U.P. HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD & ANR versus NAMIT SHARMA

Citation: [2021] 4 S.C.R. 397 · Decided: 03-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
397
   [2021] 4 S.C.R. 397
397
U.P. HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD & ANR.
v.
NAMIT SHARMA
(Civil Appeal No. 4020 of 2010)
FEBRUARY 03, 2021
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Bhukhando Tatha
Bhavano Ke Panjikaran Evam Pradeshan – r.47 – In 1982,
respondent’s grandfather got himself registered in a scheme for an
HIG plot in appellant’s Housing Scheme – Before his death, he
nominated respondent as his nominee – In 1997, respondent sought
transfer of the registration in his name and for allotment of an HIG
plot – Request refused by Housing Commissioner – Writ petition
filed by respondent – Division Bench directed allotment of a plot to
the respondent against his grandfather’s registration – On appeal,
held: Respondent’s grandfather only got himself registered which
made him eligible to participate in the process of allotment – Nothing
on record indicates that at any point of time any allotment of plot
was made in his favour – Mere registration in the name of
respondent’s late grandfather which registration also came to an
end after Government order dtd. 11.10.02 which made all the old
registrations ineffective permitting applicants to get refund, there
was no right left in the respondent to claim even registration much
less an allotment – Endorsement dtd. 31.12.04 relied on to contend
that there is an order passed by the Commissioner in exercise of
power u/r.47 in respondent’s favour, is not an order passed by the
Commissioner but only a recommendation made by an official person
– Further, respondent’s prayer to allot Plot No.1/41 is malafide as
the same was allotted to his father – High Court did not give any
cogent reason as to on what basis direction was issued to allot a
plot to the respondent – Mere statement of the counsel for the Board
that 19 plots are vacant cannot be utilized for issuing such direction
when otherwise respondent had no right for allotment – High Court
erred in issuing the direction to allot a plot to the respondent –
Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 – s.95(1)
– Housing.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
398
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Bhukhando Tatha
Bhavano Ke Panjikaran Evam Pradeshan – r.47 – Power of Housing
Commissioner – Discussed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.4020 of
2010
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.07.2009 of the High Court
of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Writ Petition No.3315 (M/
B) of 2005.
Vishwajit Singh, Pankaj Singh, Ms. Ridhima Singh, Ms. Vijaya
Singh, Sushmit Chauhan, Advs. for the Appellants.
Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Prashant Kumar, Advs. for the
Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
ORDER
Heard Shri Vishwajit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for
the respondent.
This appeal has been filed against the order dated 07.07.2009 of
the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in
Writ Petition No.3315(M/B) of 2005, by which order the writ petition
filed by the respondent has been disposed of with a direction to opposite
party to the writ petition to allot one plot to the respondent against the
Registration No.L.W/P-2951(6). Appellant aggrieved by the said
judgment has come up in this appeal.
The brief facts necessary to be noticed for deciding this appeal
are:
One Shri M.L. Sharma, the grandfather of the respondent got
registration in his name in a scheme for HIG plot in the Housing Scheme
of the appellant. On 16.09.1982 his application was registered with
Registration No.L.W./P-2951(6). Shri M.L. Sharma wrote a letter to
the appellant on 15.09.1983 that he has nominated his grandson i.e.
respondent as his nominee and his mother Smt. Sudha Sharma as his
guardian till he attains majority. Shri M.L. Sharma died on 09.06.1984.
The Parishad sent a letter to Shri M.L. Sharma to deposit an additional
amount of Rs.3,000/- as registration money due to escalation in price.
However, pursuant to aforesaid request no additional amount was
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
399
deposited rather Smt. Sudha Sharma wrote a letter to Parishad to refund
the entire registration amount. Parishad wrote a letter on 22.08.1988 to
Smt. Sudha Sharma to send the requisite documents i.e. Death Certificate
etc. to complete the formalities necessary for obtaining a refund of the
registration amount. The respondent wrote a letter dated 26.08.1997 to
the Parishad requesting P

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.