New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs Ravindra Kumar Singhvi (Dead) Thr. Lrs

HELD:1. The plaintiff had invoked the jurisdiction of the Civil Court even though he had filed a false affidavit that his spouse or dependent children have not been allotted any plot. [Para 14][1121-B]

2. It is an admitted fact that the wife of the plaintiff was allotted Sector 15A plot on 10.3.1981. The wife sworn an affidavit on 4.3.1983 that neither she nor her spouse owned any other plot in Noida. It was on 6.10.1981 that the plaintiff was informed about allotment of residential plot measuring 450 sq. yards in Sector 30. The allotment was said to be subject to terms and conditions as enclosed.Such terms show that a person himself owning, or in case of his spouse or dependent children owning a plot within the Municipal Corporation of Delhi or New Delhi or Noida complex, will not be eligible for allotment of a plot in Noida. The affidavit of the wife of the plaintiff was false as the plot measuring 450 sq. yards stood allotted to the plaintiff on 6.10.1981. Therefore, on the date the wife of the plaintiff had sworn the affidavit, the Sector 30 plot was already allotted to the plaintiff. The argument that plot might have been allotted but the possession was not with the wife of the plaintiff is incorrect. The affidavit was to the effect that she has not been allotted any plot either in her name or in the name of her husband. The affidavit was not that the plot has been allotted but possession has not been delivered. On the other hand, the plaintiff had sworn an affidavit, sent to the appellant with his letter dated 1.12.1988 that he, his spouse and dependent children do not own in full or in part on leasehold or freehold basis any residential plot. Even this affidavit is in respect of allotment of a plot not in respect of delivery of possession. It may be stated that when in 1988, the plaintiff had sworn the affidavit, the lease deed dated 31.1.1983 already stood executed in respect of Sector 15A plot. Since the lease was executed, the wife of the plaintiff applied for permission to transfer which was granted and transfer deed was executed on 25.10.1990. The permission was granted by the appellant without having knowledge of the fact that the husband of the allottee has already been allotted a separate plot. Once an affidavit has been filed which is on the face of it false to the knowledge of the executants, no benefit can be claimed on the ground that delivery of possession was given. [Paras 15 & 16][1121-C-H; 1122-A-B]

3. Affidavits filed are not mere sheet of paper but a solemn statement made before a person authorized to administer oath or to accept affirmation. The plaintiff had breached such solemn statement made on oath. The terms and conditions of allotment conveyed to the plaintiff on 1.12.1988 have a specific clause that if allotment is obtained by any misrepresentation or misstatement or fraud, the lease may be cancelled and the possession of the plot and the building thereon may be taken by the Authority. Therefore, cancellation of allotment of plot obtained after filing false affidavit is a legitimate ground of cancellation of lease. Fraud vitiates all actions. [Paras 18 & 19][1122-F-H; 1123-A]

4. The argument that the lease was required to be determined by the Chief Executive Officer is not tenable. The determination of lease by the Chief Executive Officer would arise if in case there was any violation of the terms of lease. If the condition precedent for grant of lease itself was fraudulent, the cancellation of lease was not required to be preceeded by permission of the Chief Executive Officer. Still further, the Chief Executive Officer has granted permission on 13.9.1998, though the cancellation order was passed on 18.10.1996. Thus, it is a case of irregularity at best which stands removed with the permission of the Chief Executive Officer. The argument that if the statute prescribes a power to do a certain thing in a certain way, such thing must be done in that way and other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden is not applicable in the present case. Firstly, for the reason that admittedly, false affidavits were filed by the plaintiff as well as by his wife. The filing of a false affidavit disentitles the plaintiff for any equitable relief. Secondly, any irregularity in the process of cancellation stands cured with Chief Executive Officer granting permission on 13.9.1998. [Para 20][1123-E-H; 1124-A]

5. The fact is that the second plot allotted to the plaintiff had been allotted against the express terms of allotment. Therefore, there is neither equity nor any law in favor of the plaintiff. A person who misleads the Authority in obtaining allotment of a plot is not entitled to any relief. [Para 23] [1124-C-D]

ITC Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 493 : [2011] 7 SCR 66; Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh & Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 130 : [2003]

6 Suppl. SCR 1235 and Managing Director, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation & Ors. v. Hari Om Enterprises & Anr. (2009) 16 SCC 208 : [2008]

9 SCR 821 – distinguished.

M. Veerabhadra Rao v. Tek Chand 1984 (Supp) SCC 571: 1985 SCR 1003 – referred to.

S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. (1994) 1 SCC 1: [1993] 3 Suppl. SCR 422 – relied on.