Provisional plot allotment creates no vested right; an award made without a necessary party was a nullity.

A provisional plot allotment that was never perfected by compliance with the governing conditions did not create an indefeasible right, and a later award directing allotment of the same plot was unenforceable because a necessary party had not been impleaded and the order went beyond jurisdiction. Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 did not alter the effect of the subsequent registered sale deed. A society member was entitled only to fair consideration for allotment under the rules, bye-laws and seniority, not to a specific plot as of right, although monetary redress and refund could still be granted for the society's unfair conduct.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the award directing allotment of the disputed plot in favour of the appellant was enforceable and binding; (ii) whether the appellant was entitled to insist on allotment of the same plot or, alternatively, to be considered for another plot in accordance with the society's rules and bye-laws.

Issue (i): Whether the award directing allotment of the disputed plot in favour of the appellant was enforceable and binding

Analysis: The provisional allotment in favour of the appellant's mother did not mature into an indefeasible right, as the required development charges were not paid and the allotment stood cancelled in law upon non-compliance and subsequent fresh allotment to another member. The award was also made without impleading the person in whose favour the plot had already been allotted and later sold, making him a necessary party. The award, insofar as it directed allotment of the very plot, was therefore passed without jurisdiction and was a nullity. Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 did not assist the appellant, because the registered sale deed operated from the date of execution and supported the title of the subsequent transferee.

Conclusion: The award was unenforceable in law and could not be sustained against the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to insist on allotment of the same plot or, alternatively, to be considered for another plot in accordance with the society's rules and bye-laws

Analysis: The appellant's right, as a member of the society, was only a right to be considered for allotment along with others in accordance with the applicable rules, bye-laws, and seniority, and not a vested right to any particular plot. The Court also noted that the society had acted unfairly and had made incorrect representations, causing prolonged litigation, but that conduct could not justify overriding the rights of third parties who were not before the Court. The proper course was to direct consideration of allotment strictly under the governing legal framework, while also granting monetary redress for the prejudice caused by the society's conduct.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the disputed plot as of right, but was entitled to be considered for allotment of an available plot in accordance with law, along with compensation and refund as directed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned orders failed, while the society was directed to act lawfully in future allotments and to make monetary payments and refunds to the affected parties.

Ratio Decidendi: A provisional allotment that is not perfected in accordance with the governing conditions creates no indefeasible right, and an award made without impleading a necessary party and beyond jurisdiction is a nullity; a member's entitlement is only to fair consideration under the society's rules, not to a specific plot as of right.

---