the year 1991. The photographs of 20th August 2014 show that the building has been newly constructed. Most importantly, in the three Agreements tendered on record by the applicants, shockingly, there is a specific clause that the purchaser is fully aware that the said building is unauthorized. In the agreement of Bhimrao Kakekar, it is clause no.7 and in the agreements of Mrs. Shakuntala Pansare and Shri Dilip Salunkhe, it is clause no.8. This falsifies the case of the Petitioners of being the innocent purchasers. There is one more serious aspect which must be noted that all 83 petitioners filed solemn undertakings on affidavits stating that they were in possession of the distinct premises in the said building. They disclosed the names of the family members occupying the respective flats/premises with them. They had given undertakings not to part with the possession of the premises and not to create third party interests. The same set of petitioners filed Civil Application No.38/2016 seeking extension of time without disclosing the fact that some of them had already parted with the possession of the respective flats/premises in respect of which undertakings were given. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that at least 9 Writ Petitioners, who had given undertakings to the aforesaid effect, were, in fact, not in possession of the premises and they had parted with the possession when the Writ Petition was filed and when the undertakings were given. We are of view that the other petitioners cannot be ignorant of the fact that some of them were not in possession when the petition was filed. Therefore, not only that false statements were made in the Writ Petition but also undertakings on oath which were filed by some of the petitioners which turned out to be completely false.
