Invalid Registration and Misdirected Allotment

Explore the legal intricacies of a case where the court delves into the complexities of invalid registrations and misdirected plot allotment. The court’s thorough legal analysis highlights the importance of adherence to registration processes and allotment procedures in the realm of property law. Follow along for key insights into the court’s reasoning and decision-making process in this challenging legal scenario.


  • Appeal filed against the order dated 07.07.2009 of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No.3315(M/B) of 2005.
  • The order disposed of the writ petition filed by the respondent with a direction to allot one plot to the respondent against Registration No.L.W/P-2951(6).
  • The appellant Parishad issued a letter to the respondent informing that the registration of his grandfather was no longer valid and he could obtain a refund of the deposited amount.
  • Government orders dated 11.10.2002 rendered old registrations ineffective, allowing refunds and requiring fresh registrations for allotment.
  • The High Court directed the allotment of a plot to the respondent against a specific Registration No., despite the lack of valid registration or allotment in his or his grandfather’s name.
  • Multiple communications were made to the respondent regarding the invalidity of his grandfather’s registration and the procedure for refund.
  • The respondent’s writ petition for transfer of registration and allotment was dismissed by the High Court, leading to the current appeal by the appellant Parishad.
  • Requests for transfer of allotment and registration were made by the respondent with no successful outcome due to lack of valid registration or allotment in his or his grandfather’s name.

Also Read: Analysis of Seniority Determination in Armed Forces Personnel Case


  • Dr. Manish Singhvi, representing the respondent, argues against the submissions of the Parishad’s counsel.
  • He asserts that the High Court’s order was based on the appellant’s consent to allot a plot to offset 19 vacant plots.
  • The appellant is deemed to be precluded from challenging the High Court’s order due to this consent.
  • The High Court has noted that 19 plots are available for allotment in Sector 11 of the Vikas Nagar Extension Scheme of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, where the respondent can be adjusted.
  • The availability of plots does not automatically entitle a person to claim allotment if they have no right to it.
  • After the death of Shri M.L. Sharma, additional amount towards registration was paid as demanded.
  • There was already an allotment in favor of the respondent by the Housing Commissioner under Rule 48, passed on 31.12.2004.
  • The Housing Commissioner has the power, in special circumstances, to pass orders, and the order on 31.12.2004 is considered valid.
  • Initially, Shri M.L. Sharma deposited registration money and was allotted a registration on 16.09.1982, followed by a nomination of the respondent by Shri M.L. Sharma before his death.
  • The Parishad requested the mother of the respondent to send the necessary documents for obtaining a refund.

Also Read: Analysis of Circumstantial Evidence in Criminal Conviction


  • The High Court did not provide a clear basis for directing the allotment of a plot to the respondent.
  • The Parishad conducted allotments through a draw of lots for all eligible registered applicants.
  • There was no record of any draw in which the respondent’s grandfather was declared successful.
  • The respondent was notified that his grandfather’s registration was invalid and could not be transferred to him, thus he was requested to complete formalities for refund.
  • The allotment process for Housing Board plots involves a set procedure that all applicants must follow.
  • The order of the High Court was apparently based on the respondent’s application dated 31.12.2004.
  • The endorsement dated 31.12.2004 was a recommendation, not an order from the Housing Commissioner.
  • Rule 47 provides the Housing Commissioner with certain powers in special circumstances.
  • The Housing Commissioner did not pass an order allotting a plot to the respondent as claimed.
  • There was no evidence of any plot allotment to the respondent’s grandfather.
  • The respondent’s petition was based on a request for transfer of registration, but there was no valid registration for transfer or allotment.
  • The Estate Officer informed the respondent multiple times that his grandfather’s registration was invalid and could not be transferred.
  • The High Court examined the respondent’s claim on merits but found no basis for plot allotment as the respondent had not participated in the allotment process and had no existing rights.
  • The unsuccessful candidates were advised to apply for new schemes, indicating that old registrations would not be renewed.
  • The High Court’s direction to allot a plot to the respondent was considered erroneous
  • The opinion was based on the reasoning that the High Court had made a mistake in issuing such a directive

Also Read: Land Compensation Dispute Under Kerala Forest Act


  • The appeal was allowed and the order of the High Court dated 07.07.2009 was set aside.
  • The writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed.


Case Number: C.A. No.-004020-004020 / 2010

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *