2018 (10) TMI 1654 - SC - Indian Laws

Delayed payment of allotment money - hire-purchase scheme - eviction of allotment - Held that - It is abundantly clear that the allottee was allotted House No. E376 under the hirepurchase scheme vide letter dated 05.10.1994 by the GDA. The allottee s conduct of delayed payment with respect to the allotment is evident from the fact that even the balance registration amount of 38, 325/which was required to be deposited within a week from the issuance of letter dated 05.10.1994 was actually deposited on 17.10.1994. Further the deposits made thereafter were also done so without following any schedule as is evident from the facts stated hereinabove in para No.4 - It is abundantly clear that the allottee was allotted House No. E376 under the hirepurchase scheme vide letter dated 05.10.1994 by the GDA. The allottee s conduct of delayed payment with respect to the allotment is evident from the fact that even the balance registration amount of 38, 325/which was required to be deposited within a week from the issuance of letter dated 05.10.1994 was actually deposited on 17.10.1994. Further the deposits made thereafter were also done so without following any schedule as is evident from the facts stated hereinabove in para No.4. It is wellsettled principle of law that unlawful possession of public property without having paid for the same would tantamount to unjust enrichment and would be against public interest. It is directed that the allottee be evicted forthwith - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the cancellation of allotment by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA).
2. Unauthorized possession of the property by the allottee.
3. Judicial propriety and adherence to principles of natural justice by the High Court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Cancellation of Allotment by GDA:
The GDA launched the Shastri Nagar Housing Scheme, under which the allottee applied for a High Income Group Duplex "A" Category house. The allottee was informed of the allotment via a letter dated 05.10.1994, with specific terms and conditions, including a penal interest of 21% per annum for delayed payments and cancellation of allotment if the default continued for three months. Despite these terms, the allottee failed to adhere to the payment schedule, leading to the cancellation of the allotment by GDA. The High Court's detailed order dated 17.05.2016 in Writ Petition (C) No. 28834 of 2004 upheld this cancellation, thus attaining finality.

2. Unauthorized Possession of the Property by the Allottee:
Despite the cancellation, the allottee continued to occupy the property unauthorizedly, allegedly using the influence of her husband, a U.P. Police officer. The GDA issued a letter dated 10.01.2018 to the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, for the eviction of the allottee. The allottee filed another writ petition (No. 7928 of 2018) seeking to quash the eviction letter. The High Court, without issuing notice to GDA, granted relief to the allottee, effectively nullifying its own previous order dated 17.05.2016. The Supreme Court noted that the allottee's delayed payments and unauthorized possession indicated a lack of bona fides and amounted to unjust enrichment against public interest.

3. Judicial Propriety and Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's approach in disposing of the writ petition without issuing notice to GDA, which violated the principle of natural justice, "audi alteram partem" (right to fair hearing). The High Court's decision to regularize the allotment without hearing GDA was deemed improper and contrary to judicial discipline, as it went against the finality of the previous order dated 17.05.2016. The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial propriety mandates respecting orders of coordinate benches and following due process.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order dated 21.03.2018 in Writ Petition (C) No. 7928 of 2018, and directed the immediate eviction of the allottee. The GDA was granted liberty to seek local police assistance for peaceful possession of the property. The Court reiterated that unlawful possession of public property without due payment constitutes unjust enrichment and is against public interest. No order as to costs was made.