LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

U.P. Housing & Development Board & Anr. v. Namit Sharma

Civil Appeal · 2021 INSC 58Decided 3 Feb 2021
Civil Appeal No. 4020 of 2010
Justice Ashok Bhushan · Justice R. Subhash Reddy

Background

The respondent's grandfather had registered for an HIG plot with the U.P. Housing & Development Board (Parishad) in 1982 and later nominated his grandson (the respondent) as his registration nominee before passing away. After a 2002 Government Order declared that all old, unsuccessful registrations would not be renewed and had to be freshly applied for, the Parishad repeatedly informed the respondent that his grandfather's registration was no longer valid and that he should seek a refund instead. The respondent nonetheless sought transfer of the registration into his own name and allotment of a specific vacant plot, and when refused, filed a writ petition; the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) directed the Parishad to allot him a plot, prompting this appeal.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found no material showing that any plot had ever actually been allotted to the grandfather, and that mere registration, itself invalidated by the 2002 Government Order, created no enforceable right to allotment, let alone transfer to an heir. The Court also rejected the respondent's reliance on an endorsement dated 31.12.2004, holding it was merely a junior official's recommendation to the Joint Housing Commissioner, not an actual order passed under the Commissioner's special powers, and noted the plot the respondent sought had in any case already been allotted to his own father. Since all allotments under the scheme were made by draw of lots among eligible registered applicants and the respondent's grandfather had never been declared successful in any draw, the High Court's direction to allot him a plot was unsupported by any cogent basis. The Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the respondent's writ petition.

Lesson Learnt

Mere registration in a government housing scheme, especially one later invalidated by policy change, does not create a vested right to allotment or to transfer that registration to an heir; actual allotment typically requires success in the prescribed process (such as a draw of lots), and an official's internal recommendation is not the same as a binding order.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case