Gujarat High Court
Vasharambhai Sagharambhai Bharvad vs Rajdhani Co. Operative Housing Society ... on 13 February, 2026
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 550 of
2026
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL/38284/2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/12559/2002
With
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 38284 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12559 of 2002
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In F/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 38284 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12559 of 2002
With
F/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5054 of 2026
In
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 5050 of 2026
With
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 5050 of 2026
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4881 of 2002
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026 In F/LETTERS PATENT
APPEAL NO. 5050 of 2026
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4881 of 2002
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
VASHARAMBHAI SAGHARAMBHAI BHARVAD
Versus
RAJDHANI CO. OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.
==========================================================
Page 1 of 27
Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026
undefined
Appearance:
MR PK SHUKLA(1056) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MR. R.S.SANJANWALA, SR. ADV. WITH MR. AADIT R
SANJANWALA(9918) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS SM AHUJA(118) for the Respondent(s) No. 5.1,5.2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 13/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) At the outset, we may note that on the request made by Mr. P.K.Shukla, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant in F/Letters Patent Appeal No. 38284 of 2025 that one more appeal against the common judgment and order dated 16.10.2025 has been filed by the appellant herein, we have summoned the record of F/Letter Patent Appeal No. 5050 of 2026 from the Registry which has been filed yesterday only, i.e. 12.02.2026 by the appellant herein, and is still under scrutiny.
2. Further, as the issues raised in both the Letters Patent Appeal, namely the present one and F/Letters Patent Appeal No. 5050 of 2026 are one and the same, inasmuch as, they are arising out of a common judgment of the learned single Judge, we have proceeded to hear both the appeals, including F/Letters Patent Appeal No. 5050 of 2026 at the filling stage itself, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties.
Page 2 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined
3. The delay in filling the Letters Patent Appeals has not been explained to the satisfaction of the Court in the delay condonation applications supporting the memo of the appeals. We do not find any good ground to condone the delay. However, since the learned counsel for the appellants has argued on the merits of the case, we have proceeded to consider the case of the appellants on merits, as well.
4. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, for the fact that both the Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned single Judge, they are being decided by this common judgment.
5. The facts, in brief, relevant to decide the controversy at hands are that the writ petition, namely Special Civil Application No. 12559 of 2002, was filed by the respondent No.1 herein, namely Rajdhani Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. for the main reliefs prayed therein as under :-
"6(A) The Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or writ of certiorari or writ in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order securing the name of the petitioner society in revenue record with the protection and its title (1) to quash and set aside the order recording the said Consent Terms and the consequential decree dated 27th March, 2002 passed in the Regular Civil Suit No.30 of 1998.
(B) Be pleased to declare that the registration of the Cancellation Deeds dated 30th June, 2000, Cancellation Deeds dated 10 th June, 2000 and the deed extending the so called oral tenancy of Gopalbhai C. Amin, dated 30th June, 2000 and 10th July, 2000, are void and to command the respondent see not to register the said deeds of Cancellation and the Deeds extending oral tenancy dated 30th June, 2000 and 10th July, 2000. Copies of the Index II whereof are at Annexure-L and M. (C) Pending hearing of this petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Page 3 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined command the respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to make any changes in the Revenue Records on the basis of the Deeds of Cancellation dated 30th June, 2000 and 10th July 2000 (copies of the Index - II whereof are Annexure - L above) as well as on the basis of the so called documents extending the oal tenancy dated 30th June, 2000 and 10th July, (sic June) 2000."
6. Another writ petition namely Special Civil Application No. 4881 of 2002 though initially had been filed by the Members of Rajdhani Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., but the society had been impleaded as the petitioner therein under the order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the writ court. The reliefs prayed in the said writ petition are as under :-
"(A) That the Hon'ble Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, be pleased to call for the record and proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No.30 of 1998 of the Court of Civil Judge, Gandhinagar and be pleased (1) to declare that the Consent Terms filed in the said proceedings are a fraudulent, collusive, unlawful and non est (2) to quash and set aside the Order recording the said Consent Terms and the consequential decree dated 27th March 2002 passed in the said suit.
(B) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or Order and be pleased: (1) To declare that the registrations of the Cancellations Deeds dated 30th June, 2000, Cancellation Deeds dated 10th June, 2000, and the deed extending the so called oral tenancy of Gopalbhai C Amin dated 30th June 2000 and 10 th July 2000, are void and to command the Respondent Nos.2 not to register the said Deeds of Cancellation and the Deeds extending oral tenancy dated 30th June 2000 and 10th July 2000. Copies of the index II whereof are at Annexure-L & M) (2) to command the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to make any changes in the Revenue Records on the basis of the Deeds of Cancellation dated 30 th June 2000 and 10th July 2000 (copies of the index-II whereof are annexed-L above) as well as on the basis of the so called documents extending the oral tenancy dated 30th June 2000 and 10th June 2000 (copies of the index-II whereof are annexed-M above) (C) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondents no.1 to 3 from making any changes in the Revenue Records relating to lands bearing S.No.73, 78, 79, 80, 81/1, 81/2, 83 and 84 on the basis of the Deeds of Cancellation dated 30th June 2000 and 10 th July 2000 Page 4 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined (copies of the Index where of are annexed-L above) as well as on the basis of the so called documents extending the oral tenancy dated 30th June 2000 and 10th July 2000 (copies of the index-II whereof are annexed-M above).
(D) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petitioners, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondents No.4 to 55, either jointly or severally from interfering with the possession of the members to in the lands of the society, bearing survey No.from creating any interest in the lands of the society, bearing survey Nos. 73, 78, 79, 80, 81/1, 81/2, 83 and 84, as also from transferring or disposing off the same, in any manner whatsoever.
(E) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition, the Consent Terms recorded in Regular Civil Suit No.30 of 98 on 27.3.2002, at Annexure-N be stayed.
(F) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to appoint a Court Commissioner to make inventory of the records of the Society at the office of the Society, which is at the office of the Respondent No.4 to 7, situated at 20-21, National Chambers, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad and be pleased to direct the said Commissioner to cease and collect the said and place the same in the custody of the Hon'ble Court.
(G) For costs.
(H) Such other and further relief as may be deemed fit in the facts of the present case be granted."
7. As noted hereinbefore, both the writ petitions have been decided by the writ court vide common judgment and order dated 16.10.2025, holding that :-
"60.The upshot of the aforesaid observations, discussions, and reasons, and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, and so also, case law discussed herein above on the issues german, the petitioners cannot be and should not be relegated to an alternative remedy.
60.1. It is held that the aforesaid consent decree obtained by way of fraudulent means, and likewise, the unilateral cancellation deeds are registered in violation of provisions of law, and as such, it is a fraud committed by the original owners and Aggregators upon the Society.
60.2. In view of the aforesaid, the consent decree dated 27.03.2002, Page 5 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gandhinagar, in Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 1998, is hereby quashed and set aside having held to be obtained through fraud.
60.3. Likewise, the unilateral cancellation deeds dated 30.06.2000 and 10.07.2000 executed and registered by the original owners and Aggregators of the lands respectively, are hereby quashed and set aside.
60.4.Consequently, both these petitions are required to be allowed, which are hereby allowed in terms of Paragraphs 26(A) and 26(B) of Special Civil Application No. 4881 of 2002 and Paragraphs 6(A) and (B) of Special Civil Application No. 12559 of 2002 respectively.
60.5. The Petitioner - Society is entitled to receive a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- from the original owners and Aggregators, to be paid by them in equal proportion within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In case of failure, it is open for the petitioner - society to recover it from them in accordance with law.
60.6. The Registry is hereby directed to send back the Records and Proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 1998, to the concern Trial Court, forthwith.
60.7. In view of the foregoing conclusion, both these petitions are hereby allowed to the aforesaid extent with costs as aforesaid. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
60.8. The Registry shall circulate a copy of this order to all Civil Courts across the State of Gujarat for their perusal and compliance.
60.9. Likewise, the learned AGP should see to it that the State bring aforesaid direction to notice of all concerned Sub-Registrars across the State, so they shall follow such directions in its true letter and spirit. "
8. The sole appellant in both the intra-court appeals herein, namely Shri Vashrambhai Sagharmabhai Bharwad is one of the respondents in the aforesaid two writ petitions decided by the writ court. The respondent society and its members were aggrieved by an alleged consent decree of the Civil Court as well as the registration of the unilateral cancellation deeds of the sale deeds executed in relation to the lands bearing Survey Nos. 73, 78 to 80, 81/1, 81/2, 83 and 84 situated at Village Nabhoi, District Page 6 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined Gandhinagar.
9. Both the aforesaid writ petitions were initially dismissed by the writ court vide common judgment and order dated 01.05.2024 on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. In the intra- court appeals being Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 518 of 2024 and 519 of 2024, the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 17.05.2024 quashed and set aside the order of dismissal of the writ petitions and remitted the matters back for fresh consideration on merits after restoration of both the writ petitions.
10. The learned single Judge has noticed the relevant facts of the matters succinctly in the judgment impugned, in the following manner :-
"7.1 The original petitioners of Special Civil Application No.4881 of 2002 are members of the Society, and such Society happens to be the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.12559 of 2002. Now, the Society also become co-petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 4881 of 2002 by the order dated 09.07.2025, passed in Civil Application No. 2 of 2019 in Special Civil Application No. 4881 of 2002.
7.2 Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are the government and its authorities, whereas Respondent Nos. 10 to 55 are the original owners of the lands (hereinafter referred to as "Original Owners"). Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 were the initial purchasers of the lands (hereinafter referred to as "Aggregators"), who, in turn, sold the lands to the Petitioner -Society, and Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are the developers of the lands in question.Page 7 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined 7.3 The original owners appear to have executed around 11 registered sale deeds in favour of the Aggregators between 1968 to 1980 for the lands. The Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar, vide its order dated 14.10.1985, initiated an inquiry under Section 84(C) of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy Act"), thereby, declared the transactions between the owners and Aggregators for selling the lands illegal and consequently forfeited the lands. Nonetheless, parties were given one chance to restore the lands to its original position.
7.4 The Aggregators filed a Tenancy Appeal No.5 of 1986 before the Prant Officer, Gandhinagar, under Section 74 of the Tenancy Act, which was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 08.08.1986, thereby, quashed and set aside the order dated 14.10.1985, passed by the Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar, as referred to hereinabove.
7.5 The Aggregators appear to have sold the lands to the Society by executing a registered sale deed in the year 1987, and two additional sale deeds were executed by the Aggregators in favour of the Society in the year 1996. By virtue of the execution of registered sale deeds by the Aggregators in favour of the Society, the title of the lands stood transferred in favour of the Society.
7.6 Some of the original owners, i.e., Respondent Nos. 10, 11, 12, 18, 26, and 34 (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff"), appear to have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 1998 before Civil Judge, Gandhinagar, claiming that they are in occupation of the lands and sought a permanent injunction to protect Page 8 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined their possession. The suit was initially filed on 04.02.1998, being Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 1998, against only two defendants, i.e., Defendant No. 1 - the Society, and Defendant No. 2 - Smt. Laxmiben.
7.7 Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed an application on 04.04.1998, below Exhibit 17 in the suit, to delete the Society from the array of the suit, which was allowed by the Trial Court.
7.8 Simultaneously, on the very day, another application below Exhibit 18 filed by the Plaintiffs to implead one of the Aggregators, i.e., Respondent No. 9 - Vashram Bharwad, to be joined as defendant No.3 in the suit. Such application came to be allowed on 03.12.1998.
7.9 Pending the suit, the Original Owners presented one unilateral cancellation deed before Sub-registrar, Gandhinagar for its registration in regards to the Cancellation of sale deeds executed by them in favour of the Aggregators, as aforesaid, registered between 1968 to 1980. Such unilateral cancellation deed was registered on 30.06.2000, before the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar. It further appears that another separate document was created by the original owners, thereby, declared that Respondent No. 55 herein would be a permanent tenant of the lands.
7.10 Likewise, the Aggregators also prepared a similar type of unilateral cancellation deed, which was also registered on 10.07.2000, whereby, they unilaterally canceled the sale deeds executed by them in favour of the Society, executed Page 9 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined and registered by them in year 1987 & 1996.
7.11 Thereafter, on 04.11.2000, an application below Exhibit 33 came to be filed in the aforesaid suit by a third parties, whereby they sought to implead themselves in the suit as defendants. Such application appears to have been filed at the instance of the Aggregators and the Society. It is a specific case of the Society that it neither authorized the Aggregators nor, in fact, filed such application. It remains undisputed that such application was never heard and decided by the Trial Court and remained pending till consent decree passed by Trial Court. It appears that the Society, being shown as Applicant No. 3 in such application, represented by its chairman and secretary i.e., Vashram Bharwad - Respondent No. 9 - one of the Aggregators.
7.12 Thereafter, on 27.03.2002, a compromise agreement was filed below Exhibit 51 in the aforesaid suit, wherein it was agreed that the contents of the plaint were true and correct, whereby the defendants would not interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and would not question their ownership over the lands. Such consent terms/agreement appear to have been executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The thumb impression of the Aggregators put on the side of the defendants, and so also, the thumb impression of Respondent No. 9, one of the Aggregators, was also affixed on such compromise agreement, showing him as secretary of the Society.
7.13 It is required to be noted here that the Society was initially joined in the suit but deleted by the Plaintiffs vide its Page 10 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined application below Exhibit 17, which was allowed on 04.04.1998, and as such, an application filed below Exhibit 33 till passing of the consent decree remained undecided by the Trial Court. Thus, in view of aforesaid, undisputedly the Society never in any form joined in the aforesaid suit.
7.14 Unnoticing such fact, the Trial Court accepted such compromise agreement executed between the parties to the suit and passed a consent decree on 27.03.2002. It appears that an order was passed below Exhibit 51 by the Trial Court on 27.03.2002, whereby the Trial Court recorded the subjective satisfaction of the parties to the suit and, having so observed that the parties have voluntarily executed a consent agreement and their lawyers are present, accordingly, a decree could be drawn as per the consent terms/agreement. So, the Trial Court decreed the aforesaid suit as per the above referred consent terms/agreement.
7.15 Having come to know about such unilateral execution of a cancellation deed by the Aggregators as well as the original owners, and so also, the consent decree drawn by the Trial Court in the aforesaid suit, the petitioners herein have challenged the illegal and unauthorized action of the private respondents in form of the consent decree passed by the Trial Court in the aforesaid suit and so also, challenged the registration of unilateral cancellation deed registered by respondent - authority by way of the present petitions.
7.16 The respondents have appeared in these petitions through their respective lawyers and have also filed their replies. Private respondents, whether Aggregators or original Page 11 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined owners as the case may be, have opposed these petitions mainly on the ground that petitioners having an alternative remedy to get relief as prayed in this petitions, these petitions should not be entertained by this Court. Nevertheless, they are unable to dispute the aforesaid factual aspects, which emerges from the documents made available on the record. Neither the Plaintiff nor the Aggregators have been able to demonstrate before this Court that how the thumb impression of Respondent No. 9, one of the Aggregators, affixed in the consent terms, showing him as secretary of the Society. The Aggregators failed to submit any documents to show that at the time of presenting application below Exh.33 and / or consent terms/agreement in the aforesaid suit, the respondent no.9 - one of the aggregators was the chairman/secretary of the Society.
7.17 The State, through the Deputy Collector, filed a detailed reply, contending, inter alia, that the documents, which were executed and registered by the original owners and Aggregators on 30.06.2000 and 10.07.2000, respectively (hereinafter referred to as "Unilateral Cancellation Deeds"), were unauthorizedly and illegally executed inasmuch as the title of the lands stands in favour of the Society. It is contended that these documents are illegal and sale deeds executed in favour of the Society in the year 1987 & 1996 can never be revoked. (See Paras 5, 20, 26, and 36 of State's reply).
7.18 It appears that during the pendency of the present writ petitions, the original owners appear to have filed Special Civil Application No. 464 of 2004 before this Court, seeking Page 12 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined mutation of their name in the revenue records. The aforesaid petition came to be allowed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.03.2004 on the basis of the aforesaid consent decree, albeit, suppressed the pendency of the present writ petitions, and interim orders passed therein.
7.19 The petitioners appear to have filed Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 482 of 2004 to recall the said order passed in the aforesaid application. After noticing the aforesaid facts and the orders passed in the present petitions, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has recalled its order dated 16.03.2004, passed in Special Civil Application No. 464 of 2004, having allowed said application vide its order dated 25.11.2016.
7.20 Even the revenue authorities granting Non-Agricultural Use (NA) permission in favour of the Society for the lands questioned by the Aggregators before this Court by way of a petition being Special Civil Application No. 7612 of 2013, wherein it has been so held by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that Respondent No. 9, Vashram Bharwad, one of the Aggregators, having already sold the lands to the Society, has no locus standi to challenge NA permission granted by the competent revenue officer in favour of the Society."
11. Noticing the above, dealing with the contentions of the learned counsels for the parties, the writ court has formulated the points of determination in paragraph No. '14' as under :-
"(i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are required to be relegated to any other Page 13 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined alternative remedy available to them under law for questioning and setting aside the consent decree as well as the registered unilateral cancellation deed?
(ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the consent decree passed by the Trial Court can be held to be obtained by practicing fraud?
(iii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the registered unilateral cancellation deed in question can be quashed and set aside by this Court while exercising its power under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India?
(iv) If the answer to the above questions is in affirmative, are the petitioners entitled to the relief as prayed in the petitions?
12. While deciding the point No.(i), the learned single Judge records that the entire thrust of arguments by the learned counsels appearing for the aggregators/original owners of the lands centered around only one aspect of availability of an alternative remedy to the petitioners and entertainability of the writ petitions. Dealing with the same, the observations made by the Division Bench while remitting the matter back were noted in paragraph Nos. '19' and '20' as under :-
"19.The relevant observations and directions issued by the Division Bench in these regards reads as under:-
"25. In our considered opinion, the petitioner society had no option but to challenge both, the consent terms which was the basis of the consent decree allegedly obtained by fraud and collusion, as also the cancellation deeds registered allegedly in collusion between the respondents, in the same petition by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.Page 14 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined
27. The fact remains that the writ petitions were filed in the year 2002. The parties have exchanged affidavits and at one stage of the proceedings, as informed to us, the writ court had also summoned the original record of the Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 1998 to examine the contention of the petitioners society of the consent decree being outcome of fraud and collusion between the respondents. Thus, after about more than 22 years of the pendency of the writ petition, at the stage of final hearing, there was no justification for the learned single Judge to relegate the petitioners to file a Civil Suit without making a proper inquiry into the material on record. The decision of the learned single Judge in relegating the petitioners society to file a Civil Suit without adverting to the issues of collusion and fraud and wrongful registration of the cancellation deeds by the Sub-Registrar, causes serious prejudice to the petitioners society, namely the appellants herein, whose rights in the lands-in-question have come under cloud because of the consent decree and the cancellation deeds.
28. In view of the above, while setting aside the impugned order dated 1.5.2024 passed by the learned single Judge, both the Special Civil Application No. 4881 of 2002 and Special Civil Application No. 12559 of 2002 are restored to their original numbers. With due respect, it is provided that the learned single Judge is required to adjudicate both the writ petitions on merits after making due inquiry into the allegations of fraud and collusion committed by the respondents in obtaining the cancellation deed dated 27.03.2002 and the consent decree dated 30.06.2000 and 10.06.2000, registered by the Sub-Registrar."
20. So, in view of the aforesaid clear observations and directions issued by the Division Bench, I am not at all impressed by the submissions so canvassed by Learned Advocate Mr. Shukla and Learned Advocate Mr. Parikh that both these petitions be dismissed on the ground of an alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioners including Arbitration and or to approach Board of Nominees."
13. On the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents therein about the remedies available to the petitioners including the arbitration and approaching the Board of Nominees by filling a suit, it was held in paragraph No. '21' of the judgment impugned as under :-
Page 15 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined "21. As such during course of arguments, it is not even whispered by learned advocate Mr. Chapaneri appearing for the Developer that any dispute exist between developer & the society, except collection of documents, it even no longer remained, inasmuch as, there appears broad consensus between them to get back documents seized by the Court Commissioner. Thus, in view of aforesaid, there is no question of relegating the Society for arbitration. Likewise, there appears no dispute between the members and the Society, thereby there was no need to file any suit before Board of Nominee as alleged."
14. On the arguments as to the maintainability of the writ petitions in view of the remedies available under the Code of Civil Procedure to seek recall or filling appeal with the leave of the Court, it was noted therein that the order of remittal passed by the Division Bench dated 17.05.2024 relegating the matters before the writ court for deciding on merits, has attained finality as it has not been challenged before the higher forum. The issue of availability of alternative remedy or maintainability of the writ petitions, therefore, cannot be entertained.
15. The writ court has further proceeded to discuss the rule of self-restraint in exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court and well defined exceptions to such rules, carved out by the Apex Court in various decision to note in paragraph No. '24' as under :-
"24. In the case of PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank, reported in (2024) 6 SCC 579, it has been held thus:-
"37. It could thus clearly be seen that the Court has carved out certain exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy. Some of them are thus:
(i) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question;
(ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure;
(iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed;
and Page 16 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined
(iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice."
(emphasis supplied)
16. The point No.(i) had, thus, been answered in favour of the petitioners.
17. While answering the point No.(ii), the undisputed facts of the case are recorded as under :-
(1) The original owners had executed 7 registered sale deeds between 1968-1980 in favour of the Aggregators in relation to the lands and, thus, title of the lands was transferred to the Aggregators.
(2) Likewise, the Aggregators had sold the lands-in-question in the year 1987-1996 by way of registered sale deeds executed in favour of the society, namely Rajadhani Co-
Operative Housing Society Ltd. and, thus, lost their title over the lands. The society became the owner of the lands holding valid title by virtue of the registered sale deeds.
(3) Some of the original owners filed Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 1988, where initially the Society was joined as defendant No.1 initially, however, before issuance of any notice to it, the Society was deleted from the array of the suit on 04.04.1998.
(4) The appellant herein, one of the Aggregators, however, came to be joined in the aforesaid suit on 3.12.1988 on the basis of an application below Exh. 18 dated 04.04.1988.
Page 17 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined (5) Another application for joining party was filed below Exh. 33 in the aforesaid suit, wherein there were three applicants, the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 were the Aggregators and the applicant No.3 was shown as Society represented through the appellant herein, namely one of the Aggregators showing him as the Chairman/Secretary of the Society. However, there is nothing on record to establish that on the date of filing of the said application, the appellant herein was holding the position of the Chairman/Secretary of the society. No such document had been placed before the writ court by the learned advocate appearing for the said respondent therein/appellant herein.
(6) The application Exh. 33, for joining of the aforesaid three applicants in the suit, remained pending till the consent decree was drawn by the trial court. Neither the Society nor one of the Aggregators, namely Sangrambhai Ghelabhai Bharvad had joined the suit till the time of passing of the consent decree. However, the appellant herein had already been joined in the suit by virtue of separate application below Exh. 18 filed on 04.04.1998, when the society, as defendant No.1, was deleted from the array of the suit.
(7) Thereafter, the consent terms executed between the plaintiff and the defendants of the aforesaid suit was filed vide Exh. 51, wherein the thumb impression of both the Aggregators were found from the side of the defendants, whereas the thumb impression of the appellant herein was found as the Secretary of the Society.
(8) As per the consent terms/agreement, the defendants Page 18 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined accepted the claim of the plaintiffs in whole and agreed that they will not question the ownership of the plaintiffs in future over the lands-in-question. The learned single Judge categorically records that the trial court without ascertaining the basic facts and ignoring the pending applications, more particularly Exh. 33 (joining party application), not only accepted the consent agreement, but also recorded its subjective satisfaction about the presence of the parties, who appeared before it through their advocates and, thus, has passed the consent decree, the subject matter of challenge before the writ court.
(9) It is categorically recorded in the judgment impugned that when the Society was not a party to the suit and the appellant herein was not impleaded as the Chairman/Secretary of the society, as sought in the application for joining party below Exh. 33 pending before the trial court, there was no question for the trial court to accept the thumb impression of the appellant herein representing himself as a Secretary of the society in the consent terms. The appellant herein, thus, clearly misrepresented before the trial court leading it to accept the consent terms.
(10) The learned single Judge then observed that it is settled position of law that any order passed on false representation by a party willfully and deliberately, amounts to fraud acted upon the Court. Any order obtained by practicing fraud requires to be set at naught being nullity and non est in the eye of law. It cannot be gainsaid that fraud vitiates everything.
Page 19 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined
18. The decision of the Apex Court in Vishnu Vardha @ Vishnu Pradhan v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1501), has been noticed therein emphasing on the principle that fraud and justice never dwell together. If fraud is proved, even finality of the litigation cannot be pressed into service and that "no judgment of a court can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything" [para 61 of Vishnu Vardha (supra)]
19. With the above noted reasonings, succinctly recorded in the judgment impugned, the writ court categorically answered the point No.(ii) by holding that the consent decree in question having been obtained by practicing fraud on the Court, is required to be quashed and set aside by exercising powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, the consent decree is nothing but a nullity and non est in the eye of law.
20. On point No.(iii), with regard to the registration of the unilateral cancellation of deeds-in-question, the impugned judgment records that :-
(1) The unilateral cancellation of deed was got registered by the aggregators on 10.07.2000. The record undisputedly shows that the society was shown as the vendee in the unilateral cancellation deed, but in fact, it ought to have been shown as 'the vendor' in case of cancellation of the sale deed.
This would be an apparent and inherent defect remained in the unilateral cancellation deed, unnoticed by the registering authority at the time of registration.
(2) The record apparently and undisputedely indicates that Page 20 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined the unilateral cancellation deed was not signed by any of the representatives of the Society and it was only signed by the Aggregators at the time of presentation before the Sub- Registrar, Gandhinagar.
(3) Another cancellation deed dated 30.06.2000 got registered by the original owners, is having the same pattern as noted with regard to the cancellation of sale deed dated 10.07.2000, where the vendor ought to have been the Aggregators, but have been shown as the vendees. The signatures of the Aggregators had not been obtained in the said cancellation deed.
(4) In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the State through the Deputy Collector, Gandhinagar, a categorical stand was taken that such cancellation deeds, though registered, would not stand in the eye of law, inasmuch as, none of the Aggregators of the cancellation deeds had title as on the date of the execution/registration of such cancellation deeds. The State has taken a categorical stand before the writ court that these documents were fraudulent documents and neither the original owners nor the Aggregators had any right in law to present such cancellation deeds for registration.
(5) Referring to Rule 45(1)(c) of the Gujarat Registration Rules, 1970, it was held by the learned single Judge that it was incumbent upon the registering officer to verify the fact that the person who is presenting the deed is a proper person or not. None of the presenters of the two cancellation deeds dated 30.06.2000 and 10.07.2000 could meet with the criterias of being proper person having competence to present Page 21 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined such cancellation deed before the Registrar, Gandhinagar inasmuch as, none of them were holding any title over the land-in-question, with respect to which the said deeds were registered. This aspect of the matter remained unnoticed rather ignored by the registering authority, which was required to adhere to the mandatory obligations and requirement of law, while registering the cancellation deeds. The inaction on the part of the State authorities, is thus, required to be corrected by this Court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuance of writ of mandamus.
(6) The writ court has also proceeded to examine a crucial and legal aspect regarding the validity of execution and registration of the unilateral cancellation deeds and referring to Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, it was noticed therein that the deed of cancellation amounts to rescission of contract and, therefore, when a party having executed the document, seeks its cancellation, it needs to be viewed in light of Section 62 and the cancellation of the original contract, can be done only bilaterally and not unilaterally. There was no question of cancellation of registered sale deed unilaterally by its executants/vendors.
(7) The objections taken by the learned advocate appearing for some of the original owners, who were the respondents before the writ court was to the effect that the writ petitioners were required to file civil suit questioning the cancellation deeds, inasmuch as, Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides the only remedy to cancellation of such deeds by way of a Civil Suit. This argument was rejected as not only Page 22 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined fallacious, but also being without any legal basis, inasmuch as, the Registrar itself committed illegality in registering the unilateral cancellation deeds, seeking for cancellation of the sale deeds. The very basis of execution of the unilateral cancellation deeds was faulty and the Sub-Registrar has acted in utter disregard of its statutory duty to examine the document presented for registration carefully. The writ court records that there is no reason for the Court to relegate the petitioners to file a civil suit, that too after a period of 22 years of entertaining the writ petition by this Court, more so when the facts themselves are not in dispute.
21. On point No.(iv), the learned single Judge reflecting upon the conduct of the private respondents namely the original owners and the Aggregators, who had sold the lands-in-question ultimately to the society in the year 1987-1996, has noted that the vendors not only instituted false, frivolous and vexatious litigation before the civil court, but also presented and got registered the unilateral cancellation deeds and under the guise of such deeds, had obtained a fraudulent consent decree with a view to take undue advantage. Such illegal act of the original owners/Aggregators is required to be deprecated by all means and to give quietus to the dispute between the parties, misdeeds of them are required to be nipped in the bud. The writ petition has been dismissed with the cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid to the original petitioners equally by the original owners/Aggregators.
22. The conclusion drawn by the leaned single Judge with the abovenoted observations, discussions and reasons (recorded from the order), would only lead to one direction that the consent decree as well as uniliteral cancellation deeds obtained by the Page 23 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined original owners/plaintiffs/Aggregators by practicing fraud, are required to be quashed and set aside, as fraud has no place in the Court of law.
23. The word of caution added by the learned single Judge issuing direction to the Civil Court in the matter of passing of the consent decree while recording consent terms/agreement is required to be circulated to all the civil courts across the State of Gujarat for their perusal and compliance by the Registry, as directed by the learned single Judge.
24. Having exhaustively gone through reasonings given by the learned single Judge on each and every aspect of the matter while deciding the issues framed by it succinctly, we do not find it a fit case to sustain the challenge to the correctness of the order of the writ court, in the present appeals filed by one of the Aggregators, who was respondent No.5/9 in the two writ petitions filed by the society and its members.
25. However, while saying so, we may deal with the sole contention of the learned counsel for the appellant herein that the only remedy before the petitioners was to approach the civil court challenging the compromise/consent decree based on the decision of the Apex Court in Sree Surya Developers and Promoters v/s. N. Sailesh Prasad and Others [(2022) 5 SCC Page 736]. Having gone through the said decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, it may be noted that in the said case, the consent decree was based on a compromise memo filed by the parties to the suit, wherein a registered gift deed was subject matter of challenge. The suit property was gifted by paternal grand- mother of a minor and the father of the minor had filed a suit as a Page 24 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined next friend of the then minor, seeking for declaration of revocation of the gift deed being illegal and not binding on the plaintiff and also for perpetual injunction. In the said suit, a compromise was arrived and father of the plaintiff-minor filed an interim application under Order XXIII Rule, 3 CPC acting on behalf of the minor and the trial court had permitted him to do so. As a result of the compromise, suit was decreed and the decree had later being acted upon. The minor whose cause was represented by his father, on attaining the age of majority, had filed a suit praying inter alia for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property and declaration for the revocation of the gift deed.
26. The defendant therein filed application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC for rejection of the plaint, which was allowed by the trial court on the ground that in view of Order XXIII Rule 3(A), CPC no independent suit would be maintainable against the compromise decree. The matter had travelled to the High Court, which had set aside the order of the trial court rejecting the plaint and remanded the matter by observing that the effect of provisions of Order XXXII Rules 1 to 7 had not been looked into.
27. It is in those facts and circumstances of the case, it was held by the Apex Court therein that the High Court has committed error in setting aside the order by entertaining into the merits of the validity of the compromise decree on the ground that the same was hit by Order XXXII Rule 7, CPC which was not permissible at the stage of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. The only issue which was required to be considered by the High Court was whether the suit challenging the compromise decree would be maintainable. It was then held by the Apex Court that the original plaintiff (then minor) had already moved an application before the Page 25 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined Court concerned which had passed the decree for setting aside the compromise decree under Order XXIII Rule 3A, CPC, the same have to be disposed of by the Court concerned in accordance with law on its own merits, while considering the validity of the compromise decree.
28. None of the observations made by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision can come to the rescue of the appellant herein.
29. Further, considering the above ground of challenge to the order of the writ court, we may only add that the appellant herein, who is one of the Aggregators, had practiced fraud upon the Court in obtaining the compromise decree in collusion with the original owners of the lands-in-question. The fraud was practiced in a concerted manner by the original owners who had executed sale deeds in favour of the Aggregators in between 1968-1980 and also the Aggregators who had parted away their rights, title and interest in the lands-in-question by execution of registered sale deeds in favour of the society in the year 1987-1996, first by getting registration of the unilateral cancellation deeds with respect to the sale deeds executed by them and then obtaining the compromise decree on the basis of the said cancellation deeds. The appellant herein is specifically guilty of commission of fraud, inasmuch as, he had signed the compromise terms representing himself as the Secretary of the petitioner Society, namely Rajadhni Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. when he had not been able to demonstrate before the learned single Judge nor before us that he was representing the society in the said capacity on the date of signing of the compromise terms.
30. Being guilty of commission of fraud upon the Court, the Page 26 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/550/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2026 undefined appellant cannot be allowed to stand before us. None of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, merit consideration. No interference is called for in the order of the writ court.
31. Both the appeals stand dismissed on the grounds of delay as well as on merits. No costs. Civil Applications for stay are disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) C.M. JOSHI Page 27 of 27 Uploaded by C.M. JOSHI(HC01073) on Sat Mar 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 00:05:25 IST 2026