Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5.3. Moreover, item no.15 provides that if any of the details are incorrect or false, the application, would automatically stand rejected. At the end, there is a declaration by the deponent that filing of a false affidavit is a criminal offence which, the deponent knows and if the Government Officers are deceived, the proceedings under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code of 1860'), would be initiated. Despite there being clear conditions indicated in the schedule - 2 of an affidavit, the original owners, knowing full well, have filed a wrong affidavit that no proceedings are pending. It is submitted that the issue is not as to whether the said details was material or not? The issue is that a wrong affidavit has been filed by the deponent while submitting an application.

6.3. It is submitted that the learned Secretary, in its order dated 31.5.2022, has considered the provisions, particularly item no.9 of the circular dated 16.8.2018 and item no.7 (h) of the circular dated 12.12.2018. The learned Secretary has taken note of the fact that if it is found that wrong affidavit has been filed, NA application, shall stand automatically rejected as, providing wrong information to the State Government, is nothing, but a fraud committed by the applicant concerned. It is submitted that by now it is well settled that NA permission, has nothing to do with person, but is attached to the land. It is submitted that the learned Secretary, therefore, considering the provisions of the circular, the objective behind the system of online application, so also the non-disclosure of relevant facts on affidavit, had concluded that the conduct on the part of the predecessor-in-title, while filing an application, was nothing, but a fraud and any order obtained by fraud, is a nullity. The learned Secretary had also considered that if such excuses put forward by the subsequent purchasers are accepted, then, in future, this will form a practice.

C/SCA/11525/2022 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2022 6.4. It is further submitted that not only this, the petitioner before the RERA authority, has also suppressed the proceedings pending before this Court. It is therefore, submitted that considering the conduct of the predecessor-in-title, so also the petitioner, the authority has exercised the jurisdiction legally and in an equitable manner and therefore, no indulgence may be shown. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of K. Jayaram v. Bangalore Development Authority, reported in 2021 (14) Scale 663 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1194. It is further submitted that it is likely that tomorrow a third person will come and claim that he was not aware about the fact of filing of the wrong affidavit; however, the same will not absolve the party concerned from the mischief or the lapse committed by the person applying for the NA permission. It is undisputed, rather admitted that the false affidavit has been filed in the matter of seeking NA permission and therefore, the said conduct is nothing, but a fraud and it vitiates everything.

6.8. It is further submitted that it is also argued by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the non-disclosure by the applicant about the pendency of the proceedings, is immaterial; however, the said contention is misplaced and does not deserve to be accepted for, what is material, is the non-disclosure itself. Stating something false on oath, is nothing, but a fraud committed on statute and therefore, considering the facts of the case and the conduct of the predecessor-in-title, the learned Secretary, cannot be said to have C/SCA/11525/2022 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2022 committed any error in cancelling the NA permission granted on the edifice of the wrong affidavit which, would be an offence punishable under the Code of 1860. It is urged that the petition deserves dismissal in limine.