9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for nonpayment of the same in time also attracted a penal interest at the rate of 21%. The fact on record as alleged is that the respondent failed to make payment of substantial amount to the GDA. It is alleged that the husband of the respondent - Chandra Pal Singh was posted in U.P. Police and by influence of his position, she continued in unauthorised possession of said house. 6. In light of the nonpayment of any amount by the allottee after 19.05.1998 for a period of almost three and half years, GDA treated the allotment cancelled. However, on the representation made by the allottee subsequently, a direction was made by GDA dated 07.05.2004 regarding depositing of ₹ 20,00,000/( Rupees twenty lakhs) within 15 days for the restoration of the cancelled allotment. 7. The respondent herein challenged the said cancellation of allotment by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 28834 of 2004 before the Allahabad High Court. The Allahabad High Court vide interim order 5 dated 29.07.2004 directed the GDA not to take coercive measures for 6 weeks, if the respondent deposits ₹ 2 lakhs. This writ petition was dismissed finally by a detailed order dated 17.05.2016 with cost of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atements made by the counsel. They assert that GDA had not issued any instructions regarding compromise of the matter and had notices been issued, the truth could have been discerned. Contentions on behalf of the respondent 14. On the other hand, the learned counsel on behalf of the allottee has made twofold submissions. 15. Firstly, it is a settled law that a person in peaceful and settled possession cannot be forcefully dispossessed. The allottee claims its possession by virtue of allotment letter dated 05.10.1994 which was lawfully issued by the GDA. Accordingly, it is pleaded that there could be no dispossession except by due process of law. 16. Secondly, it is contended that the appellants owing to their own act of negligence, arbitrarily demanded exorbitant price of the property, and, thereafter forcibly sought to dispossess the allottee. REASONING 17. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prescribed time limits failing which a penal interest at the rate of 21% would be charged, and, further, if default continues for a further period of three months from due date, inclusive of penal interest, then the allotment shall be treated as cancelled. The conduct of the allottee as evident from paragraphs 17 and 18 not only fall foul of the terms and conditions envisaged under the allotment letter issued under the hirepurchase scheme but also shows that she has approached the Court with unclean hands. With reference to the possession of the allottee, the eviction was sought pursuant to the order of the Allahabad High Court dated 17.05.2016 which upheld the cancellation of the allotment, and, thus, fulfils the due process of law requirement. 21. 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. We find support for the abovementioned proposition in Delhi Development Authority v. Anant Raj Agencies (P) Ltd.(2016) 11 SCC 406) wherein this Hon'ble Court speaking by Justice V. Gopala Gowda has noted that, "38. The original lessee has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rocess of law. 23. At this juncture, we found that the effect of the disposal of Writ Petition Civil No.7928 of 2018 by the Allahabad High Court is in essence a nullification of the order dated 17.05.2016 in Writ Petition Civil No.28834/04 of its own coordinate Bench. This approach is highly condemnable as, firstly, it is against judicial propriety to issue orders contrary to the orders of its own coordinate Bench, as the same had attained finality. Judicial discipline mandates respecting of orders of coordinate Benches of the High Court. Secondly, the manner in which the order is made without even issuance of notice to the GDA on the first material date of hearing goes against the cherished Principle of Natural Justice, audi alteram partem, the right to fair hearing. This is of immense importance visàvis the assertion of the GDA that it had not issued any instructions regarding compromise of the matter that was ordered by the Allahabad High Court in its abovementioned order. Had the rule of audi alteram partem been followed and notices issued, the truth could have been discerned. 24. Thus, in light of the observations made above, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
