Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 735
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Steve Kanika – Appellant
Versus
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9815 OF 2024 [Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7281 of 2020]
Decided On : 27-08-2024
For the Appellant : Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ayshwarya Chandar, AoR
For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Kaushik, Sr. Adv. Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, AoR; Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, AoR.
Legal rights to allotments can devolve to heirs, and cancellation of such allotments posthumously requires careful legal scrutiny.
Headnote:
Allotment - Plot Allotment - NOIDA Act Section List - The court interpreted the legal rights of heirs in relation to allotments made prior to the death of the original allottee, emphasizing that rights can devolve to legal representatives despite the original allottee's death, influencing the decision to reinstate the allotment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's father applied for a plot allotment from NOIDA in 2006, which was allotted posthumously after his death in 2007. NOIDA canceled the allotment, claiming it was made in favor of a deceased person.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the appellant's claim, stating that the rights of the deceased father passed to the appellant as his legal representative, and the allotment should not have been canceled.
Issues: Whether the allotment made to a deceased person can be sustained and whether the rights of the deceased can be inherited by the legal representatives.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rights accrued to the deceased can be inherited by the legal representatives, and the allotment should be reinstated despite the original allottee's death.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and NOIDA is directed to issue a fresh allotment letter to the appellant.
ORDER :
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH & UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Heard Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Anil Kaushik, learned senior counsel and Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the Respondents No.1 and 2 respectively. Leave granted.
2. The issue involved in this case is simple.
FACTUAL OVERVIEW:
3. The appellant’s father had applied for allotment of a plot under the Respondent No.1/New Okhla Industrial and Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘NOIDA’) in the year 2006. Be it noted, the appellant had been authorised to apply as such in his own behalf for a company, pursuant to consent and no-objection by the other Directors of the company. After an open lottery held on 01.10.2009, the father of the appellant was allotted a plot on 26.10.2009, for which an allotment letter of even date was issued in favour of the appellant’s father. The allotment was of Plot No.144, Block-C, Sector-100, Noida, admeasuring 176.40 sqr. metres.
4. However, in the interregnum, the original allottee i.e. the father of the appellant had passed away on 08.11.2007.
5. In that view of the matter, NOIDA on 21.09.2011 cancelled the allotment on the ground that it was made in favour of a dead person on the day such draw of lots was held. Assailing the said action, the appellant filed a writ petition viz. Writ C No.71420/2011 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which was dismissed on 21.10.2019 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) by a Division Bench.
SUBMISSIONS:
6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the application was made to NOIDA by the late father of the appellant in his individual capacity and there cannot be any denial of the fact that whatever civil right a person has passes on to the next generation/Legal Representatives upon his death. Thus, in the present case, it was contended that the moment the father passed away, the appellant stepped into his shoes. As such, it was submitted that all rights which had accrued in favour of the late father of the appellant i.e., a right to be considered in the draw of lots devolved to the appellant. Upon subsequently succeeding in the draw of lots, the allotment letter was also issued. Mr. Patwalia contends that the allotment was wrongly cancelled by NOIDA.
7. Per contra, learned senior counsel for NOIDA submits that the law does not require the allotment of the plot to flow merely upon being successful in the draw of lots. Mr. Kaushik submitted that success in the draw of lots does not create any right. Further, it was contended that the person in whose favour the allotment having been made being dead, such allotment in law could not be sustained and rightly NOIDA had cancelled the allotment, more so, for the reason that the appellant never chose to inform the NOIDA of the passing away of his father, doing so only after the allotment letter was issued. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel referred to the decision of this Court in Greater Mohali Area Development Authority v Manju Jain, (2010) 9 SCC 157, the relevant being at Paragraphs No.211[‘21. Mere draw of lots/allocation letter does not confer any right to allotment. The system of draw of lots is being resorted to with a view to identify the prospective allottee. It is only a mode, a method, a process to identify the allottee i.e. the process of selection. It is not an allotment by itself. Mere identification or selection of the allottee does not clothe the person selected with a legal right to allotment. (See DDA v. Pushpendra Kumar Jain [1994 Supp (3) SCC 494: AIR 1995 SCC 1].)’].
ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
8. Having considered the matter, we find merit in the contentions urged by the appellant. The fact remained that the father of the appellant had properly applied and was satisfying all the prerequisite conditions for allotment which was followed by actual draw of lots and issuance of allotment letter; undoubtedly though after his passing away.
