In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that the allotment rights to a plot remain valid despite the death of the applicant, and that the cancellation of such allotment by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) is invalid. The Court has held that the legal heir is entitled to inherit the plot.
The ruling came in the case of Steve Kanika vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 9815 of 2024), heard by a bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. The bench granted relief to the appellant, Steve Kanika, who had challenged the cancellation of the plot allotted to his deceased father by NOIDA.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around a plot in Sector-100, Noida, originally applied for by the appellant’s father in 2006 under NOIDA’s allotment scheme. The appellant’s father was allotted Plot No. 144, Block-C, Sector-100, Noida, measuring 176.40 square meters, after an open lottery held on October 1, 2009. However, before the allotment could be finalized, the appellant’s father passed away on November 8, 2007.
Despite this, an allotment letter was issued to the deceased on October 26, 2009. NOIDA subsequently canceled the allotment on September 21, 2011, citing that the allotment had been made in favor of a deceased person.
Challenging this cancellation, the appellant filed Writ C No. 71420/2011 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which was dismissed on October 21, 2019. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the rights to the plot had passed on to him as the legal heir of the deceased applicant.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the death of the original allottee invalidated the allotment of the plot or whether the rights to the plot devolved to the legal heir.
Arguments by the Appellant:
Represented by Mr. P.S. Patwalia, senior counsel, the appellant contended that the application was made by the appellant’s father in his individual capacity, and upon his death, the right to be considered for allotment devolved upon the appellant as the legal heir. The counsel argued that the allotment was wrongly canceled by NOIDA and that the cancellation violated the appellant’s rights as a legal representative.
Arguments by NOIDA:
On behalf of NOIDA, Mr. Anil Kaushik, senior counsel, contended that mere success in the draw of lots does not create a vested right to allotment. He argued that since the person in whose favor the allotment was made had died before the allotment, it was legally unsustainable, and the cancellation was valid. NOIDA also argued that the appellant had failed to inform the authority of his father’s demise promptly.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court found merit in the appellant’s contentions and ruled in his favor. The Court observed:
“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 an actual draw of lots and issuance of an allotment letter; undoubtedly, though after his passing away. In our view, the demise of the appellant’s father would not negate the right which stood vested in the appellant.”
The Court further held that the conduct of NOIDA in accepting and retaining a demand draft submitted by the appellant and failing to promptly cancel the allotment raised serious doubts about NOIDA’s stance.
The bench distinguished the current case from the earlier Supreme Court decision in Greater Mohali Area Development Authority v. Manju Jain (2010) 9 SCC 157, noting that in the present case, the appellant had promptly informed NOIDA of his father’s death and had taken all necessary steps to fulfill the obligations for allotment.
Key Observations and Order
The Supreme Court made several important observations:
1. The rights accruing to an applicant do not extinguish upon their death and can devolve to their legal heirs.
2. NOIDA’s delay in canceling the allotment, despite being informed of the death of the original allottee, indicated a lack of consistency in their actions.
3. The judgment in Greater Mohali Area Development Authority v. Manju Jain was not applicable to the present case due to distinct factual differences.
Concluding the judgment, the Supreme Court directed NOIDA:
“NOIDA is directed to issue a fresh allotment letter within four weeks from today in the name of the appellant on the same terms and conditions as were mentioned in the original letter of allotment dated 26.10.2009, with the modification that the time-limit would run from today.”
Counsel Representation
– For the Appellant: Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, and Ms. Ayshwarya Chandar, Advocate on Record (AoR).
– For the Respondents (NOIDA): Mr. Anil Kaushik, Senior Advocate, and Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, AoR.
– For Respondent No. 2: Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, AoR.
