That apart from this that writ petition no. 23591 of 1992 was filed by Paras Ram without impleading the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition . Fraud and Justice never dwell together (Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) as the fraud neither deceit defend or excuse no man (Fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent). Fraud avoids all the judicial acts and order obtain by fraud is a nullity and thereby rendering the entire action void. AIR 1994 SC 853 –S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath J T 1996(7) 135- Indian Bank Vs. M/s Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 8 SCC 512 –Bank of India Vs. Vijay Transport and others. That the proceedings in L. A. R. no. 130 of 1996 filed by Paras Ram have been stayed in writ petition no. 19462 of 1999, while the proceedings of L. A. R. no.131 of 1996 U/S 18,30 filed by Gajraj have also been stayed in writ petition no. 19555 of 1999, while the present reference U/S 30 which was not a declaratory suit has been decided by the Court below on 29/4/2002. There may not be two parallel proceedings running simultaneously between the parties in the same court in which one may remain suspended and other may be decided in a premeditated manner despite the bar created under the statue. Thus the order and judgement dated 29/4/2002 and decree passed therein are liable to be set aside. That Paras Ram and Gajraj have misrepresented themselves to be illiterate person, while both of them are very clever and shrood persons , who got the collusive suit filed and decided U/S 229B/ 209 of U. P. S. A. L. R. Act behind the back of petitioner on 12/5/1971 and despite the fact that Paras Ram is in no manner entitled to usurp the property belonging to Raghubir on account of he being the son of Chaman Kali and Munshi, but he got an order obtained fraudulently by making an abuse of process for incorporating his name on 18/12/1981 from A. S. D. O. Ghaziabad and thus became entitled for the reference made U/S 11/30 of Land Acquisition Act. That this Paras Ram filed successive writ petition no. 23591 of 1992, 19462 of 1999 and 19572 of 1999 while Gajraj also filed the writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 and as such neither the Gajraj, nor the Paras Ram may be said to be the illiterate person, who does not know anything about registered sale deed executed by Gajraj on 25/11/1968 in favour of petitioner and as such inference drawn in the judgement dated 29/4/2002 passed by this Hon’ble Court in respect of bonfide of Gajraj is uncalled for and the judgement dated 29/4/2002 and decree dated 4/5/2002 are liable to be set aside by allowing the present application. That on the one hand all these things has been done, while on the other hand Paras Ram and Gajraj entered into compromise with Ram Kishan, the other person, who has purchased the land prior to judgement passed on 12/5/1971 in which the name of Ram Kishan was deleted by order dated 27/4/1971. Gajraj got the compromises given effect by permitting Ram Kishan to realise the entire compensation. That in this manner the action of respondents namely Paras Ram and Gajraj is calculated abuse of process by making a mockery to the entire administration of justice through their reprehensible conduct by exercising their pernicious influence beyond the parties to action i.e. to the appellant Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, who is an old person running at the age of about 80 years after completing his sincere and dedicated services for maintaining the security and integrity of nation for 25 years in Army and as such a daring raid may not by allowed to be perpetuated by invaders of the due administration of justice. That the conduct of Paras Ram is so reprehensible that by making the protest of having a misrepresented the said order dated 23/9/1996 in the Execution case no. 8 of 1997 as he moved an application on 29/11/1996. On the basis of said application he sought for having realisation of money in the tune of Rupees 11,33,983.40 Paisa. It was only on the basis of an application filed on behalf of State Govt. when such proceedings could have been stopped and thereafter a letter was issued on 27/10/1997 addressed to IIIrd Additional District Judge that against such a frivolous execution proceedings no. 8 of 1997 Paras Ram should be penalized by Rs. 50,000/- That the pendency of writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 was to the exclusion of the proceedings decided on 29/4/2002 by the court of IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. That the writ petition no. 19572 of 1999, 19462 of 1999 and 19555 of 1999 are cognizable by the learned single judge, but no special appeal is maintainable arising out of the order in the said proceedings, while the first appeal no. (248) of 2002 is cognizable by the Division Bench as the valuation of said appeal is 22,74,966.28 Paise. That on one hand the writ petition No. 29591 of 1992 was presented on 15/7/1992, while simultaneously the parallel proceedings in L. A. R. no. 421 of 1992 under section 30 of Land Acquisition Act was initiated in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. However, simultaneously other collateral proceedings having L. A. R. no. 130 of 1996 by Paras Ram and L. A. R. no. 131 of 1996 by Gajraj were initiated before the Additional District Judge U/S 18 30 of Land Acquisition Act, but the said proceedings U/S 18 of Land Acquisition Act were stayed in writ petition no. 19462 of 1999 ( Paras Ram vs II nd A. D. J. Ghaziabad and others) and writ petition no. 19555 of 1999 (Gajraj vs. II nd A. D. J. Ghaziabad & Others)on 12/5/1999. That even in the proceedings of L. A. R. no. 421 of 1992, the writ petition no. 19572 of 1999 was filed by Paras Ram in respect of order dated 7/4/1999 in which this Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct the Paras Ram to issue notice to Major Jasbinder Singh Bala, who has recorded his appearance in the aforesaid case in pursuance of order passed on 12/5/1999 in writ petition no. 19572 of 1999.
Posted on: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 10:32:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015