Law: Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)

Section: 18 , 12 , 115

Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)-- ---S.  18---Limitation Act  (IX  of  1908), Art.95---Civil  Procedure  Code  (V of  1908).  Ss.12(2)  & 115---Fraud---Limitation---Knowledge---Onus---Land owner's objection to award having once been decided, he filed second objection petition regarding the same award and the same land and got it decided in his favour favourably without disclosing the fact of decision of earlier objection petition-- Collector on detection of factum of second objection petition, got the same set aside as being fraudulent and ineffective---Land-owner's objection that Collector's application under S.12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside the decision of Court, having been filed after three years was beyond period of limitation and that no issue in the trial of application was framed and that at the most, his claim in second objection petition could be termed as res judicata and not fraudulent was repelled---Held, once it was proved by the Collector that land-owner obtained the impeached judgment through fraud then on account of accumulative effect of S.18 and Art.95, Limitation Act, onus shifted to land-owner to prove when the Collector had the knowledge---Land-owner having got the enhanced amount of compensation to which he was not legally entitled, should have known that no length of time would either concede him or his successor the fruit of his dishonesty---Non-framing of issues in the case was equally devoid of substance as the parties fully knew the case of either side and there was not even a remote chance of their being misled in any way or prejudiced in any manner in their defence on account of non-framing of issues in the case--In absence of any prejudice on that score to the party objecting, it could not derive any advantage from that plea---Land-owner's claim in second reference petition was also res judicata and thus on that score too, impugned judgment was liable to be set aside and was rightly set aside by the Trial Court---Revision being devoid of merit was dismissed. Khafd Rchman Oureshi for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st October, 1989.…