9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred to as the "allottee"). It is worthwhile to be noted that the impugned order in essence nullifies the detailed order of cancellation of allotment passed by the coordinate Bench of the same High Court dated 17.05.2016 in Writ Petition (C)No.28834 of 2004. Facts in brief 4. The facts giving rise to the present dispute are that GDA launched a scheme known as Shastri Nagar Housing Scheme. The allottee had applied for a High Income Group Duplex "A" Category of house under hirepurchase scheme. Vide letter dated 05.10.1994, the allottee was informed of the allotment of House No.E376. The estimated cost of the house was mentioned as Rs. 4,33,248/. The allottee had already paid the registration amount of Rs. 5,000/and the balance registration amount of Rs. 38,325/was required to be deposited within a week from the issuance of letter dated 05.10.1994 by which the allotment was made. The remaining amount was to be paid in accordance with a payment schedule which had to be notified at a later date. The terms and conditions of allotment letter included that in the eventuality of default in payment to GDA within the prescribed time limit, a penal interest of 21% per annum would follow. Fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2018 before the Allahabad High Court for prayer of Writ of Certiorari for quashing the said letter dated 10.01.2018 and mandamus for not dispossessing her from the property in question. Adjudicating upon the said matter, the Allahabad High Court disposed of the writ petition by granting material relief to the allottee without issuance of notice to GDA on the first material date of hearing itself. This disposal of writ petition by the Allahabad High Court is in essence a nullification of the order dated 17.05.2016 of its own coordinate Bench in Writ Petition (C) No. 28834 of 2004. The High Court passed directions for acceptance of amount by the GDA and thereby regularized the allotment, the cancellation of which had been 6 upheld by a coordinate Bench of the same High Court on 17.05.2016. It is against this writ petition, that special leave petitions have been filed by both the GDA and the allottee as Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11206 of 2018 and 12881 of 2018 respectively. Contentions on behalf of the appellants 10. The broad contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel on behalf of GDA are threefold. 11. Firstly, it is contended that via the detailed judgement of 17.05.2016 passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs which led to cancellation of allotment by the GDA. It is only on the subsequent representation being made to the GDA that a direction was issued to deposit Rs. 20,00,000/within 15 days for the restoration of the cancelled allotment. In the light of this factual matrix it becomes clear that the allottee has not honored the stipulations of the hirepurchase scheme under which allotment of House No. E376 was made to her. 18. Pursuant to this came the first round of litigation wherein the Writ Petition (Civil) No.28834 of 2004 was filed in the Allahabad High Court by the allottee, challenging the order of GDA seeking payment of Rs. 20,00,000/within 15 days for the 9 restoration of the cancelled allotment. This writ petition eventually culminated in an order dated 17.05.2016 wherein the same was dismissed for having no merit after a detailed reasoning and imposition of cost of Rs. 5,000/on the allottee. Despite the final order of the High Court, the allottee continued with the unauthorized possession of the property. This is indicative of the lack of bona fides on part of the allottee. 19. Accordingly, the GDA issued a letter to the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad dated 10.01.2018 fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any right, title or interest. Thus, both are liable to pay the damages for unauthorised occupation and DDA is empowered under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 to claim damages from them. We record this finding in exercise of our appellate power in view of our finding and reasons assigned in this judgment holding that the concurrent finding is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law in granting decree of permanent injunction in favour of the respondent who is not entitled in law for the same. There is a miscarriage of justice in granting the relief by the courts below in favour of the respondent. Further, keeping in view the public interest involved in this case and particularly having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we have to allow this appeal of DDA. 39. Since we have answered the points framed in this appeal in favour of the appellant DDA, we further, direct DDA to take possession of the property immediately without resorting to eviction proceedings, as the respondent has been in unauthorised possession of the property in question, by virtue of erroneous judgments passed by the courts be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
