Supreme Court overturns High Court order on Housing Allotment: U.P. Housing & Development Board vs. Namit Sharma (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 03 February 2021
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Can a grandson claim a housing plot based on his grandfather’s old registration, even if the registration has lapsed and no plot was ever allotted to the grandfather? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the U.P. Housing & Development Board. The court had to decide whether the Allahabad High Court was correct in directing the Housing Board to allot a plot to the grandson. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy, with the opinion authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Case Background

The case revolves around a housing plot registration made by Mr. M.L. Sharma, the grandfather of the respondent, Namit Sharma, in 1982. Mr. M.L. Sharma registered for a HIG (High Income Group) plot in a housing scheme of the U.P. Housing & Development Board (the Parishad). He nominated his grandson, Namit Sharma, as his nominee in 1983. Mr. M.L. Sharma passed away in 1984. After his death, the Parishad asked for an additional registration amount, but it was not paid. Instead, Mr. Sharma’s mother requested a refund of the initial registration amount. The Parishad then asked for necessary documents to process the refund. In 1997, Namit Sharma requested the Parishad to transfer the registration to his name and allot him a plot. The Parishad, however, did not comply. A government order in 2002 stated that old registrations of unsuccessful candidates would not be renewed and that they would have to apply afresh. The Parishad communicated this to Namit Sharma, advising him to seek a refund and apply afresh for registration. Mr. Namit Sharma continued to request for transfer of the registration and allotment of a plot, even citing a specific vacant house. The Housing Commissioner rejected this request in 2005.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondent, Namit Sharma, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, challenging the Housing Commissioner’s order and seeking a direction to allot a plot to him. The High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Parishad to allot a plot to the respondent against his grandfather’s registration. The U.P. Housing & Development Board, aggrieved by this order, filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case references the Government Order dated 11.10.2002 which provided guidelines for refund of registration money of unsuccessful applicants under various housing schemes of the State. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Government Order are relevant:

“2. I have been directed to inform you that with a view to make the aforesaid arrangement more transparent, it has been decided after due consideration that the registration money of the unsuccessful candidates must be returned to their Bank account through account payee cheque/bank draft or other prevalent procedures within 15 days from the date of lottery draw by all the Development Authorities and the Avas Vikas Parishad. In case of non-refund of the registration money within 15 days, the interest payable on the refundable amount would be recovered from the salary of the officer/employee responsible for the delay. The concerned officer/employee would be held fully responsible for the delay in refund.”

“3. In this connection, it has also been decided that the unsuccessful candidate will have to be applied open for a new scheme and the old registration of such unsuccessful candidates would not be renewed under any circumstances.”

The judgment also refers to Rule 47 of the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Bhukhando Tatha Bhavano Ke Panjikaran Evam Pradeshan Sambandhi Viniyam, 1979, which empowers the Housing Commissioner to take any decision in special circumstances in the interest of the Board. The rule states that the Housing Commissioner has the right to change the allotment process and process for payment.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (U.P. Housing & Development Board):

• The High Court erred in directing allotment of a plot to the respondent because the original registration of the respondent’s grandfather was not valid.
• There was no registration in favor of the respondent, nor was there any allotment of a plot to either the respondent or his grandfather.
• The respondent was informed that the registration was invalid and that he could seek a refund.
• The respondent never registered afresh or participated in the allotment process.
• Allotments were made by a draw of lots, and the respondent’s grandfather was never allotted any plot.
• A HIG house was allotted to the respondent’s father, and the request to transfer it to another plot was not fulfilled due to non-compliance with certain conditions.

Respondent’s Arguments (Namit Sharma):

• The High Court order was based on the consent of the appellant to allot a plot from 19 vacant plots.
• The Housing Commissioner had already ordered allotment on 31.12.2004 in exercise of power under Rule 48.
• The Housing Commissioner has the power to pass any order in special circumstances.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The respondent’s argument that the Housing Commissioner had already ordered allotment on 31.12.2004 under Rule 48, and that the High Court order was based on the consent of the appellant, was an innovative attempt to circumvent the fact that the grandfather’s registration was no longer valid.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue the court addressed was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in directing the U.P. Housing & Development Board to allot a plot to the respondent based on his grandfather’s old registration, which had become invalid due to a government order and no allotment was made in favor of the grandfather.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any cases or books in its judgment. However, the following legal provisions were considered:

• Government Order dated 11.10.2002: This order provided guidelines for the refund of registration money to unsuccessful applicants and stated that old registrations would not be renewed.
• Rule 47 of the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Bhukhando Tatha Bhavano Ke Panjikaran Evam Pradeshan Sambandhi Viniyam, 1979: This rule empowers the Housing Commissioner to take any decision in special circumstances in the interest of the Board, including changing the allotment process.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Government Order dated 11.10.2002: The Court relied on this order to conclude that the grandfather’s registration was invalid and could not be the basis for a fresh allotment.
• Rule 47 of the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Bhukhando Tatha Bhavano Ke Panjikaran Evam Pradeshan Sambandhi Viniyam, 1979: The Court acknowledged the Housing Commissioner’s power under this rule but clarified that the endorsement of 31.12.2004 was a recommendation, not an order under this rule.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The grandfather’s registration was no longer valid due to the government order of 11.10.2002.
• No allotment was ever made to the grandfather.
• The respondent did not participate in any fresh allotment process.
• The endorsement of 31.12.2004 was a recommendation, not an order under Rule 47.
• The High Court’s direction to allot a plot to the respondent would deprive other eligible applicants.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the Allahabad High Court’s order, stating that the High Court had not provided any cogent reason for directing the allotment of a plot to the respondent. The court emphasized that the respondent’s grandfather’s registration was invalid, and the respondent had no right to claim allotment. The court also clarified that the endorsement of 31.12.2004 was not an order by the Housing Commissioner under Rule 47. The court held that the High Court’s direction would have deprived other eligible applicants of their right to allotment. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent.

The Court observed, “The High Court has not given any cogent reason as to on what basis direction was issued to allot one plot to the respondent. The mere statement of the counsel for the Board that 19 plots are vacant cannot be utilized for issuance of direction for plot to respondent who has otherwise no right for allotment.”

The Court further stated, “Allotment of plot to respondent in such a manner would have deprived the other applicants who must be awaiting for allotment of property or who must be eligible for allotment of property.”

The Court also noted, “The submission is completely misconceived without any merit that there is an order passed by the Commissioner in favour of the respondent in exercise of power under Rule 47.”

Key Takeaways

• Old registrations for housing plots that have been declared invalid by government orders cannot be used as a basis for claiming allotment.
• A recommendation by an official is not equivalent to an order by the Housing Commissioner.
• Allotment of housing plots must follow the prescribed procedures and rules of the Housing Board.
• Courts should not issue directions that would deprive other eligible applicants of their right to allotment.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent. No further directions were given.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a person cannot claim allotment of a housing plot based on a grandfather’s old registration that has been invalidated by a government order. The judgment reinforces the importance of following prescribed procedures for housing allotments and clarifies that a mere recommendation by an official is not equivalent to an order by the Housing Commissioner. This case does not change any previous position of law, but clarifies the application of existing rules and government orders.

Conclusion

In the case of U.P. Housing & Development Board vs. Namit Sharma, the Supreme Court overturned the Allahabad High Court’s order, which had directed the Housing Board to allot a plot to the respondent based on his grandfather’s old registration. The Supreme Court held that the grandfather’s registration was invalid, no allotment was made to him, and the respondent did not participate in a fresh allotment process. The court emphasized the importance of following prescribed procedures and clarified that a recommendation is not an order. This judgment reinforces the principle that housing allotments must be made according to the rules and that no one can claim a plot based on an invalid registration.