LexNEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGHVI (DEAD) THR. LRS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1113 [2022] 1 S.C.R. 1113 1113 NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGHVI (DEAD) THR. LRS (Civil Appeal No. 382 of 2012) FEBRUARY 15, 2022 [HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.] Suit – Suit for declaration – The wife of respondent was allotted a plot in Sector 15A, Noida on 10.3.1981 – She sworn on affidavit dated 4.3.1983 that neither she nor her spouse owned any other plot in Noida – On 6.10.1981 respondent was allotted residential plot in Sector 30, Noida – The allotment was inter alia subject to term and condition that a person himself owning, or in case of his spouse or dependent children owning a plot within Municipal Corporation of Delhi or New Delhi or Noida complex, will not be eligible for allotment of a plot in Noida – Respondent filed affidavit alongwith his letter dated 1.12.1988 stating 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 wife of respondent transferred the Sec 15A plot vide transfer deed executed on 25.10.1990 – Respondent was served notice on 12.6.1996 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 – After reply to notice, the allotment was cancelled on 18.10.1996 – Respondent filed suit for declaration restraining the appellant from re-allocating the Sec 30 plot & from dispossessing the respondent – Trial court decreed the suit – First Appellate Court and the High Court affirmed the findings of trial court – Held: The second plot (Sector 30 plot) allotted to the respondent had been allotted against the express terms of allotment – There is neither equity nor any law in favor of the respondent – A person who misleads the Authority in obtaining allotment of a plot is not entitled to any relief – Judgment & decree of the Courts below set aside – Uttar Pradesh Industrial Development Act, 1976 – s.14. Affidavit – Filing of false affidavit – Effect – Held: Affidavits are not mere sheet of paper but a solemn statement made before a person authorized to administer oath or to accept affirmation – A B C D E F G H 1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 1 S.C.R. The filing of a false affidavit disentitles the plaintiff for any equitable relief – On facts, cancellation of allotment of plot obtained after filing false affidavit was a legitimate ground of cancellation of lease. Fraud – Effect – Held: It vitiates all actions. Allowing the appeal, the Court 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 A B C D E F G H 1115 lease
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.