In a dramatic turn of events underscoring the legal principle that 'fraud vitiates everything', the Supreme Court recalled its own earlier judgement passed in 2022 in a long-running land dispute involving prime property in sector 18 at New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida/NOIDA). The three-judge bench comprising justice Surya Kant, justice Dipankar Datta and justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the High Court’s order dated 28 October 2021 which had declared Reddy Veerana as the sole owner of the land and awarded him compensation exceeding Rs300 crore. The apex court held that the verdict, including its own 2022 decision in Reddy Veerana vs State of Uttar Pradesh (UP), had been obtained through fraud, suppression of facts and manipulation of judicial processes by Mr Reddy, thus rendering the orders void ab initio.
In an order on 23 July 2025, the bench says, "...due to fraud having been played by Mr Reddy, the doctrine of merger does not apply and, thus, the impugned order is open to interference notwithstanding the decision of this Court in Reddy Veerana (supra). For reasons already discussed, the civil appeal has to be allowed and the impugned order set aside."
The case involves a 2-18-10 bigha plot of land in Gautam Budh Nagar, jointly purchased in 1997 by three individuals — Mr Reddy Veerana, Vishnu Vardhan (Vishnu Pradhan) (the appellant), and T Sudhakar. This land, later acquired by NOIDA in 2005 for a commercial project, became the subject of numerous legal proceedings. Initially, the trio acted in concert to protect their interests and even secured a trial court decree restraining NOIDA from interfering with their possession. However, disputes arose when Mr Reddy began pursuing claims independently, asserting sole ownership in various proceedings while sidelining his co-owners.
Mr Vardhan alleged before the Supreme Court that Mr Reddy had orchestrated a series of fraudulent legal manoeuvres, including the procurement of a compromise decree in 2006 that falsely showed him as the sole owner. This decree was based on a written statement filed by a person named Venkataramana, acting as Mr Vardhan’s power of attorney-holder. However, Mr Vardhan had cancelled the power of attorney months before that suit was filed. Moreover, it was later revealed that Venkataramana was Mr Reddy’s business partner, raising serious questions about collusion and bad faith.
Despite this, Mr Reddy used the 2006 decree to mutate revenue records in his name and subsequently approached the Allahabad High Court (HC) with a writ petition in 2019 without impleading Mr Vardhan or Mr Sudhakar. The HC accepted Mr Reddy’s version and awarded him enhanced compensation of Rs110,000 per square metre — nearly 700 times the original rate — along with a 30% solatium and 15% interest. This decision was partly upheld by the Supreme Court in May 2022 in the Reddy Veerana case, when NOIDA’s appeal was dismissed.
However, Mr Vardhan filed a fresh civil appeal and a writ petition, along with multiple connected applications, contending that the earlier orders were the result of a calculated fraud. The apex court meticulously examined the record and concluded that Mr Reddy had deliberately suppressed the existence of ongoing litigation challenging the very compromise decree he used to claim sole ownership. This included a civil suit filed by Mr Vardhan in 2020, praying for the nullification of the 2006 decree, a fact Mr Reddy failed to disclose to the High Court while pursuing the compensation claim. The Supreme Court also noted that Mr Reddy filed inconsistent pleadings across cases, at times claiming joint ownership and at others claiming exclusivity, depending on what suited him.
Rejecting the defence raised by Mr Reddy that Mr Vardhan was guilty of forum shopping and that the earlier order had attained finality, the bench ruled that fraud is an exception to the doctrine of merger. The court held that judgments obtained by fraud cannot be protected under principles like stare decisis or procedural technicalities.
“Fraud and justice cannot dwell together,” justice Datta wrote in the judgment, citing the landmark decisions in SP Chengalvaraya Naidu and Nidhi Kaim cases. The bench categorically held that even orders passed by the Supreme Court are open to recall when obtained by deceit.
The Court also dismissed Mr Reddy’s arguments that the cancellation of the power of attorney by Mr Vardhan was invalid, finding that the entire chain of events, from the dubious compromise decree to the manipulation of land records and court proceedings, was tainted by mala fide intent. Furthermore, the bench expressed concern that Mr Reddy had already received Rs300 crore in compensation from NOIDA based on the fraudulent proceedings and had used the money to acquire assets and make business investments. When directed to disclose details of such investments, Mr Reddy submitted vague and incomplete information, leading the court to demand a sealed disclosure and bar him from transferring any related assets.
In light of the findings, the Court recalled the 2021 High Court judgment and its own 2022 ruling, effectively nullifying the compensation awarded to Mr Reddy and restoring the matter to its original position. The Court directed that all parties claiming ownership must approach the appropriate authority under the Land Acquisition Act for a fresh determination of compensation, based on their respective shares. It also warned that public funds cannot be siphoned off through fraudulent means and that courts must remain vigilant against such abuse.
The ruling serves as a stern reminder that the finality of litigation cannot override the foundational principle of justice. In invoking its inherent powers, the Supreme Court made it clear that judicial processes cannot be allowed to become instruments of fraud. “Fraud unravels everything,” the court affirmed — not as a rhetorical flourish, but as a binding standard of justice.
