Introduction:

The Allahabad High Court, in Bareilly Development Authority v. the original writ petitioners (Review Proceedings), 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 502, passed a strongly worded judgment directing the initiation of perjury proceedings against two advocates after finding that they had obtained a favourable judicial order by filing a manipulated copy of a land acquisition award. A Division Bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held that the earlier order had been secured by playing fraud upon the Court and observed that such conduct strikes at the very foundation of the administration of justice.

The controversy arose from land acquisition proceedings in which the respondents had sought payment of interest on compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in April 2016. In May 2024, the High Court directed the Bareilly Development Authority (BDA) to pay interest at the rate of 9% for the first year and 15% thereafter. Subsequently, the BDA filed a review petition pointing out that the original award merely stated that interest would be payable “as per rules.” However, the typed copy produced before the Court had inserted an additional clause specifying interest at 9% and 15%, which did not exist in the original award. Acting upon the altered document, the earlier Bench had granted relief that was not legally available.

Arguments of the Parties:

The Bareilly Development Authority contended that the judgment passed in 2024 was obtained by fraud. It argued that the typed copy of the award filed by the respondents’ counsel contained a fabricated clause granting interest at specified rates, whereas the original award only referred to payment of interest in accordance with the applicable rules. The Authority submitted that the manipulation materially influenced the earlier decision and resulted in payment of excess compensation to the beneficiaries. It therefore sought recall of the judgment and recovery of the excess amount.

The advocates representing the beneficiaries admitted the discrepancy but claimed that it was merely an inadvertent typographical error without any intention to mislead the Court. They tendered unconditional apologies and requested the Court to take a lenient view, contending that there was no deliberate attempt to commit fraud.

Court’s Judgment:

The Allahabad High Court rejected the explanation of typographical error and held that the insertion of an entirely new clause relating to interest could never be treated as an accidental mistake. The Bench observed that typographical errors ordinarily involve spelling, calculation, or minor clerical mistakes, whereas introducing a substantive provision conferring a significant monetary benefit amounts to deliberate deception.

The Court held that the advocates consciously altered the contents of the award with the object of securing relief that their clients were otherwise not entitled to receive. It observed that had the advocates themselves approached the Court immediately after discovering the discrepancy, the matter might have been viewed differently. However, their apologies came only after the manipulation was exposed during the review proceedings, making the plea for mercy unacceptable.

The Bench made serious observations regarding professional ethics, remarking that members of the Bar must reflect on whether the legal profession continues to be regarded as a noble profession by society. It emphasised that litigants approach courts with complete faith in the integrity of their advocates and that any abuse of this trust undermines public confidence in the justice delivery system.

Holding that the earlier judgment had been procured by fraud, the Court recalled its order dated May 24, 2024. It further directed the Bareilly Development Authority to recover the excess interest already paid to the beneficiaries as arrears of land revenue.

Taking an equally serious view of the conduct of the advocates, the Court held that their actions prima facie disclosed the commission of offences relating to giving false evidence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, it directed the Registrar General of the High Court to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after conducting the necessary inquiry and thereafter file an appropriate complaint before the competent Magistrate.

The Court also directed the Registrar General to lodge complaints before the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council seeking cancellation of the licences of the concerned advocates, observing that such conduct was wholly inconsistent with the standards expected of members of the legal profession.

Further, recognising that the earlier judgment had been relied upon in other pending writ petitions, the Bench directed that a copy of the present order be placed before all concerned courts so that appropriate action could be taken in those matters as well.

The decision sends a strong message that fraud upon the court cannot be condoned and that advocates, as officers of the court, bear the highest duty of honesty and fairness. The judgment reinforces that judicial proceedings depend upon the authenticity of documents placed before courts and that any deliberate attempt to manipulate records will attract not only disciplinary action but also criminal prosecution.