[2026:RJ-JP:20937] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3042/2026 Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Secretary, Indira Circle, JLN Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner-Non-appellant Versus Suresh Bugalia S/o Shri Baljeet Singh Bugalia, R/o House No. C- 186, Chander Bardai Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondent/Appellant Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3248/2026 Dikshant Saini Son Of Late Shri Hanuman Sahai Saini, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Mamta Rose Nursery, In Front Of Patel Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Suresh Bugalia Son Of Shri Baljeet Singh Bugalia, Resident Of House No. C-186, Chander Bardai Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Appellant-consenting-respondent 2. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Secretary, Indira Circle, JLN Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Non-appellnat-Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Sharma with Mr. Devakriti Vashishtha in CW No.3042/2026 Mr. Saransh Saini with Ms. Sanjana Choudhary, Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Ms. Ayushi Singh & Mr. Neeraj Kumar Pal in CW No.3248/2026 For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Puneet Mahla, Mr. Falak Mathur, Mr. Yug Singh, Mr. Salim Khan Gori, Mr. Manish Bhodiwal, Mr. Utsav Verma for respondent No.1 in both petitions Mr. Shyam Sharma with Mr. Devakriti Vashishtha for respondent respondent No.2 in CW No.3248/2026 [2026:RJ-JP:20937] (2 of 23) [CW-3042/2026] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order Arguments concluded on ::: March 25, 2026 Reserved on ::: March 25, 2026 Pronounced on ::: May 27, 2026 1. Both these writ petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners with a challenge to the order dated 05.12.2025, passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority (for short, 'the Tribunal') in appeal No. 598/2025, therefore both these petitions are being decided by this common order. 2. Learned Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 05.12.2025 has set aside the order dated 05.05.2025 made by Dy. Commissioner, Zone-PRN- South II, Jaipur, whereby the Jaipur Development Authority (for short, 'the JDA') cancelled the patta dated 10.10.2023 issued in favour of the respondent/appellant by the JDA of plot No. 7-A & 8-A measuring 905.50 sq. yards of Mamta Residency. 3. Learned counsel for the JDA submitted that since the allotment order dated 10.10.2023 was obtained by the respondent/appellant by misrepresentation and there were several other discrepancies and therefore in exercise of powers under Section 54(D) of the JDA Act, 1982, the JDA has rightly cancelled the patta issued in favour of the respondent/appellant. He further submitted that the Tribunal, ignoring the material discrepancies [2026:RJ-JP:20937] (3 of 23) [CW-3042/2026] and misrepresentation, proceeded to decide the appeal without taking into consideration the material made available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3248/2026 also submitted that the respondent/appellant obtained the patta dated 10.10.2023 of the land in question by making misrepresentation and incorrect facts and in violation of the settled procedure to be followed before issuance of patta. He also submitted that the Tribunal has not given due application of mind to the material available on record regarding the discrepancies and misrepresentation as has been pointed out by the JDA while cancelling the patta issued in favour of the respondent/appellant. 4.1. It is alleged that land admeasuring 2.03 hectares situated at Revenue Village Manpur Devri alias Golyawas, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, originally recorded in the name of khatedar Shri Hanuman Sahai Saini, was agreed to be sold to Forest View Griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., pursuant whereto a residential scheme namely “Mamta Residency” comprising 16 plots was developed, excluding Plot No. 17 admeasuring 855 square yards, upon which Mamta Rose Nursery was allegedly operating. 4.2. It is further alleged that during the PT survey, possession of the disputed land was recorded in favour of the petitioner and his family members and thereafter “Mamta Residency Nagrik Vikas Samiti” was registered, which submitted the layout plan and list of allottees before the JDA. The electricity connection over the disputed land is also stated to have stood in [2026:RJ-JP:20937] (4 of 23) [CW-3042/2026] the name of Mamta Rose Nursery, and an amended layout plan was subsequently prepared. 4.3. The petitioner further alleges that allotment of Plot No. 17 was fraudulently manipulated in the name of Amar Jyoti Bal Niketan Vidhyalaya Samiti, Khora Meena, Aamer, Jaipur, and forged receipts dated 05.01.1998 and 10.05.1998 were prepared to falsely depict transfer of the said plot in favour of the appellant Suresh Bugalia. 4.4. It is further alleged that, on the basis of the aforesaid forged documents and manipulated transfers, the appellant approached the JDA for issuance of patta/lease deed. According to the petitioner, public notice inviting objections was published in the name of a different housing society, namely Hasanpura-A Griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., and under a different scheme, allegedly with an intention to mislead the concerned persons. Consequently, pattas in respect of Plot Nos. 7A and 8A of Mamta Residency Scheme are stated to have been issued in favour of the appellant in collusion and contrary to the prescribed procedure of law. 4.5. It is further averred that after the demise of Shri Hanuman Sahai Saini, father of the petitioner, the petitioner became aware of the aforesaid alleged manipulations and forged pattas, whereafter FIR No. 224/2024 came to be lodged at Police Station Mohana, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. During the course of investigation, the concerned housing society also submitted its response before the Investigating Officer in connection with the said FIR. [2026:RJ-JP:20937] (5 of 23) [CW-3042/2026] 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of the learned Tribunal suffers no illegality or perversity. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has given its finding on each and every aspect agitated in the appeal from both sides. He also submitted that looking to the facts of this case, there is no scope for interference in the order of the Tribunal in exercise of Article 227 writ jurisdiction of the constitution of India. 6. Considered the submissions made by counsels for respective parties and also perused the material made available on record. 7. The facts borne out from the pleadings are that the respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal alleging therein that he purchased the plot No. 17 measuring 855.78 sq. ft. in Mamta Residency, Golyawas, Jaipur on 10.08.1998 and got transferred his name in the list of allottees submitted by the Samiti and the allotment letter. The said plot was re- constituted as Plot No. 7-A and 8-A, measuring 905.50 sq. yards and upon submitting a new site plan of the said plots and a total amount of Rs. 21,92,553/-, a lease deed was issued on 10.10.2023 in favour of the respondent. 7.1 However, a letter was received by the respondent. from the Deputy Commissioner of the Zone (Prithviraj Nagar- II) (for short, 'Deputy Commissioner') mentioning a complaint dated 05.12.2023, filed by Shri Dikshant Saini claiming his possession over the plot in dispute and seeking [2026:RJ-JP:20937] (6 of 23) [CW-3042/2026] cancellation of the lease deed. Subsequently, an order for cancellation of the lease deed dated 10.10.2023 for Plot No. 17 (new 7-A and 8-A) was passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 05.05.2025 and the same was received by the respondent on 19.05.2025. 7.2 The respondent preferred an appeal against the. order dated 05.05.2025, in response to which, the petitioner- JDA filed its reply disputing respondent's name in the list of allottees submitted by the Samiti and alleging that the respondent did not submit the allotment letters of the new plots and that the lease deed was issued in his favour based on a false affidavit. 7.3. The learned Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent vide its impugned order dated 05.12.2025. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that in a writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India there is very limited scope for interference in the order passed by the Tribunal and in the present case, since the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer any illegality or perversity, no interference is warranted. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows:- "7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of [2026:RJ-JP:20937] (7 of 23) [CW-3042/2026] an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision." 9. The learned Tribunal has given a finding that as per the letter dated 16.08.2023 of the Housing Cooperative Society (said to have been submitted to the Dy. Commissioner), the appellant/respondent has been shown to be the final allottee and has stated that if JDA issues patta in his favour, the society has no objection. The petitioner has placed on record the letter dated 14.05.2024 (Annexure-20) of The Forest View Housing Co- Operative Society Ltd. which is said to have allotted the plot to the appellant/respondent, has specifically stated that plot No. 17 (which is said to have been revised as plot nos. 7A and 8A) was initially allotted on 08.11.1997 to Amar Jyoti Bal Niketan Vidyalaya Samiti, Khora Meena, Amer, Jaipur and has further stated that there was only one allotment in favour of the Amar Jyoti Bal Niketan Vidyalaya Samiti and there has never been any transfer of plot Nos. 7A and 8A. The society has also stated that the allotment of plot No. 17 was in the name of Amar Jyoti Bal Niketan Vidyalaya Samiti. 10. On consideration of the submissions and facts on record, it is revealed that the respondent/appellant, by filing an appeal before the Tribunal has challenged the order dated 05.05.2025, passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Zone-PRN- South [2026:RJ-JP:20937] (8 of 23) [CW-3042/2026] II, Jaipur, whereby the lease deed/patta of plot Nos. 7A and 8A was cancelled on following grounds:- "1. दी फोरेस्ट व्यू कि यूजना ममता रेजडेन्सी  भूखण्डे सीख्यू 17 क्षेत्रफोल 855 वर्ग र्गज  सीसीयूट द्वारे दी भूखण्डे" म# कि$ना अकि& रिरेयूता  किवभूकिजता रे नायू भूखण्डे सीख्यू 7 ए व 8 ए सीयू)क्त क्षेत्रफोल 855 सी व+कि, रे 905.50 वर्ग र्गज  किनाम ण रे किदीयू र्गयू ज कि पूण ता/ सीकिमकिता  क्षेत्रकि& रे सी पूरे है1। 2. दी फोरेस्ट ज्यू कि यूजना ममता रेजडेन्सी  भूखण्डे सीख्यू 17 क्षेत्रफोल 855 वर्ग र्गज  सी$& म# सीकिमकिता द्वारे नायू अव1& भूखण्डे सीख्यू 7 ए 8 ए सी+किजता रे सीईट प्लट जरे कि यू र्गयू। पूरेन्ता) नायू आवटना पूत्र जरे नाहै7 कि यू र्गयू है1। 3. सीकिमकिता द्वारे सीव प्रथम सीख्यू 17 ममता रेजडेन्सी  सीव प्रथम अमरे ज्यूकिता $ल किना  ताना  आवटना कि यू र्गयू ताथ उसी  पूश्चाता सीस्थ  नाम सी आवकिटता भूखण्डे  कि$ना वपूसी एलपू सी अना)मदीना रेवयू किनाज व्यूकिक्त ओमप्र श पू)त्र रेघु)नाथ  नाम पूरे किनायूम किवरूद्वा हैस्तानान्तारिरेता रे किदीयू र्गयू। 4. सीकिमकिता द्वारे भूखण्डे सीख्यू 17  पू)ना/ किवकि& किवरू, आवटना सी)रेश $)र्गकिलयू  रे किदीयू र्गयू किजसी  अकि& रे सीकिमकिता  नाहै थ सीकिमकिता द्वारे भू भू जना यू लयू म# सीशकि&ता सीचा प्रस्ता)ता नाहै7 कि र्गयू है1 किजसीम# सी)रेश $)र्गकिलयू  नाम भूखण्डे सीख्यू 17  किवरू, अकि ता है। 5. सी)रेश $)र्गकिलयू द्वारे आवदीना  सीथ 7 ए व 8 ए  आवटना पूत्र सीलग्न नाहै कि यू र्गयू। 6. सी)रेश $)र्गकिलयू द्वारे जना यू लयू म# फोजB शपूथ पूत्र प्रस्ता)ता रे लज डेडे जरे रेवयू र्गयू है1। सी)रेश $)र्गकिलयू द्वारे मC  पूरे ब्ज व वदी किववदी नाहै हैना  सी$& म#  ट रेकिचाता शपूथ पूत्र प्रस्ता)ता कि यू र्गयू है1 पूरेन्ता) मC  पूरे सी)रेश $)र्गकिलयू  भू भू ब्ज नाहै रेहै है1 ताथ उक्त भूखण्डे  सी$& म# दीक्षेता सी1ना व सी)रेश $)र्गकिलयू  मध्यू स्वकिमत्व सी$&किववदी है1। उक्त भूखण्डे  ब्ज दीक्षेता सी1ना  पूसी है1। 7. आवदीना G र्गयू पूत्रवल G ना"टशट पू1रे 9/ एना  अना)सीरे तात् लना सीहैयू नार्गरे किनायूजना द्वारे उपूयू)क्त महैदीयू G अना)ज्ञा  कि$ना जआईसी ता1यूरे G र्गयू है1। सीथ है ता1यूरे G र्गई जआईसी पूरे तात् लना जना उपूयू)क्त  फोजB हैस्ताक्षेरे कि यू र्गयू प्रकिताता हैता है1। 8. आवदीना द्वारे नायू भूखण्डे सीख्यू 7 ए व 8 ए  सीसीयूट द्वारे जरे मल आवटना पूत्र प्रस्ता)ता नाहै कि यू र्गयू है1। 9. सीकिमकिता द्वारे आवकिटयू" G प्रस्ता)ता सी)चा म# आवदीना  नाम नाहै है1। [2026:RJ-JP:20937] (9 of 23) [CW-3042/2026] 10. आवदी द्वारे ब्ज  सी$& म# ना ता आवकिटता भूखण्डे  सीथ स्वयू है उक्त भूखण्डे  सी$& म# कि$जल आकिदी  कि$ल सीलग्न कि यू है1। 11. प्रशनार्गता भूखण्डे  सी$& म# प्र किशता किवज्ञाकिI हैसीनापू)रे ए.ग्र.किना.सी.सी. G यूजना किवनायू सीरेवरे  भूखण्डे सीख्यू 17 G लजडेडे जरे रेवना हैता) रेवई र्गई है1 ना कि दी फोरेस्ट व्यू G यूजना ममता रेजडेन्सी  भूखण्डे सीख्यू 7 ए व 8 ए  सी$& म।" 11. It is submitted by the counsels for the petitioners that lease deed/patta dated 10.10.2023 has been issued in favour of the respondent/appellant ignoring the settled procedure and on the basis of misrepresentation by the respondent/appellant. One of the grounds for cancellation of the patta/lease deed was that the Housing Cooperative Society made allotment of plot No. 17 measuring 855 sq. yard to one Amar Jyoti Bal Niketan Vidyalaya Samiti on 08.11.1997 and while making alleged transfer of the said plot in favour of the respondent/appellant, the plot No. 17 was revised as plot Nos. 7A and 8A with the measurement of 905.50 sq. yard. As per the facts on record, the Housing Cooperative Society has submitted the list of allottees to the JDA, wherein there was no name of Omprakash from whom the said plots have been transferred to the present respondent/appellant. 12. In view of the scope of this court, in a writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and so also the material available on record, this Court is quite conscious of competency to make a scrutiny whether the respondent authorities have followed the due procedure prescribed under the law as regards the issuance of lease deed/patta in favor of the respondent/appellant on 10.10.2023. The procedure prescribed under the law is that the Housing Cooperative Society, after having obtained the land from its khatedars, carves out a [2026:RJ-JP:20937] (10 of 23) [CW-3042/2026] residential scheme and make allotments of the plots to its members and submits the list of the allottees to the JDA, which, after due verification and to ensure that the scheme carved out is in conformity with the master plan, proceeds for regularization of the possession/allotment of the pattas to the allottees. 12.1 For the regularization of possession/allotment, the public notice is required to be published in the daily newspaper inviting objections from the interested persons and after due verification of the allotment and other required documents, issues pattas to the persons having possession or make an allotment. In case there is a transfer of the patta by the original allottee to someone else, then also a required information is submitted by the Housing Cooperative Society to the JDA regarding transfer of the patta in favour of other person and then the transferee can claim or ask for the lease deed from the JDA. As per the set procedure under the law when any patta of a plot is transferred from original allottee to someone else, then for that, proceedings are drawn in the records of the society and on the original patta issued in favour of the original allottee, the fact regarding transfer of the plot is mentioned after receiving the due required fees for transfer. In normal course, the fact of transfer is recorded in writing over the back of original patta. 13. On scrutiny of the material made available on record, it is revealed that the original khatedar of the land i.e. Hanuman Sahai Saini, who is the father of the petitioner Dikshant Saini sold out the land to the Forest View Housing Cooperative Society, Jaipur vide agreement dated 05.11.1997 keeping a piece of that [2026:RJ-JP:20937] (11 of 23) [CW-3042/2026] land in their possession in the name of a Nursery. The Housing Cooperative Society, after purchasing the land from its khatedar, carved out a residential scheme named Mamta Residency, wherein plot No. 17 was allotted to Amar Jyoti Bal Niketan Vidhyalaya Samiti, Khora Meena, Aamer, Jaipur on 08.11.1997 by issuing patta (Annexure-11). A receipt dated 05.01.1998 is placed on record as a receipt of Rs.230/- for transfer of the plot No. 17 in favour of Omprakash and thereafter another receipt has been placed on record i.e. dated 10.05.1998 (Annexure-14) for receiving the fee of Rs.230/- for transfer of plot No. 17 in favour of the respondent/appellant. Though any transfer of patta from original allottee to someone else is always recorded on the original patta issued in favour of the original allottee, however, in the present case the respondent has placed on record a patta issued in his favour of plot No. 17 Mamta Residency said to be issued on 10.05.1998. 14. On perusal of the patta enclosed with the reply by the respondent/appellant, it is revealed that he has been given patta of the plot No. 17 Mamta Residency after being deposited Rs.1,02,694/- vide receipt No. 8851 dated 08.11.1997. 15. It is to be noted that the amount of Rs.1,02,694/- was paid by the original allottee Amar Jyoti Bal Niketan Vidhyalaya Samiti and not by the respondent/appellant. This fact creates suspicion about the issuance of patta dated 10.05.1998 submitted by the respondent/appellant alongwith the reply to the writ petition. The respondent/appellant said to have submitted the application (Annexure-15) for issuance of lease deed showing [2026:RJ-JP:20937] (12 of 23) [CW-3042/2026] himself to be the original allottee of plot No. 17 by the Forest View Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. Alongwith the application, an affidavit is also said to have been submitted by the appellant/respondent stating that he has been allotted plot Nos. 7A and 8A measuring 905.50 sq. yard in the Mamta Residency by the Forest View Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. However, there is no allotment letter submitted by the petitioner said to be issued by the Housing Cooperative Society for plot Nos. 7A and 8A nor any revised plan or revised plots have ever been submitted by the Housing Cooperative Society to the JDA. 16. The JDA before issuing the lease deed in favour of the petitioner in consonance with the procedure prescribed under the law, issued a public notice dated 22.06.2023 (Annexure-16) in view of the application of the petitioner for issuance of lease deed. In the said public notice, the plot No. has been mentioned as 17, however, the name of the Housing Cooperative Society has been mentioned as Hasanpura A Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. in place of the Forest View Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. and the name of the scheme has also been incorrectly mentioned as Vinayak Sarovar in place of Mamta Residency. 17. May be since the name of the Housing Cooperative Society and so also the name of the scheme has been mentioned other than the name of the Forest View Housing Cooperative Society and the Mamta Residency, there was no objection from any side. If the JDA, while issuing the public notice, would have mentioned the correct name of the Housing Cooperative Society and so also the name of the scheme as regards the plot no. 17, [2026:RJ-JP:20937] (13 of 23) [CW-3042/2026] over which the respondent/appellant is seeking lease deed, then the petitioner Dikshant Saini or any other interested person may have submitted the objections and the matter could have been resolved at the relevant point of time. The application for issuance of lease deed was for plot No. 17 of the Mamta Residency. Though the alleged allotment letter in favour of the respondent/appellant is suspicious, however, the respondent JDA, after issuing a public notice dated 22.06.2023, mentioning incorrect details has issued lease deed in favour of the respondent-appellant for plot No.7-A and 8-A whereas, the application was for plot No.17. This shows the collusion of the officers/employees of the JDA. 18. The concerned Housing Cooperative Society in its letter dated 14.05.2024 (Annexure-20) has stated that the plot No.7-A and 8-A have never been transferred by the society and the plot No.17 was allotted to Amar Jyoti Bal Niketan Vidhyalaya Samiti. It is not disputed from the respondent side that initially the plot No.17 was allotted by the Forest View Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. in the name of Amar Jyoti Bal Niketan Vidhyalaya Samiti but he has claimed that the said allotment has been transferred first to Om Prakash and then to the respondent- appellant and the allotment letter has already been issued in the year 1998 in favour of the respondent-appellant. As per the allotment letter placed on record by the respondent-appellant himself, the said letter is to be him after he deposited a sum of Rs.1,02,694/- vide receipt No.8851 dated 08.11.1997. By depositing the amount vide receipt No.8851 dated 08.11.1997, the allotment was made in the name of Amar Jyoti Bal Niketan [2026:RJ-JP:20937] (14 of 23) [CW-3042/2026] Vidhyalaya Samiti and not in the name of the respondent- appellant and the said amount was deposited by the Amar Jyoti Bal Niketan Vidhyalaya Samiti. The respondent-appellant is claiming that the plot No.17 of Mamta Residency was revised by the Forest View Housing Cooperative Society Ltd., Jaipur on 10.04.2017 and the letter in this regard has also been sent to the JDA but the Court finds that before issuing lease deed in favour of the respondent-appellant, a public notice is said to have issued on 22.06.2023 wherein, plot number has been mentioned as 17 and the society which is said to have issued the patta has also been mentioned as Hasanpur-A Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and the scheme has been mentioned as Vinayak Sarovar whereas, the lease deed is said to have been issued by the JDA for the plot No.7-A and 8-A of the scheme known as Mamta Residency floated by the Forest View Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. The aforesaid facts clearly speak that there is some kind of misrepresentation while seeking lease deed for the plot No.7-A and 8-A in favour of the respondent-appellant. 19. Section 54-D of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 provides for cancellation of lease deed/patta of the land sought on misrepresentation or by submitting the false documents. The learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment has not taken care of the procedure prescribed under law and whether the same has been followed while issuing the lease deed/patta in favour of the respondent-appellant. 20. Any judgment, decree or order sought on the basis of misrepresentation or fraud is vitiated and nonest in eye of law. [2026:RJ-JP:20937] (15 of 23) [CW-3042/2026] 21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of A.P. & Anr. Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao reported in (2005) 6 SCC 149, explaining the fraud and its effect and has observed as under:- “The order of the High Court is clearly erroneous. There is no dispute that the land which was offered for surrender by the respondent had already been acquired by the State and the same had vested in it. This was clearly a case of fraud. Merely because an enquiry was made, the Tribunal was not divested of the power to correct the error when the respondent had clearly committed a fraud. By “fraud” is meant an intention to deceive; whether it is from any expectation of advantage to the party himself or from ill-will towards the other is immaterial. The expression “fraud” involves two elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss, that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non- economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver, will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied. [See Vimla (Dr.) v. Delhi Admn. [1963 Supp (2) SCR 585 : AIR 1963 SC 1572 at pp. 1576-77 para 14 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ 434] and Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 550]. [2026:RJ-JP:20937] (16 of 23) [CW-3042/2026] A “fraud” is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. (See S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1] .) “Fraud” as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which includes the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury enures therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any [2026:RJ-JP:20937] (17 of 23) [CW-3042/2026] equitable doctrine including res judicata. (See Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi [(2003) 8 SCC 319]) “Fraud” and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton's sorcerer, Comus, who exulted in his ability to, ‘wing me into the easy- hearted man and trap him into snares’. It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary “fraud” in equity has been defined as an act or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to another. In Black's Law Dictionary, “fraud” is defined as an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. In Concise Oxford Dictionary, it has been defined as criminal deception, use of false representation to gain unjust advantage; dishonest artifice or trick. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, a representation is deemed to have been false, and therefore a misrepresentation, if it was at the material date false in substance and in fact. Section 17 of the Contract Act, 1872 defines “fraud” as an act committed by a party to a contract [2026:RJ-JP:20937] (18 of 23) [CW-3042/2026] with the intent to deceive another. From dictionary meaning or even otherwise fraud arises out of a deliberate active role of the representator about a fact, which he knows to be untrue yet he succeeds in misleading the representee by making him believe it to be true. The representation to become fraudulent must be of fact with the knowledge that it was false. In a leading English case i.e. Derry v. Peek [(1886- 90) All ER Rep 1 : (1889) 14 AC 337 (HL)] what constitutes “fraud” was described thus : (All ER p. 22 B-C) “[F]raud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false.” But “fraud” in public law is not the same as “fraud” in private law. Nor can the ingredients, which establish “fraud” in commercial transaction, be of assistance in determining fraud in administrative law. It has been aptly observed by Lord Bridge in Khawaja v. Secy. of State for Home Deptt. [(1983) 1 All ER 765 : 1984 AC 74 : (1982) 1 WLR 948 (HL)] that it is dangerous to introduce maxims of common law as to effect of fraud while determining fraud in relation to statutory law. “Fraud” in relation to statute must be a colourable transaction to evade the provisions of a statute. “ ‘If a statute has been passed for some one particular purpose, a court of law will not countenance any attempt which may be made to extend the operation of the Act to something else which is quite foreign to its object and beyond its scope.’ Present-day concept of fraud on statute has [2026:RJ-JP:20937] (19 of 23) [CW-3042/2026] veered round abuse of power or mala fide exercise of power. It may arise due to overstepping the limits of power or defeating the provision of statute by adopting subterfuge or the power may be exercised for extraneous or irrelevant considerations. The colour of fraud in public law or administrative law, as it is developing, is assuming different shades. It arises from a deception committed by disclosure of incorrect facts knowingly and deliberately to invoke exercise of power and procure an order from an authority or tribunal. It must result in exercise of jurisdiction which otherwise would not have been exercised. That is misrepresentation must be in relation to the conditions provided in a section on existence or non-existence of which power can be exercised. But non-disclosure of a fact not required by a statute to be disclosed may not amount to fraud. Even in commercial transactions non-disclosure of every fact does not vitiate the agreement. ‘In a contract every person must look for himself and ensures that he acquires the information necessary to avoid bad bargain.’ In public law the duty is not to deceive.” (See Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros. [(1992) 1 SCC 534] SCC p. 554, para 20.) In that case it was observed as follows : (SCC p. 553, para 20) “20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton's sorcerer, Comus, who exulted in his ability to, ‘wing [2026:RJ-JP:20937] (20 of 23) [CW-3042/2026] me into the easy-hearted man and trap him into snares’. It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary fraud in equity has been defined as an act or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to another. In Black's Law Dictionary, fraud is defined as an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. In Concise Oxford Dictionary, it has been defined as criminal deception, use of false representation to gain unjust advantage; dishonest artifice or trick. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, a representation is deemed to have been false, and therefore a misrepresentation, if it was at the material date false in substance and in fact. Section 17 of the Contract Act defines fraud as act committed by a party to a contract with intent to deceive another. From dictionary meaning or even otherwise fraud arises out of deliberate active role of representator about a fact which he knows to be untrue yet he succeeds in misleading the representee by making him believe it to be true. The representation to become fraudulent must be [2026:RJ-JP:20937] (21 of 23) [CW-3042/2026] of fact with knowledge that it was false. In a leading English case Derry v. Peek [(1886-90) All ER Rep 1 : (1889) 14 AC 337 (HL)] what constitutes fraud was described thus : (All ER p. 22 B-C) ‘[F]raud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false.’ ” ... “Fraud” is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. Although negligence is not fraud but it can be evidence on fraud; as observed in Ram Preeti Yadav case [(2003) 8 SCC 311] . In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley [(1956) 1 QB 702 : (1956) 1 All ER 341 : (1956) 2 WLR 502 (CA)] Lord Denning observed at QB pp. 712 and 713 : (All ER p. 345 C) “No judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.” In the same judgment Lord Parker, L.J. observed that fraud “vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of solemnity”. [ [Ed. : (1956) 1 All ER 341 at p. 351 placitum E-F]] Considering the aforesaid principles of law and the background facts, the Tribunal was justified in [2026:RJ-JP:20937] (22 of 23) [CW-3042/2026] modifying the earlier order and varying it. The Appellate Tribunal did not commit any error in upholding it. The High Court's order is clearly unsustainable and is set aside.” 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramjas Foundation & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2010) 14 SCC 38 has observed in para 21 as under:- “21. The principle that a person who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case.” 23. In view of the discussion made above, this Court can safely hold that the patta/lease deed issued in favour of the respondent-appellant for plot No.7-A and 8-A of Mamta Residency (carved out for the Forest View Housing Cooperative Society Ltd.) has been sought by misrepresentation which may also be a fraud and that too without adhering to the due procedure prescribed under law and therefore, the JDA has not committed any error or illegality in cancelling the lease deed dated 10.10.2023 by issuing [2026:RJ-JP:20937] (23 of 23) [CW-3042/2026] order dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure-26), by exercising powers under Section 54 of the JDA Act. 24. The learned Tribunal has ignored this material fact that there is misrepresentation and non-adherence of the procedure prescribed under law for issuing lease deed in favour of respondent and therefore, the order of the learned Tribunal is not sustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 25. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned judgment dated 05.12.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.598/2025, is hereby, quashed and set aside. 26. The respondent-appellant or any other interested person would be at liberty to make fresh application as per his entitlement by submitting correct facts for issuance of lease deed/patta of the land-in-question. In case any such application by any interested person is submitted, the JDA after following due procedure prescribed under law including issuance of a public notice with correct details for inviting objections shall take a decision afresh after hearing the persons submitting objections. Fresh decision be taken independent of the observations and findings in this order. 27. In view of the order passed in the main petitions, stay application as well as pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J GAURAV SRIVASTAVA/