Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority - Appellant
Versus
Ravindra Kumar Singhvi (Dead) Thr. Lrs. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 382 of 2012
Decided on : 15-02-2022
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 111 (g) – Oaths Act, 1969 – Section 3(2) – Determination of lease and resumption of industrial plot by NOIDA – Permission was granted by appellant without having knowledge of fact that husband of allottee has already been allotted a separate plot – Once an affidavit has been filed which is on face of it false to knowledge of executants, no benefit can be claimed on the ground that delivery of possession was given – Affidavits filed were not mere sheet of paper but a solemn statement made before a person authorized to administer oath or to accept affirmation – Plaintiff had breached such solemn statement made on oath – Cancellation of allotment of plot obtained after filing false affidavit is a legitimate ground of cancellation of lease – Fraud vitiates all actions – Determination of lease by Chief Executive Officer would arise if in case there was any violation of the terms of lease – If condition precedent for grant of lease itself was fraudulent, cancellation of lease was not required to be preceded by permission of Chief Executive Officer – It is a case of irregularity at best which stands removed with permission of Chief Executive Officer – Second plot allotted to plaintiff had been allotted against express terms of allotment – There is neither equity nor any law in favour of plaintiff – A person who misleads Authority in obtaining allotment of a plot is not entitled to any relief – Judgment and decree of courts below set aside and suit dismissed. (Paras 16, 18, 19, 20, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal has been filed by the original defendant against judgment and decree passed by the High Court on 25.02.2010 upholding the findings of the first Appellate Court dated 19.12.1999 whereby the decree of the Trial Court was affirmed. Trial Court decreed the suit on the ground that lease executed in favour of the plaintiff cannot be determined merely by passing the subject order in terms of Section 111 (g) of Transfer of Property Act, 1887 as no notice for determination of lease under the said section has been issued. Therefore, all rights in lease would survive. The first Appellate Court and the High Court affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court.
Finding of Court:
The argument that if 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.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the original defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court on 25.02.2010 upholding the findings of the first Appellate Court dated 19.12.1999 whereby the decree of the Trial Court was affirmed.
2. The plaintiff-respondent was allotted a residential plot No. D-49, Sector-30, Noida1[Hereinafter referred to as ‘Sector 30 Plot’] as a member of the Defence Services Cooperative Housing Society on 06.10.1981. The possession of the plot was handed over to him on 24.08.1991.
3. However, prior to the allotment of the said plot, plot No. 84, Sector-15A, Noida2[Hereinafter referred to as ‘Sector 15A Plot’] was allotted to Smt. Amila Singhvi, wife of the plaintiff on 10.03.1981. As per the pleaded case of the plaintiff, 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 10.3.1981. 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 one Mrs. Kanta Modi after obtaining permission from the appellant. Later, a transfer deed was executed on 25.10.1990.
4. The plaintiff was served with a notice on 12.06.1996 that the Sector 30 plot had been obtained by him by submitting a false affidavit as Sector 15A plot was already allotted to his wife. The grievance of the plaintiff was that since the Sector 15A plot has been sold after obtaining permission from the appellant, therefore, the Sector 30 plot was the only plot in possession of the plaintiff. 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. After considering the reply, the plot was cancelled on 18.10.1996.
5. In the written statement filed by the appellant, 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. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff was aware of the terms and conditions of allotment that the plaintiff and his wife cannot retain both the plots separately. The Sector 15A plot was sold only to conceal the fact of obtaining double allotment. It was further contended that Sector 15A plot was allotted on 10.03.1981 and the wife of the plaintiff sworn an affidavit on 04.03.1983 that the allotee, her spouse and dependent children have not been allotted residential plot/house/flat in Noida, Delhi or New Delhi. The plaintiff was allotted Sector 30 plot on 06.10.1981. The plaintiff had also filed an affidavit along with his letter dated 1.12.1988 that he, his spouse and dependent children did not own in full or part any residential plot/house/flat in Noida, Delhi and New Delhi. The affidavit filed by the plaintiff reads thus:
I, Ravindra Kumar Singhvi S/o Late Shri K.M. Singhvi R/o of E227, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065, aged about 39 years do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:-
1. That I have attained the age of majority on 26.01.1968.
2. That I am a bonafide and registered member of the Defence Services Cooperative Housing Society (Regd.) in my own name and right on May 1, 1976.
3. That I have deposited Rs.125/-as membership fee of the above cooperative housing society on 18.07.1975.
4. That I, my spouse and dependent children do not own in full or in part on lease hold or free hold basis any residential plot or house in NOIDA and have not been allotted any plot, or house on hire purchase basis in NOIDA complex.”
6. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit interaliaon the ground that the lease executed in favour of th
(1) Filing of a false affidavit disentitles plaintiff for any equitable relief.(2) Cancellation of allotment of plot obtained after filing false affidavit is a legitimate ground of cancellation of le....
The court emphasized the need for public officials to exercise their powers with sensitivity to the facts and circumstances of a given case and not with pre-conceived opinions, and highlighted the im....
Future acquisitions are not prohibited, and eligibility is to be seen at the relevant date. Allegations of transfer of leasehold rights require supporting evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of government lease, governed by statutory regulations, can be justified if the allotment was obtained by misrepresentation o....
The Housing Board's cancellation of plot allotment was invalid due to lack of notice and failure to follow due process, violating principles of natural justice.
The absence of a registered conveyance deed precludes the Society from claiming any rights to the plot, and principles of res judicata apply to prevent re-litigation of the same issues.
Mandatory prior approval from the Assistant Collector is essential for land allotments under Section 122-C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, making unauthorized claims invalid.
No one can benefit from their own wrongful act, and mis-declaration in securing an allotment renders it improper.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
