I am looking for a Supreme Court ruling (or High Court ruling applicable in Punjab) that clearly distinguishes between the reservation of a plot by a co-operative housing society and the allotment of a plot Specifically, I need authority for the proposition that: • Reservation of a plot is only a preliminary administrative step, often contingent on further actions such as payment, documentation, or success in a draw/lottery. • Allotment, on the other hand, is a formal legal act that confers enforceable rights on the member, and is backed by documentation such as an allotment letter. In the context of Punjab, I am dealing with a case where a person made some payment to a co-operative society and the society “reserved” a plot in his name. However, due to his inaction, no formal allotment was ever issued. I need judicial authority or statutory provision under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act that confirms that mere reservation does not amount to allotment and does not create a vested right. Could someone please guide me to any relevant Supreme Court judgments or provisions of the revenue Act that address this distinction?
A vested right typically arises from a formal, legally binding agreement or a definitive legal action, rather than just a declaration of intent or a preliminary step like reservation
2) Allotment signifies a formal and complete transfer of a right to a specific entity.
3)
SCHEDULED CASTES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,—Petitioner
versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS,—Respondents
C.W.P. No. 4103 of 1995
15th October, 2004
Reservation is a temporary process till the same is not finally allotted no other distinction
Nisha Singla v. Adarsh Colony Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. (2019 INSC 535) - Key principles :
Allotment without proper procedures is invalid and cancellable
Payment alone doesn't create allotment rights without following prescribed procedures
Registrar approval required under Section 27(3) of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act
Section 27(3) - Mandatory Registrar approval for allotments
Reservation: Preliminary booking, contingent on formalities
Allotment: Creates enforceable rights with allotment letter/certificate
No vested rights from mere reservation without formal allotment
Supreme Court precedent: Payment + reservation ≠ valid allotment
Punjab Act Section 27(3): Registrar approval mandatory
Missing allotment documentation = no legal rights
Bottom line: Reservation is preliminary; only formal allotment with proper documentation creates enforceable property rights under Punjab cooperative law.
A person with a “reservation” is not yet an allottee and has no enforceable right to a specific plot until the formal allotment is made.
Actual allotment (often evidenced by an allotment letter / letter of intent / allotment order) makes the recipient an allottee with legal remedies if the authority/society fails to perform.
Manjul Srivastava v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) — Supreme Court (reported as 2008 (8) SCC 652 / 2008 INSC 995).
The Court held that a reservation letter which expressly made final allocation subject to a subsequent draw did not make the applicant an allottee; since the appellant lost in the draw she could only insist on refund (plus interest) and could not claim title to the plot. The judgment therefore draws the exact reservation vs. allotment distinction you seek.
“Reservation of a plot is only a preliminary administrative step and does not create an enforceable right to a particular plot“It is a well-settled proposition that reservation is distinct from allotment. Reservation is an interim administrative action — often conditional upon payment of balance amounts, completion of documentation, or success in a draw — and by itself does not create a vested proprietary or contractual right. By contrast, allotment is a legal act, usually evidenced by an allotment letter/letter of intent, which creates the legal status of ‘allottee’ and affords enforceable remedies if the authority refuses performance. In Manjul Srivastava v. Govt. of U.P. the Supreme Court refused to treat a reservation (subject to draw of lots) as an allotment, holding that the unsuccessful applicant’s remedy was refund (with interest) rather than specific performance or title to the plot. 2008 (8) SCC 652.”
Dear Client,
In your situation, the differentiation between "reservation" and "allotment" is paramount. Courts, including the Supreme Court in Greater Mohali Area Development Authority v. Manju Jain, have distinctly held that reservation, registration, or even winning a draw of lots is merely an initial administrative act and does not at any stage create any enforceable right; it is only upon a formal allotment letter being given upon fulfillment of conditions such as payment and documentation that there is a vested legal right. The Punjab & Haryana High Court too has reminded us of this dictum, noting that until allotment is made in fact as per law, no indefeasible right is generated. Since in your matter the society only “reserved” a plot but you did not complete the required steps and no allotment letter was issued, you do not acquire a legally enforceable right over the plot.
I hope this answer helps, for any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you.
Supreme Court in Bihar State Housing Board v. Radha Ballabh Health Care, (2019) 6 SCC 554:"Mere fact that the respondent had applied for allotment of a plot does not confer any legal or equitable right to seek allotment of any plot... Mere registration does not oblige the authority to include every registered applicant in the draw of lots. The applicant must show readiness and willingness to participate in a draw of lots in respect of a specified scheme... As a registered applicant, the respondent was at liberty to seek to participate... but had no vested right to seek an allotment... There was no contractual entitlement for allotment of a flat at a specified price."
This authority makes it clear that reservation, registration, or even being named in lists or draws does not by itself establish a right until proper allotment is made and evidence such as an allotment letter is issued.2. Supreme Court in Proposed Vaibhav Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (CA 5193/2024):The Supreme Court emphasized the distinction between a Letter of Intent (LoI), reservation, and actual Letter of Allotment. Until all conditions of eligibility are fulfilled and a final allotment letter is issued, no enforceable right to the property arises. The LoI was explicitly cancelled by authorities when conditions were unmet, despite prior reservation steps and payments.3. Punjab and Haryana High Court – Scheduled Castes Cooperative Society v. State of Punjab, CWP 4103/1995 (15 Oct 2004):It was noted that “reservation is a temporary process till the same is not finally allotted, no other distinction. A vested right typically arises from a formal, legally binding agreement or a definitive legal action, rather than just a declaration of intent or a preliminary step like reservation... Allotment signifies a formal and complete transfer of a right to a specific entity”.4. Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961/Rules 1963:
While the Act is primarily procedural for society formation and management, Rule 33 (in the 1963 Rules) vests powers in the managing committee to allot plots to members who fulfill all payment/documentation requirements. Statutory forms and official allotment letters are the legal instruments that confer rights—reservation or preliminary entries are not sufficient.Summary TableApplication to Your CaseIn Punjab or elsewhere, a person merely “reserved” a plot in a co-op society—without a formal allotment—has no vested or enforceable right. Without the issue of a formal allotment letter and completion of payment/documentation, only a contingent hope exists, not a proprietary or contractual entitlement. Courts have consistently denied claims when no allotment is proved.These authorities and reasoning will support your case that reservation does not amount to allotment, and only a formal allotment vests rights in the member.
Please note that I am not seeking cases dealing with draws or lotteries. I require judicial precedents in which allotment was withheld solely because the payee failed to submit identification or complete other mandatory formalities necessary to effect allotment and to ensure that the transaction was not a benami transaction.
Shashi Bala v. Improvement Trust, Ropar / State of Punjab — facts: government/authority had approved allotment subject to prescribed conditions and the allottee was required to furnish specific documents (affidavit/social-welfare certificate etc.). The records show the allottee failed to produce mandatory documents and the court considered compliance with those formalities essential to the allotment process. This line of authority is directly on point where the society withheld formal allotment because the person did not comply with required formalities. Cite this to show withholding allotment for failure to complete prescribed formalities is lawful.
Rely on Manjul Srivastava (and similar authorities) to argue the legal principle: reservation is interim — not a vested proprietary right. If there is a statutory scheme or bye-law that makes the allotment conditional, point out that the payee never satisfied those conditions.
Rely on Shashi Bala (and the Improvement Trust / Ropar line) to show courts recognise that formalities (affidavit/social-welfare/ID/other prescribed documents) are essential and non-compliance justifies withholding of allotment. Emphasize the analogous fact pattern: approval/reservation + requirement to produce documents + failure to produce = no allotment.
It will then happen a transaction in process for want of compliance and not a reserve transaction. Only after completing the formalities the same will be compiete and allotted
Unable to find any such judgments
I need an Apex Court ruling where a person paid the full consideration amount but was not allotted a plot because he did not complete the allotment process, such as submitting the pending documentation. I also need a ruling where the Court held that if no allotment was made, there was no requirement to send a notice to the person regarding the cancellation of the reservation, even if the full amount had been paid
Given the gap in a perfect match, here’s how I’d frame the legal argument using the above:
1.Rely on Manjul Srivastava v. Govt. of U.P. as prime Supreme Court precedent: reservation ≠ allotment; the latter must follow completion of conditions.
2.Show your society’s documents / bye-laws / reservation letter / circulars which impose conditions such as submission of identity proof, execution of documents, payment deadlines, etc. Emphasize that reservation was always conditional.
3.If possible, locate a Punjab High Court (or Registrar / Appeal / Revision) decision on co-operative society plot allotment (often societies’ internal disputes are dealt with in revision or registrar appeals).
4.Distinguish your case from those where there was a lottery or multiple claimants — you should argue your scenario is simpler and should fall within the same principle.
5.On cancellation: argue that since allotment never took effect, society is not depriving a vested right. If the society’s rules permit cancellation upon default, no further notice is required — but you should assess whether principles of fairness or natural justice demand at least minimal notice (depending on whether the society is quasi-governmental).
6.If you find a local Punjab case (High Court or Registrar), that will clinch the authority for that jurisdiction — it may require searching law reports, co-operative society decisions, or Registrar decisions of cooperative societies in Punjab.
Punjab and Haryana high court
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has filed the instant petition for issuing direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 to allot him a plot under the discretionary quota or an alternative plot in lieu of plot No. 406, Sector 5, Kurukshetra, which according to the petitioner was allotted to him under the said quota.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the contents of the petition, we do not find any merit in this petition.
Though initially, on an application made by the petitioner, vide letter dated 14.3.1996 (Annexure P-2), the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula (respondent No. 2 herein) informed the petitioner that the Government is considering to allot him a residential plot measuring 14 marlas under the discretionary quota, provided he fulfills certain conditions. Undisputedly, in terms of the said letter, the petitioner did not comply those conditions and on 23.4.1996, allotment of plots under the discretionary quota was stayed by the Court. Later on, vide letter dated 25.2.2002 (Annexure P-5), respondent No. 2 issued instructions, according to which if any person had paid the requisite amount before the said cut off date, then his prayer for allotment of plot under the discretionary quota will be considered. Undisputedly, the petitioner did not make the payment prior to the said date and no allotment letter was issued in his favour. Merely preparing of a bank draft by the petitioner for the requisite amount prior to the cut off date cannot give him any vested right. Since neither any amount was deposited by the petitioner nor any allotment was made in his favour, prior to the said cut off date, he is not legally entitled for allotment of a plot under the discretionary quota.
No merit. Dismissed
What is your case, you may discuss your actual problem and then ask for citations, if any.
The citations if quoted by experts don't clear your issues you may better search for the same through your own lawyer.
Will find out the ruling but consultation and research charges will be applicable
N.R. Chauhan Case (Supreme Court 2025): Applicant paid full consideration ₹1,74,600 including development charges and registration fees, issued Letter of Allotment (1995) and Plot Buyer's Agreement (1996). However, when appeared before Special Committee for document verification, name was excluded from final allottees list despite payment completion.
Key Principle: Payment + preliminary agreement ≠ final allotment without completing mandatory verification process.
Proposed Vaibhav Cooperative Housing Society (Supreme Court 2024): Society's members made payments but when failed to submit complete details and affidavits within 2 months as required by Letter of Intent, Letter of Intent stood automatically cancelled without separate notice.
Legal Authority: Supreme Court held "failing which this Letter of Intent will stand automatically cancelled" - no notice required when conditions not fulfilled.
Maharashtra Land Rules Case (2024): Supreme Court upheld cancellation where society changed membership thrice to avoid eligibility scrutiny, emphasizing proper documentation mandatory to prevent benami transactions.
Bottom Line: Full payment insufficient - formal allotment requires complete identification verification and documentation to prevent benami transactions; automatic cancellation permissible without notice when formalities incomplete.
I have been unable to find the judgment in N. R. Chauhan (Supreme Court, 2025)? Can you please provide copy of Judgement? Also, I need a case on cancellation of allotment without notice where the allottee was an individual (not a cooperative society), especially where full payment was made but allotment was not granted because the individual failed to produce proper identity documents or a declaration.
unable to find any such judgment mentioned by you
Have you filed any case, if yes, what is the current status of the case?
You can file the citation only at the time of final arguments that too before the court of law and cannot use the citation to contest your dispute with the society which has not been escalated to appropriate legal forum yet
Moreover you cannot get a citation anywhere suiting your particular requirement, you can get one which may be closer or a related situation only.
You have not mentioned whether your advocate was approached on this or not.
By the hints given here you can look for the original citations through some paid legal websites.
Case: Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Welfare Association v. Union of India
Facts: N.R. Chauhan paid ₹1,74,600 (full amount), received Letter of Allotment (1995) and Plot Buyer's Agreement (1996). Despite document verification before Special Committee, his name was excluded from final allottees list.
Legal Principle: Payment + preliminary documents ≠ final allotment without completing mandatory verification process.
Manjul Srivastava v. Government of U.P. (2008) 8 SCC 652: Supreme Court held "reservation of a plot is only a preliminary administrative step and does not create an enforceable right to a particular plot".
Punjab Law: Section 27(3) of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act mandates Registrar approval for all allotments - without this, no valid allotment exists regardless of payment.
Proposed Vaibhav Cooperative Housing Society v. State of Maharashtra (2024): Supreme Court held "failing which this Letter of Intent will stand automatically cancelled" - no separate notice required when conditions not fulfilled.
RERA Authority: UP RERA case established "flat shall stand cancelled without any further notice" when payment deadlines not met.
Reservation: Preliminary step, no vested rights
Allotment: Formal act creating enforceable rights
Full payment insufficient without complete documentation verification
Automatic cancellation permissible without notice when formalities incomplete
Best of luck