to challenge the judgment impugned; firstly, on the ground that once the writ petitions were admitted and the affidavits were exchanged between the parties, the learned single Judge was required to decide the matter on merits instead relegating petitioners society to file a Civil Suit. It was argued by Mr. R. S. Sanjanwala, the learned senior counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) that the prayer made in the writ petition to set aside the consent decree dated 27.03.2002 in the Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 1998 was made by bringing the factum of fraud played by the private respondents in obtaining the said decree. Once the allegations were of fraud committed by the respondents in obtaining the consent decree, the learned single Judge ought not to have relegated the petitioners to approach the Civil Court, inasmuch as, a decree or order obtained by playing fraud is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. 5. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors. vs. Govt. of A.P. and Ors. [ (2007) 4 SCC 221 ] as also on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 02.08.2023 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 865 of 2023 to assert that any judgment and order, if obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a decision in law. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. It was submitted that the Apex Court has observed that in A. P. Papayya Sastri (supra) that the Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. Fraud and justice never dwell together. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. It was submitted that the Apex Court has observed that in A. P. Papayya Sastri (supra) that the Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. Fraud and justice never dwell together. The principle of “finality of litigation could not be pressed to the extent of absurdity that it can be utilised as an engine of operation by dishonest and fraudulent litigants”. 6. With the aid of the said decisions, it was vehemently argued that even the learned single Judge has found substance in the allegations of fraud made the petitioner society played by the private respondents in obtaining the consent decree dated 27.03.2002, and, as such, there was no reason for relegating the petitioner society to approach the Civil Court as the consent decree dated 27.03.2002 is a nullity in the eye of law. 7. It was further argued that apart from challenging the correctness of the consent decree on the plea of fraud, the petitioner society had also challenged the registration of unilateral cancellation deeds executed by the respondents, without any notice or opportunity to the petitioners society. It was submitted that the cancellation deeds dated 30.06.2000 and 10.06.2000 executed by the respondent were registered by the Sub- Registrar without any notice or opportunity to the petitioner society in whose favour the registered sale deeds (six in numbers) were executed in the year 1987 and 1996. The submission is that the consequence of registration of the cancellation deeds was that the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner society were cancelled without any intimation to the society. 8. Further relief sought before the learned single Judge was to issue directions to the revenue authorities not to enter the names of the private respondents in place of the names of the petitioner society in the revenue records based on the cancellation deeds and the consent decree, which are the outcome of the fraud and collusion played by the said respondents. The submission is that all these aspects of the matter were conveniently ignored by the learned single Judge while relegating the petitioner society and its members to approach the Civil Court seeking for declaration of the consent decree being nullity and outcome of fraud. 9. Mr. The submission is that all these aspects of the matter were conveniently ignored by the learned single Judge while relegating the petitioner society and its members to approach the Civil Court seeking for declaration of the consent decree being nullity and outcome of fraud. 9. Mr. Shalin Mehta, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, in rebuttal, would raise objection as to the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeals on the ground that the judgment impugned has been passed by the learned single Judge in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and hence the Letters Patent appeals are liable to be dismissed, outrightly, being not maintainable. 10. Before delving on the issues raised by the learned counsels for the parties, we may note certain relevant facts of the case. The lands-in- dispute, subject matter of the writ petitions, filed by the society and its members are Survey Nos. 73, 78 to 80, 811, 812, 83 and 84 situated in village Nabhoi, Gandhinagar. The original owners of the aforesaid lands, whose successors (some) are impleaded as respondent Nos. 10, 11, 12, 18, 26 and 34, in the writ petitions had executed registered sale deeds between the years 1968 to 1980, to convey the lands-in-question to the aggregators namely Vashram Sangram Bharvad and Sangram Ghela Bharwad, who were impleaded as respondent Nos. 4 and 5 originally in the writ petition filed by the society. We may further note that on the death of the respondent No.4 namely Sangram Ghela Bharwad during the pendency of the writ petition, his heirs have been brought on record as respondent Nos. 4.1 to 4.7 in the array of the parties. 11. It seems that an order dated 14.10.1985 had been passed by the Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar exercising powers under Section 84C of the Gujarat Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 declaring the transactions to be illegal and consequentially forfeiting the lands-in- question. However, liberty was granted to the parties to restore the lands- in-question to their original position. The Deputy Collector, Gandhinagar by order dated 8.8.1986 had set aside the order dated 14.10.1985 of the Mamlatdar. The submission is that the order passed by the Deputy Collector has attained the finality, as it had not been challenged any further. 12. However, liberty was granted to the parties to restore the lands- in-question to their original position. The Deputy Collector, Gandhinagar by order dated 8.8.1986 had set aside the order dated 14.10.1985 of the Mamlatdar. The submission is that the order passed by the Deputy Collector has attained the finality, as it had not been challenged any further. 12. In the year 1987 and 1996, eight registered sale deeds for transfer of the lands-in-question were executed in favour of the petitioners society namely Rajdhani Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., by the aggregators namely the original respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the writ petitions. On 4.2.1998, a Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 1998 was filed by five persons claiming to be the original owners and their successors, with the relief of permanent injunction to protect their possession on the premise that they were in occupation in the lands-in-question. The said suit was initially filed against only two persons namely the society joined as defendant No.1 and one Laxmiben, joined as defendant No.2 as the secretary of the society. However, an application Exh.17 was filed on 4.4.1998 by the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit with the prayer to delete the defendant society from the array of the parties and the said application was allowed on the same date. Another application of the same date, i.e. 4.4.1988 was filed by the plaintiff to implead one of the aggregators namely Vashram Sangram Bharvad, to be joined as defendant No.3, which was allowed on 3.12.1998. 13. It has further been brought before us that two cancellation deeds dated 30.06.2000 and 10.06.2000 were got registered, one executed by the original owners and another by the aggregators, respectively, unilaterally cancelling the registered sale deeds executed by the aggregators in favour of the society. Further, two separate documents were executed by the aggregators declaring that they had created permanent tenancy rights in favour of Gopal Chaturbhai Amin-the respondent No.6 in the writ petition. It is the case of the society that both the cancellation deeds and two separate documents creating tenancy rights in favour of the respondent No.6-Gopal Chaturbhai Amin are unilateral deeds without including the society as a party to the said documents and hence are non est and nullity in the eye of law. It is the case of the society that both the cancellation deeds and two separate documents creating tenancy rights in favour of the respondent No.6-Gopal Chaturbhai Amin are unilateral deeds without including the society as a party to the said documents and hence are non est and nullity in the eye of law. The registration of the aforesaid documents by the Sub-Registrar in absence of the society being a signatory to the same, is an outcome of an illegal exercise, inasmuch as, in absence of the vendee society being party to the cancellation deeds, the cancellation deeds seeking for cancellation of registered sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners society, could not have been registered. 14. It is further submitted that in furtherance of the collusion between the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 namely the aggregators and few of the original owners, an application Exh. 33 was filed by the aggregators namely Vashram Sangram Bharvad and Sangram Ghela Bharwad seeking their impleadment as defendants alongwith the society, though the petitioner society did not file any application nor authorised those two persons to file an application for impleadment. The application Exh. 33 was signed by Vashram Sangram Bharvad impersonating to be the chairman of the society. It is contended that as per the undisputed position on the record, Vashram Sangram Bharvad was never even a member of the society and, as such, the question of him being the office bearer of the society does not arise. However, as per record of the Civil Suit, Exh. 33 was never allowed and the petitioners society was never joined as the party in the Civil Suit filed by the five persons claiming to be the original owners and their successors of the lands-in-question. 15. However, on 27.3.2002, the consent terms were signed and placed on record of the Civil Suit as Exh.51, whereby the plaintiff had been declared as owner of the lands-in-question. The consent terms are shown to be signed by the society as well and Mr. Vashram Sangram Bharvad has signed the consent terms claiming to be the office bearer of the society, though he was never even a member. The material placed on record to substantiate the fact that Mr. The consent terms are shown to be signed by the society as well and Mr. Vashram Sangram Bharvad has signed the consent terms claiming to be the office bearer of the society, though he was never even a member. The material placed on record to substantiate the fact that Mr. Vashram Sangram Bharvad was never a member or officer bearer of the society are referred to assert that this inquiry was required to be made by the writ court to appreciate the contention of the petitioners society that signature on the consent decree by Vashram Sangram Bharvad claiming to be the Chairman of the society, was in collusion with the plaintiffs; claiming to be the owners of the lands-in-question and their legal representatives. It is stated that the decree on the consent term as Exh. 51 has also been drawn on the same date, i.e. 27.03.2002 and the society is shown as defendant No.1 in the decree prepared by the Civil Court, though there is no order on the application Exh. 33 joining the society as party after it was deleted on an the application Exh. 17 dated 4.4.1998 filed by the plaintiff. With these facts, it was argued that a systematic and collusive fraud was played by the private respondents to defeat the society’s title to the lands-in- question based on the registered sale deeds. 16. It was, thus, argued that all the above aspects of the matter though noted by the learned single Judge, but it has failed to appreciate them in a proper manner, inasmuch as, the plea of fraud which can be demonstrated from the record of the Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 1998 itself, could not have been ignored by the learned single Judge to relegate the petitioners society on the premise that the issue requires adjudication on the disputed questions of facts and law. 17. The submission is that the learned single Judge has completely ignored that the petitioner, which is the society and is the victim of the fraud committed by the private respondents, cannot be forced to approach the Civil Court, when such an inquiry can be conducted in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 18. 18. On the plea of maintainability of the writ petition, attention of the Court is invited to the prayers made in the writ petition, as noted hereinabove, to submit that by means of the writ petition, the petitioner society had invoked both the jurisdictions of the High Court under Article 227 and 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the fact that the consent decree though was passed by the Civil Court, but cancellation deeds were registered by the Sub-Registrars in ignorance of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. It was argued that the registered sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner society could not have been cancelled unilaterally by Vashram Sangram Bharvad claiming to be the office bearer of the society when the society itself is not a party to the cancellation deeds. 19. The submission is that the cancellation deed is a document of re- conveyance of the lands, subject matter of sale deeds, executed in favour of the petitioner society. The re-conveyance deed can only be initiated by the purchasers in favour of the vendors and in any case, the original owners who had already executed registered sale deeds in favour of the aggregators namely Vashram Sangram Bharvad and Sangram Ghela Bharwad, could not be the signatories to the cancellation deeds. Moreover, the cancellation deeds were executed on the basis of the order dated 14.10.1985 passed by the Mamlatdar which had already been set aside vide order dated 8.8.1986 passed by the Deputy Collector, Gandhinagar. The result is that the original owners, who had executed the registered sale deeds to convey the lands-in-question in favour of the aggregators namely Vashram Sangram Bharvad and Sangram Ghela Bharwad, had left with no right, title or interest in the lands-in-question. They cannot be parties to the cancellation deeds which were executed even before the consent decree was obtained fraudulently. The basis of the Civil Suit namely Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 1998 filed on 4.2.1998 and the aforesaid cancellation deeds was the order dated 14.10.1985 passed by the Mamlatdar, which did not stand on the date of the institution of the suit or the execution of the cancellation deeds, as a result of the order dated 08.08.1986 passed by the Deputy Collector, Gandhinagar. 20. 20. It is thus, evident that the five persons claiming to be the original owners and their heirs acquiring the rights of the original owners filed Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 1998 on false assertions and succeeded in getting the consent decree dated 27.03.2002 in collusion with the aggregators, who were vendors of the sale deeds executed in the years 1987 and 1996 in favour of the petitioner society. 21. The fact of collusive decree passed by the Civil Court and cancellation deeds registered by the Sub-Registrar were duly brought on record and placed before the learned single Judge to further assert that the petitioner society had no alternative remedy against the decision of the Sub-Registrar in registering of the cancellation deeds. With the aid of the decision of the Apex Court in Veena Singh (Dead) through L.R. vs. the District Registrar Additional Collector (FR) and Ors [ (2022) 7 SCC 1 ], it was submitted that though remedy lies under Sections 72 and 77 of the Registration Act, 1908 against order passed by the Sub- Registrar refusing to register the document under section 71 or a decree under Section 76 of the Registration Act, 1908, but there is no statutory remedy to challenge the order of registration of a document passed by the Sub-Registrar. The only remedy available to the petitioner society, as such, was to approach the writ court by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 22. Placing reliance on another decision of the Apex Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi and ors. vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. [ (2010) 15 SCC 207 ], it was agitated that the cancellation deeds of the registered sale deeds could be registered only when sale deeds were cancelled by the competent court that too after notice to the petitioner society. 23. vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. [ (2010) 15 SCC 207 ], it was agitated that the cancellation deeds of the registered sale deeds could be registered only when sale deeds were cancelled by the competent court that too after notice to the petitioner society. 23. On the issue of maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal on the premise that the learned single Judge has invoked the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India while dismissing the writ petition, the aid of the judgment of the Apex Court in Jogendrasinhji Vijay Singh vs. State of Gujarat [(2015) 9n SCC 1] has been taken relying on the observations made in para No. ‘20’ based on the decision of the Umaji Keshao Meshram vs. Radhikabai [(1986 Supp SCC 401)], wherein it is observed that the petitions at the same time may be filed both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, where the facts justify a party in invoking jurisdiction of the High Court under both the constitutional provisions for filling a petition under both the Articles. Once a party chooses to file his petition under both the Articles, in fairness and justice to such party and in order to not to deprive him of the valuable right of appeal, the Court ought to treat the petition as being made under Article 226 of the Constitution, and if in deciding the matter in the final order the court gives ancillary direction which may pertain to Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this ought not to be held to deprive a party of the right of appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal, where substantial part of the order sought to be appealed against is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a particular case, it is thus open for the High Court to grant a proper relief by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India both in one writ petition. The question as to whether the Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent would be maintainable, would dependent upon the tenor of the order looking to the substantial part of the order to ascertain as to whether the case falls within the ambit of Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. 24. The question as to whether the Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent would be maintainable, would dependent upon the tenor of the order looking to the substantial part of the order to ascertain as to whether the case falls within the ambit of Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. 24. Having carefully read the prayers in the writ petitions as also the facts brought on record and also noticed by the learned single Judge while relegating the petitioner society to approach the Civil Court, it cannot be said by forming a definite opinion that the order impugned passed by the learned single Judge was in the exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We may record that by the prayers made in the writ petitions, the petitioner society had chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court, both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India at the same time, inasmuch as, the challenge was to the consent decree obtained from the Civil Court by playing fraud, as also the cancellation deeds registered by the Sub-Registrar in collusion with the parties. The reason being that the parties to both the documents namely the consent deeds, consent terms and cancellation deeds as also the claims pertaining to the rights over the lands-in-question, which were sold in favour of the petitioner society, were same. 25. In our considered opinion, the petitioner society had no option but to challenge both, the consent terms which was the basis of the consent decree allegedly obtained by fraud and collusion, as also the cancellation deeds registered allegedly in collusion between the respondents, in the same petition by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 26. In the said scenario, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the respondents about the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal on the premise that the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is rendered in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is liable to be turned down. 27. The fact remains that the writ petitions were filed in the year 2002. 27. The fact remains that the writ petitions were filed in the year 2002. The parties have exchanged affidavits and at one stage of the proceedings, as informed to us, the writ court had also summoned the original record of the Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 1998 to examine the contention of the petitioners society of the consent decree being outcome of fraud and collusion between the respondents. Thus, after about more than 22 years of the pendency of the writ petition, at the stage of final hearing, there was no justification for the learned single Judge to relegate the petitioners to file a Civil Suit without making a proper inquiry into the material on record. The decision of the learned single Judge in relegating the petitioners society to file a Civil Suit without adverting to the issues of collusion and fraud and wrongful registration of the cancellation deeds by the Sub-Registrar, causes serious prejudice to the petitioners society, namely the appellants herein, whose rights in the lands-in-question have come under cloud because of the consent decree and the cancellation deeds. 28. In view of the above, while setting aside the impugned order dated 1.5.2024 passed by the learned single Judge, both the Special Civil Application No. 4881 of 2002 and Special Civil Application No. 12559 of 2002 are restored to their original numbers. With due respect, it is provided that the learned single Judge is required to adjudicate both the writ petitions on merits after making due inquiry into the allegations of fraud and collusion committed by the respondents in obtaining the cancellation deed dated 27.03.2002 and the consent decree dated 30.06.2000 and 10.06.2000, registered by the Sub-Registrar. 29. Before parting, it may also be noted that there was a dispute raised by the respondents with regard to the locus of the petitioner society and its alleged members to maintain the writ petitions, which though has been noted by the learned single Judge in the order impugned, but has not been adjudicated. While relegating the matter for fresh adjudication, it is clarified that all the issues raised by the parties including about the locus of the petitioner society and its members to maintain the writ petitions, shall be decided by the learned single Judge on merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. 30. While relegating the matter for fresh adjudication, it is clarified that all the issues raised by the parties including about the locus of the petitioner society and its members to maintain the writ petitions, shall be decided by the learned single Judge on merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. 30. With the above observations and direction, both the Letters Patent Appeal are allowed, resulting into the restoration of the writ petitions filed before the learned single Judge. The Civil Applications for stay stand disposed of. 31. As the matter is pending for about more than 22 years, the learned single Judge is requested to decide the same, as expeditiously as possible, without granting unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties. Both the learned counsels for the parties shall also co-operate with the learned single Judge in disposal of the writ petitions expeditiously.