'Affidavits Not Mere Sheets Of Paper But Solemn Statements On Oath' : Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation Of NOIDA Plot Allotment

Holding that affidavits are not mere sheets of paper but solemn statements on oath and that fraud vitiates all proceedings, the Supreme Court has upheld the cancellation of an allotment of plot by NOIDA authority. 

The Court observed that cancellation of allotment of plot obtained after filing false affidavit is a legitimate ground of cancellation of lease.

The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian was considering an appeal preferred by the defendant against order passed by High Court dated February 25, 2010 ("impugned judgment")

In the impugned judgment, the High Court had upheld the findings of the first Appellate Court dated December 19, 1999 wherein Trial Court's decree was affirmed.

While allowing the appeal in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra Kumar Singhvi (Dead) Thr. Lrs, the bench said,

"Therefore, affidavits filed were not mere sheets of paper but a solemn statement made before a person authorized to administer an oath or to accept affirmation. The plaintiff had breached such a 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 canceled 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."

Factual Background

The plaintiff/respondent ("Ravindra Kumar Singhvi") was allotted a residential plot in Noida ("sector 30 plot") as a member of the Defence Services Cooperative Housing Society on October 6, 1981 and the plot's possession was handed over to him on August 24, 1991.

Prior to allotment of sector 30 plot, plot No 84 was allotted to the plaintiff's wife on March 10, 1981. As per plaintiff's case there was an uncertainty on account of litigation between the Society of which he was a member with the appellant authority. Therefore, the plot at Sector 15A was applied for, which was allotted to the plaintiff's wife on March 10, 1981. It was pleaded that since the plaintiff was interested in Sector 30 plot as member of the Society, therefore, the wife of the plaintiff transferred the Sector 15A plot in favor of Mrs. Kanta Modi after obtaining appellant's permission.

Later, a transfer deed was executed on October 25, 1990. On June 12, 1996 the plaintiff was served with a notice wherein it was mentioned that he had obtained Sector 30 plot by submitting a false affidavit as Sector 15A plot was already allotted to his wife. Plaintiff's grievance was that since the Sector 15A plot had been sold after obtaining permission from the appellant, therefore, the Sector 30 plot was the only plot in plaintiff's possession.

With the said claim, the suit for declaration was filed restraining the defendant from re-allocating the Sector 30 plot and from dispossessing the plaintiff from the same. Pursuant to consideration of reply, the plot was canceled on October 18, 1996.

In NOIDA's written statement, it was asserted that there was no litigation in respect of the Sector 15A plot and that the plaintiff was aware of the allotment of the Sector 15A plot when Sector 30 plot was allotted. However, the plaintiff intentionally concealed such factum of allotment and filed a false affidavit for the Sector 30 plot.

The Trial Court decreed the suit on the ground that the lease executed in plaintiff's favor could not be determined by merely passing subject order u/s 111(g) of Transfer of Property Act, 1887 as no notice for determination of lease under the said section has been issued.

It thus upheld the lease. The trial Court's order was affirmed by the first Appellate and High Court.

The High Court held that the plaintiff and his wife had no ulterior motive to perpetrate fraud on the appellants and that there was no willful or dishonest intention on the part of the plaintiff and his wife.

Submission Of Counsels

Counsel for the appellant argued that the entire basis of the decree passed by the Courts was erroneous and wholly untenable in law. It was also contended that the lease was not canceled for the reason that there was any violation of the terms and conditions of the lease but the allotment was canceled as false affidavits were filed by the allottees of both the plots which knocked down the very allotment since it was obtained by concealing material facts.

Senior Advocate PS Patwalia for the plaintiff contended that the terms and conditions of the sale of developed leasehold rights had not been produced on record. Referring to section 14 of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development Act, 1976, Senior Counsel submitted that the Chief Executive Officer could resume the site or building in case of non-payment of consideration or any installment or breach of any condition of such transfer or breach of any rule or regulation made.

Reliance was placed on the judgements in Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh & Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 130 and Managing Director, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation & Ors. v. Hari Om Enterprises & Anr. (2009) 16 SCC 208 to contend that determination of lease had to be the last resort.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The bench in the judgment authored by Justice Hemant Gupta noted that the permission was granted by the appellant without having knowledge of the fact that the husband of the allottee had already been allotted a separate plot.

Considering the same the bench observed that, "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."

Referring to the judgment in M. Veerabhadra Rao Vs. Tek Chand 6 1984(Supp) SCC 571 in which this Court was considering an affidavit attested by an Advocate in terms of Section 3(2) of the Oaths Act, 1969, the bench said,

"Therefore, affidavits filed were not mere sheets of paper but a solemn statement made before a person authorized to administer an oath or to accept affirmation. The plaintiff had breached such a 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 canceled 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."

With regards to the plaintiff's argument that Chief Executive Officer could resume the site or building in case of non-payment of consideration or any installment or breach of any condition of such transfer or breach of any rule or regulation made, the bench said,

"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 preceded 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 a 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 the Chief Executive Officer granting permission on 13.9.1998."

Relying on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. (1994) 1 SCC 1, the bench said, "Fraud vitiates all actions".

While allowing the appeal, the bench said, "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."

Case Title: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority V. Ravindra Kumar Singhvi (Dead) Thr. Lrs.| Civil Appeal No. 382 Of 2012

Coram: Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw SC 184

Headnotes

Affidavits - 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 (para 16)

Affidavits - Therefore, affidavits filed were not mere sheets of paper but a solemn statement made before a person authorized to administer an oath or to accept affirmation. The plaintiff had breached such a solemn statement made on oath (Para 17)

Fraud vitiates all actions (Paragraph 17)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment