Steve Kanika vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) and Another

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9815 OF 2024 [Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7281 of 2020]

STEVE KANIKA ...APPELLANT

VERSUS

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA) & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

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:

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Vijay Kumar Date: 2024.08.30 16:07:59 IST Reason:

3. The appellant’s father had applied for allotment of a plot

1 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

2 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.

ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:

1

‘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].)’ 3

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. In our view, the demise of the appellant’s

father would not negate the right which stood vested in the

appellant. The appellant is the Legal Representative and heir of

his father.

9. The objection taken by the learned senior counsel for NOIDA

has been evaluated and the judgment supra relied upon by him has

been examined by us. The objection cannot be accepted due to

NOIDA’s conduct which we deal with infra. We do not think the

judgment is applicable in the extant facts and circumstances. Manju

Jain (supra) is distinguishable for more reasons than one:

(i) The respondent therein took a ‘vague’ plea that the allotment

letter was never communicated to her;

(ii) The amounts sought for were never deposited by her, and;

(iii) The ratio laid down was that ‘if an order is passed but not

communicated to the party concerned, it does not create any legal

right which can be enforced through the court of law, as it does

not become effective till it is communicated.’2

10. In the case at hand, vide letter dated 10.11.2009, the

2 Para 24 of Manju Jain (supra).

4 appellant had intimated NOIDA about the demise of his father on

08.11.2007. Further, the appellant informed NOIDA that being a

whole-time Director of the company, just like his father, he was

competent to execute a contract with NOIDA. By way of letters dated

23.11.2009 and 18.10.2010, the appellant requested NOIDA to move

forward with the allotment. With the letter dated 23.11.2009, the

appellant, alongwith documents, had also submitted a Demand Draft

for Rs.7,46,825/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Forty-Six Thousand Eight

Hundred and Twenty-Five only), which continues to be with NOIDA

till date, as averred by the appellant. What prompted NOIDA to

accept the Demand Draft in the first instance, and then retain the

same even after cancelling the allotment has not been explained.

What is also hard to comprehend is why it took NOIDA two years to

cancel the allotment, once, admittedly, it was in the know of the

death of the appellant’s father since at least 10.11.2009. Had the

cancellation followed in close proximity to 10.11.2009 or had NOIDA

refused to accept the Demand Draft or returned it soon thereafter,

the fate of this case could have taken a different turn.

11. On the first day of listing of the writ petition, the High

Court on 13.12.2011 had directed NOIDA not to allot the plot in

question in anybody else’s favour. This order continued during the

pendency of the writ proceedings. Before this Court, on the first

day of hearing i.e., 02.06.2020, the parties had been directed to

maintain status quo as on the said date. In the wake of the

sequence of events, as has played out, and on an overall

5 circumspection, the appellant has made out a case for the Court’s

intervention.

12. For the reasons aforesaid, NOIDA is directed to issue fresh

allotment letter within four weeks from today in the name of the

appellant on the same terms and conditions as was mentioned in the

original letter of allotment dated 26.10.2009 with the modification

that the time-limit would run from today.

13. The Impugned Order is set aside; the appeal is allowed

accordingly.

14. I.A.s No.42353/2020 and 42349/2020 are allowed. I.A.

No.42504/2020 is disposed of.

...........................J. [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]

...........................J. [UJJAL BHUYAN]

NEW DELHI AUGUST 27, 2024

6 ITEM NO.61 COURT NO.16 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7281/2020

[Arising out of Impugned Final Judgment and Order dated 21-10-2019 in WC No.71420/2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad]

STEVE KANIKA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA) & ANR. Respondent(s)

[IA No.42353/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No.42349/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No.42504/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES]

Date : 27-08-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

For the Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Ayshwarya Chandar, AoR

For the Respondent(s) Mr. Anil Kaushik, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, AoR For R1

Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, AoR For R2

UPON hearing Counsel, the Court passed the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable order.

(VIJAY KUMAR) (MATHEW ABRAHAM) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

(Signed Reportable Order is placed on the file.)

7