Three-Judge Bench Holds High Court and earlier Supreme Court Order Vitiated by Fraud; Sets Aside Impugned Decree, Remands Matter for Fresh Hearing

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan heard appeals and a writ petition arising from rival claims to land in Sector 18, Noida, and the quantum and entitlement to compensation paid after acquisition. The appeals were filed by Vishnu Vardhan (also spelled Vishnu Pradhan), who challenged the Allahabad High Court’s order of 28 October 2021 declaring a rival, Reddy Veeranna, to be sole owner and directing enhanced compensation; the matters also required adjudication of whether Reddy had “played fraud on the courts”.

Decision Summary The Supreme Court found that the impugned High Court order and this Court’s subsequent decision dated 5 May 2022 were procured by deception and were therefore vitiated by fraud. The Court set aside the High Court order, declared the 5 May 2022 judgment a nullity and recalled the related order of 30 January 2023. The matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh adjudication with directions to implead the other co-owners and to decide entitlement and apportionment of compensation afresh; the Court left re-determination of quantum to the High Court and allowed it to receive oral and documentary evidence or to exercise powers akin to Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act if necessary. The Court recorded interim arrangements concerning securities deposited by Reddy and noted that certain restraint orders would remain in abeyance subject to Reddy’s cooperation with the High Court.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In light of the above discussion, we feel no hesitation to hold that given the deception involved, the impugned order and the decision of this Court dated 5th May, 2022 in Reddy Veerana (supra) procured by Reddy are tainted by fraud and, thus, lack legal sanctity and validity.”

The judgment reiterated the bedrock principle—repeatedly cited in the opinion—that “fraud unravels everything” and held that where a decree or judicial order was obtained by concealment and misrepresentation, courts could declare it a nullity and grant relief notwithstanding procedural or merger arguments.

Background The dispute arose from acquisition proceedings by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) over a 2-18-10 bighas parcel originally purchased in 1997 by three persons — Reddy Veeranna, T. Sudhakar and Vishnu Vardhan. The trio had prosecuted several rounds of litigation over title and execution of decrees. Reddy secured a compromise decree and later steps that led to his name being recorded as sole owner in revenue records; NOIDA thereafter assessed and paid compensation. Vishnu alleged that Reddy had repeatedly advanced inconsistent positions, suppressed material facts (including pendency of a suit brought by Vishnu to set aside the compromise decree), and procured the High Court order without impleading co-owners.

Before the Supreme Court, Vishnu urged that the High Court order was vitiated by fraud and must be set aside; NOIDA challenged the quantum and process of compensation; Reddy resisted maintainability and argued, inter alia, that the High Court order had merged in this Court’s earlier decision and that Vishnu impermissibly sought multiple remedies. The three-Judge Bench examined maintainability, merger, and the evidence of concealment/misrepresentation and held that the core allegation of fraud required resolution before procedural objections could bar relief.

The Court relied on settled authorities on fraud in litigation and on principles governing merger and review, but concluded that fraud was an overriding exception to allow recall and cancellation of judicial acts. The Court ordered: the High Court writ (WP (C) 2272/2019) was remitted for fresh hearing; Vishnu and Sudhakar were to be impleaded as respondents; the High Court was to decide entitlement and apportionment of compensation in accordance with law (and, if factual disputes required, by receiving evidence); prior interim directions about deposited securities were maintained subject to the High Court’s further orders; and the parties were left to bear their own costs. The Court also directed the Chief Justice of the High Court to constitute an appropriate Bench to decide the remanded petition expeditiously.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 884 (Civil Appeal No. 7777/2023; W.P. (C) No. 673/2023) Case Title: VISHNU VARDHAN @ VISHNU PRADHAN v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment text For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment text