Supreme Court affirms recall of judgment due to fraud, validates State's revisional powers.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to recall its earlier judgment due to fraud by the landowners, emphasizing that judgments obtained by fraud are nullities. The disputed land was found to be subject to the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, despite the landowners' claims. The Court deemed the State Government's exercise of revisional powers justified in light of fraudulent activities. The case was remanded for fresh consideration under the relevant laws, dismissing the appellants' arguments and directing completion of proceedings with adherence to legal principles. Appeals were dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's recall of its earlier judgment.
2. Applicability of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Ceiling Act) to the disputed land.
3. Allegations of fraud by the landowners.
4. Exercise of revisional powers by the State Government under Section 34 of the Ceiling Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the High Court's Recall of its Earlier Judgment:
The High Court recalled its judgment dated April 27, 2000, based on allegations of fraud by the landowners. The appellants contended that the High Court erred in law by recalling its order after the dismissal of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, however, held that judgments obtained by fraud are nullities and can be set aside at any stage. The High Court's decision to recall the order was justified due to the fraudulent acts committed by the landowners in collusion with Port Trust officers and government officials. The principle of finality of litigation does not apply when fraud is involved.

2. Applicability of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Ceiling Act) to the Disputed Land:
The appellants argued that the land was agricultural and thus exempt from the Ceiling Act. However, the High Court found that the landowners never claimed the land was agricultural during the Ceiling Act proceedings. Instead, they contended that possession had been handed over to the Port Trust in 1972, which was later proven false. The High Court held that the land was subject to the Ceiling Act, and the Special Officer and Competent Authority erred in excluding it from the Act's purview.

3. Allegations of Fraud by the Landowners:
The High Court found that the landowners had committed fraud by falsely claiming that possession of the land was handed over to the Port Trust in 1972. This claim was contradicted by a 1985 letter from the Chief Engineer of the Port Trust, stating that physical possession was never taken due to ongoing tenancy disputes. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) report further substantiated the fraud allegations, revealing collusion between the landowners and officials. The Supreme Court emphasized that judgments obtained by fraud are nullities and can be challenged at any time.

4. Exercise of Revisional Powers by the State Government under Section 34 of the Ceiling Act:
The appellants contended that the State Government's exercise of revisional powers after thirteen years was unreasonable. The Supreme Court acknowledged that revisional powers should be exercised within a reasonable time. However, considering the fraudulent activities and the 1985 letter revealing the true facts, the Court found the exercise of revisional powers justified. The High Court correctly directed the authorities to reconsider the matter under the Ceiling Act and proceed with the Land Acquisition Act based on the revised decision.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to recall its earlier order and remand the case for fresh consideration. The appellants' arguments were dismissed, and the Court emphasized that judgments obtained by fraud are nullities. The authorities were directed to complete proceedings under the Ceiling Act and, if applicable, under the Land Acquisition Act, ensuring justice and adherence to legal principles. The appeals were dismissed with costs.

---