Summary
The Supreme Court directed NOIDA to issue a fresh plot allotment to the son and legal representative of an applicant who died before the draw of lots. NOIDA knew of the death from 10.11.2009, accepted and kept the son's demand draft, and waited two years before cancelling the allotment, so the cancellation could not stand.
Issues
- Whether NOIDA could cancel a plot allotment on the ground that the applicant had died before the draw of lots, when his son and legal representative sought the allotment.
- Whether Greater Mohali Area Development Authority v. Manju Jain, which held that a draw of lots alone gives no right to allotment, governed the case.
Held
- The applicant had applied properly and met every condition for allotment, and this was followed by the draw of lots and an allotment letter. His death before the draw did not defeat the right that passed to the appellant as his legal representative and heir. (¶ 8)
- Manju Jain was distinguished. In that case the allottee made only a vague plea that the allotment letter was never communicated and never paid the amounts demanded, and the ratio there concerned orders that were never communicated. The facts here were different. (¶ 9)
- NOIDA's own conduct defeated its objection. The appellant told it of the death by letter dated 10.11.2009 and sent a demand draft of Rs. 7,46,825, which NOIDA accepted and kept even after cancelling. NOIDA gave no explanation for this, or for taking two years to cancel. The Court said a prompt cancellation, or a refusal or early return of the draft, might have changed the outcome. (¶ 10)
- The High Court's interim order of 13.12.2011 barred allotment of the plot to anyone else, and this Court ordered status quo on 02.06.2020. Taking the whole sequence of events into account, the appellant had made out a case for the Court to intervene. (¶ 11)
Result
Appeal allowed and the High Court's order of 21.10.2019 set aside. NOIDA was directed to issue a fresh allotment letter in the appellant's name within four weeks, on the terms of the original letter of 26.10.2009, with time limits running from the date of the judgment. Pending applications were disposed of.