Read Judgment: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority V. Ravindra Kumar Singhvi (dead) Thr. Lrs. 

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, February 17, 2022: While finding that the terms & conditions of allotment conveyed to the allottee 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, the Supreme Court has held that cancellation of allotment of plot obtained after filing false affidavit is a legitimate ground of cancellation of lease.

Therefore, noticing that the permission was granted by the concerned Authority (NOIDA) to the allottee to transfer the plot to third party, without having knowledge of the fact that the husband of the allottee has already been allotted a separate plot, a Division Bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian 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. 

Going by the background of the case, Ravindra Kumar (Respondent – Plaintiff) was allotted a residential plot (Sector 30 plot) in Noida as a member of the Defence Services Cooperative Housing Society and the possession of the plot was handed over to him in 1991. However, prior to the allotment of the said plot, one plot (Sector 15 plot) in Noida was allotted to Amila Singhvi (wife of Respondent). As per the pleaded case, there was an uncertainty on account of litigation between the Society of which he was a member with New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Appellant authority). It was pleaded that since the Respondent was interested in Sector 30 plot as a member of the Society, therefore, his wife transferred the Sector 15A plot in favor of one Kanta Modi after obtaining permission from the appellant. 

The Respondent was however served with a notice 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. Therefore, a suit for declaration was filed restraining the Appellant from re-allocating the Sector 30 plot and from dispossessing the Respondent from the same. After considering the reply, the plot was cancelled, contending that the Respondent and his wife cannot retain both the plots separately. It was further contended that Sector 15A plot was sold only to conceal the fact of obtaining double allotment. 

The Trial Court decreed the suit inter alia on the ground that the lease executed in favour of the Respondent cannot be determined merely by passing the subject order in terms of Section 111 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1887 as no notice for determination of lease under the said section has been issued. Therefore, all rights in the lease would survive. On appeal, the High Court held that Respondent and his wife had no ulterior motive to perpetrate fraud on the appellants and there was no willful or dishonest intention. 

After considering the submissions, the Top Court found from the terms of the allotment 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”, added the Court. 

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Gupta observed that the second plot allotted to the Respondent had been allotted against the express terms of allotment, and therefore, 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, added the Bench.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment