Cumulative scheme eligibility and negative equality fail where the applicant did not satisfy the circular's mandatory conditions.

Eligibility for the housing scheme depended on satisfying cumulative conditions in the 31.1.1986 circular, including registration, prior purchase of the land, and handing over vacant and peaceful possession before publication under Section 50(2). As the appellant was neither the landowner nor in possession, it acquired no enforceable right and was not eligible for the benefit. A claim based on Article 14 also failed because negative equality cannot be used to seek parity with an erroneous or illegal benefit granted to others. The challenge was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant satisfied the eligibility conditions in the 31.1.1986 circular for availing the benefit of the housing scheme; (ii) Whether denial of benefit could be challenged on the ground that similar benefit had been granted to other societies and Article 14 of the Constitution of India was violated.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant satisfied the eligibility conditions in the 31.1.1986 circular for availing the benefit of the housing scheme.

Analysis: The circular required both registration of the society and purchase of the land before publication of the declaration under Section 50(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. The conditions were cumulative. The appellant was neither the owner of the land nor in possession of it, and the requirement of handing over vacant and peaceful possession to the Authority was also not met. The appellant therefore did not acquire any enforceable right under the circular.

Conclusion: The appellant was not eligible for the benefit under the circular.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of benefit could be challenged on the ground that similar benefit had been granted to other societies and Article 14 of the Constitution of India was violated.

Analysis: Even assuming that some other societies had wrongly been granted the benefit, a wrong decision in another case does not create a right to seek the same wrong treatment. Equal treatment under Article 14 presupposes a lawful and similar footing, and negative equality cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality or secure parity with an erroneous action.

Conclusion: The plea based on Article 14 and negative equality was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appellant failed to establish entitlement to the scheme benefit, and the challenge based on parity with other cases did not assist its claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Eligibility under a scheme must satisfy all cumulative conditions, and Article 14 cannot be invoked to demand parity with an illegal or erroneous benefit granted in another case.

---