HUF property non-disclosure can amount to material concealment, defeating alternate plot allotment and lease restoration.

Non-disclosure of a Defence Colony property held in a Hindu undivided family was treated as concealment of a material fact because HUF property remains relevant to the members' proportionate interests until partition. Since the alternate-plot allotment was conditional on an affidavit of non-ownership and truthful disclosure, the false declaration breached the allotment conditions and justified cancellation of the lease. Later Nazul Rules did not validate an allotment obtained by suppression, and delay in cancellation did not defeat action based on the applicant's own fraud.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-disclosure of the Defence Colony property held in the Hindu undivided family amounted to concealment of material facts and invalidated the affidavit furnished for allotment of the alternate plot; (ii) Whether the later Nazul Rules or delay in cancellation displaced the earlier allotment conditions or vitiated the action of the authority.

Issue (i): Whether non-disclosure of the Defence Colony property held in the Hindu undivided family amounted to concealment of material facts and invalidated the affidavit furnished for allotment of the alternate plot.

Analysis: The eligibility conditions for the alternate plot required the applicant and specified family members not to own, in full or in part, any residential plot or house in Delhi. The Court held that property placed in the hotchpotch of a Hindu undivided family does not become legally irrelevant to the constituent members, who retain proportionate interests until partition by metes and bounds. On that basis, the petitioner's affidavit, which denied ownership of such property, omitted a material fact. The allotment letter and perpetual lease deed were conditional upon truthful disclosure, and concealment of the HUF property breached those conditions.

Conclusion: The issue is decided against the petitioner; the affidavit involved concealment of material facts and the allotment was liable to be cancelled.

Issue (ii): Whether the later Nazul Rules or delay in cancellation displaced the earlier allotment conditions or vitiated the action of the authority.

Analysis: The allotment was made under the 1961 Scheme and was expressly subject to the affidavit-based eligibility conditions and the lease covenant permitting re-entry for suppression, misstatement, misrepresentation, or fraud. The Court held that the later Nazul Rules did not rescue an allotment obtained by concealment under the earlier scheme. The plea of delay was also rejected because the cancellation flowed from the petitioner's own suppression of a material fact, and fraud was treated as defeating the claim to relief.

Conclusion: The issue is decided against the petitioner; the later rules and the plea of delay did not invalidate the cancellation.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the alternate allotment was obtained on a false disclosure, and the respondent was justified in cancelling the lease and refusing restoration.

Ratio Decidendi: Where allotment of an alternate plot is conditional on an affidavit of non-ownership, nondisclosure of a family-held HUF property in which the applicant and constituent members retain proportionate interests constitutes concealment of material fact, and fraud vitiates the allotment and lease.

---