A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court addressed the validity of NOIDA’s decision to cancel the allotment of a plot, originally made to the deceased father of the appellant, Steve Kanika. The judgment delved into the legal principle of the transference of civil rights upon death and examined the procedural conduct of NOIDA. The Court held that the appellant, as the legal heir, inherited the rights of his deceased father regarding the allotment. It was concluded that NOIDA’s actions, including accepting the demand draft and delayed cancellation, contradicted the principles of natural justice. The judgment provided relief to the appellant by directing NOIDA to issue a fresh allotment letter in his name.

Keywords:

• Allotment of land
• Legal Representatives
• Cancellation of allotment
• Natural justice
• Civil rights inheritance

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title:
Steve Kanika v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) & Anr.

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 9815 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date:
27 August 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

vi) Author:
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

vii) Citation:
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 805 : 2024 INSC 653

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (relevant for inheritance rights)
• General principles of contract law
• Doctrine of natural justice

ix) Judgments Overruled:
None

x) Related Legal Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Property Law, Civil Procedure

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case arose from the cancellation of a plot allotment initially granted to the deceased father of the appellant, under the authority of NOIDA. The dispute centered on whether the rights of the deceased allottee passed to his legal heir. NOIDA had canceled the allotment claiming that the original allottee was deceased at the time of the draw, thus invalidating the process. The appellant contended that the cancellation violated the principles of civil rights and inheritance.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. In 2006, the appellant’s father applied for a plot under a scheme by NOIDA.
2. The father passed away on 08 November 2007.
3. On 01 October 2009, NOIDA conducted a lottery, and the father’s application succeeded. The allotment letter was issued on 26 October 2009.
4. The appellant informed NOIDA of his father’s death through a letter dated 10 November 2009 and submitted the required documents.
5. The appellant also provided a demand draft for Rs. 7,46,825, which NOIDA retained.
6. On 21 September 2011, NOIDA canceled the allotment citing the death of the original applicant before the lottery.
7. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the allotment to the deceased father created any inheritable rights for the appellant as a legal heir.
2. Whether NOIDA’s conduct, including the acceptance of the demand draft, estopped it from canceling the allotment.
3. Whether NOIDA’s delayed cancellation violated the principles of natural justice.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Inheritance of Civil Rights:
   The appellant argued that the application created a vested right, which passed to him as the legal heir upon his father’s death.
   Supporting Case Law: M.C. Chockalingam v. Mangilal (1969), which affirms inheritance of actionable claims.

2. Conduct of NOIDA:
   NOIDA’s acceptance and retention of the demand draft signified acknowledgment of the appellant’s rights.

3. Natural Justice:
   NOIDA acted arbitrarily by canceling the allotment after two years without giving due consideration to the appellant’s claims.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Invalid Allotment:
   NOIDA argued that the allotment was void as the original applicant was deceased at the time of the draw.
2. No Automatic Rights:
   They claimed that mere success in a draw of lots does not confer any enforceable rights.
   Cited Case Law: Greater Mohali Area Development Authority v. Manju Jain (2010).

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court held that NOIDA’s cancellation was unjustified. The rights of the deceased allottee vested in the appellant as his legal heir, and NOIDA’s conduct estopped it from canceling the allotment arbitrarily.

b. Obiter Dicta:
The Court noted NOIDA’s procedural lapses and emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice.

c. Guidelines:

1. Rights accruing from government schemes are inheritable unless expressly stated otherwise.
2. Authorities must act promptly and reasonably when handling such cases.
3. Retention of payment by authorities without justification constitutes acknowledgment of the claim.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforced the principles of justice and equity, holding public authorities accountable for arbitrary actions. It emphasized the inheritable nature of civil rights and procedural fairness in administrative actions.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:

1. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority v. Manju Jain (2010) 9 SCC 157
2. M.C. Chockalingam v. Mangilal (1969) AIR 387

b. Important Statutes Referred:

1. Transfer of Property Act, 1882
2. General principles under Indian Contract Act, 1872