2006 (5) TMI 568 - SC - Indian Laws

Plot Allotment Canceled: Society Must Refund & Compensate for Inconvenience; Misrepresentation Inquiry Ordered.

A. Jitendernath Versus Jubilee Hills Coop. House Bld. Soc. and Ors.

The appeals were dismissed by the HC. The provisional allotment of Plot No. 39 was deemed canceled due to non-payment of development charges. The award in ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the cancellation of the provisional allotment of Plot No. 39.2. Legality of the award passed in favor of the Appellant.3. Application of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908.4. Entitlement of the Appellant to an alternative plot.5. Conduct of the Society regarding misrepresentation and its consequences.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Cancellation of the Provisional Allotment of Plot No. 39:The Court examined whether the provisional allotment of Plot No. 39 to the Appellant's mother was validly canceled. It was noted that the provisional allotment was contingent upon the payment of development charges, which were not paid. Consequently, the allotment was deemed canceled by operation of law, even if no formal cancellation notice was issued. The Court emphasized that a provisional allotment does not confer an indefeasible right and becomes permanent only upon fulfillment of stipulated conditions.2. Legality of the Award Passed in Favor of the Appellant:The Court scrutinized the award granted to the Appellant by the Registrar, which directed the allotment of Plot No. 39. It found the award to be a nullity due to the violation of natural justice principles, as the necessary party, Mr. Srinivas, was not impleaded. The award was also considered illegal as it directed an injunction beyond the scope of the Appellant's prayer. Consequently, the principle of res judicata did not apply, and the award was not enforceable.3. Application of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908:The Court addressed the applicability of Section 47, which stipulates that a registered document operates from the date of its execution, not registration. The sale deed executed in favor of Mr. Srinivas, although registered later, was deemed effective from the date of execution. This interpretation aligned with established precedents, confirming that the title passed to Mr. Srinivas prior to the award, rendering the award inexecutable.4. Entitlement of the Appellant to an Alternative Plot:The Court considered the Appellant's request for an alternative plot, given the cancellation of Plot No. 39's allotment. The Society's conduct in offering Plot No. 400 was scrutinized, revealing misrepresentation as the plot was not available for allotment. The Court directed the Society to consider the Appellant's entitlement to a plot in accordance with its bye-laws and seniority rules, ensuring no discrimination among members.5. Conduct of the Society Regarding Misrepresentation and Its Consequences:The Society's conduct was criticized for misrepresenting the availability of Plot No. 400 and failing to disclose pertinent facts to the Registrar, leading to confusion and litigation. The Court ordered an inquiry into the responsible individuals and directed the Society to refund the Appellant's deposits with penal interest and compensate both the Appellant and the Second Respondent for the inconvenience caused. The Society was also granted liberty to recover these amounts from those found responsible for the misrepresentation.In conclusion, the appeals were dismissed, with directions for the Society to rectify its missteps and ensure fair consideration of plot allotments among its members, while also compensating the affected parties for the Society's misrepresentations and procedural lapses.