Non-deposit of mandatory allotment fees within prescribed timelines forfeits the right to rehabilitation under housing schemes.

The petitioner represents 361 slum dwellers whose hutments on Western Railway land were demolished for the Surat-Udhna-Jalgaon Third Railway Line Project

Following previous litigation in WP(PIL) 222 of 2014 and subsequent appeals to the Supreme Court, the railway land was cleared, and eligible dwellers were to be rehabilitated under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY)

The Supreme Court had previously directed that applications be accepted without the initial ₹20,000/- deposit, but stipulated that once found eligible, applicants must pay the deposit within three months to proceed with allotment

Out of 2,450 claims, 1,901 were found eligible, including the 361 individuals represented here

The petitioners failed to deposit the mandatory ₹20,000/- despite multiple extensions granted until May 2023

They filed this PIL in 2026 seeking a direction to allow them to pay the deposit now and be considered for allotment or alternative schemes like JnURM

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek a revival of the allotment process and a relaxation of the deposit condition after failing to meet the court-sanctioned timelines

2. Whether the court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to grant humanitarian relief against the established terms of a rehabilitation scheme after a significant delay

The Court applied the principles of rehabilitation under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) and the specific directions issued by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Diary No. 19714/2021.

The legal rule established by the Apex Court in its interim order dated 18.02.2022 was that while the initial deposit is not a pre-condition for filing an application, it is a mandatory requirement once eligibility is determined

The doctrine of laches/delay was relevant, as the court noted the petition was filed after a gap of three years without sufficient explanation

The High Court reasoned that the petitioners were already granted significant procedural indulgence by both the High Court and the Supreme Court. Specifically, the Supreme Court had relaxed the initial deposit rule but explicitly maintained that the deposit must be made within three months of eligibility notification

The petitioners admitted to receiving notice and requesting extensions, which were granted but still went unfulfilled

The Court found no substance in the argument that the condition was "onerous," as the Supreme Court had already held that all prescribed terms and conditions of the scheme must be met

The Court observed that the petitioners sat on their rights for three years before filing this petition. Granting relief at this late stage would disrupt the scheme and open "floodgates" for others who ignored mandatory conditions, potentially blocking housing meant for other needy, compliant citizens

The court answered the issues in the negative, stating that the allotment for rehabilitation under PMAY was strictly subject to the fulfillment of prescribed conditions as per the Apex Court's directions, and no humanitarian grounds justified a deviation where the applicants had failed to adhere to timelines. All requested reliefs were denied.