Fraud vitiates finality: a recalled order survived merger objections, and ceiling-law revision was sustained despite delay concerns.

Fraud vitiates all judicial acts, so an order obtained by suppression of material facts or misrepresentation remains a nullity and may be recalled despite earlier dismissal of special leave petitions and the doctrine of merger. The High Court's recall of the earlier judgment was therefore upheld, as finality could not protect a fraudulent order. On the ceiling-law issue, the Court treated the State's suo motu revisional action as not barred by delay where the earlier factual basis was shown to be false or incomplete, and the land was not excluded from reconsideration on the asserted possession narrative. Fresh consideration by the authorities was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order obtained by fraud could be recalled despite dismissal of earlier special leave petitions and the doctrine of merger; (ii) Whether the suo motu revisional power under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was exercised within a reasonable time and whether the land was rightly brought within the ceiling proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether an order obtained by fraud could be recalled despite dismissal of earlier special leave petitions and the doctrine of merger.

Analysis: Fraud was held to strike at the root of all judicial acts. An order procured by suppression of material facts or misrepresentation is non est and can be recalled even after earlier proceedings have ended, because finality and merger do not protect a fraudulent order. The dismissal of special leave petitions did not bar the High Court from entertaining recall applications where the very basis of the earlier order was shown to be vitiated by fraud.

Conclusion: The recall of the earlier common judgment was upheld and the challenge on the ground of merger and prior dismissal of special leave petitions failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the suo motu revisional power under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was exercised within a reasonable time and whether the land was rightly brought within the ceiling proceedings.

Analysis: The Court found that the record showed the factual basis on which the earlier exemption-like finding had proceeded was false. The subsequent material, including the communication from the Port Trust and the inquiry report, showed that possession and title issues had not been correctly presented. In the circumstances, the State Government's exercise of revisional jurisdiction was not held to be barred by delay, and the land was not excluded from consideration under the ceiling law merely on the asserted possession narrative.

Conclusion: The revisional action under the ceiling law was sustained and the land was directed to be reconsidered in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, and the High Court's order recalling the earlier judgment and directing fresh consideration by the authorities was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A judicial order obtained by fraud is a nullity and may be recalled notwithstanding prior procedural finality, and the exercise of revisional power will not be interdicted on delay where the surrounding facts show that the earlier decision was founded on a false or suppressed factual basis.

---