Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Milind N.Jadhav, J.
Sandeep Uttam Bodke - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 558 of 2023
Decided On : 12-10-2023
MHADA - Housing Allotment Cancellation - Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, Regulation 18(1), Regulation 18(4) - The court examined the provisions of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, particularly Regulations 18(1) and 18(4), which govern the cancellation of allotments and the appeal process. The court emphasized the necessity for the Chief Officer to record satisfaction based on fresh evidence before canceling an allotment. The court found that the Chief Officer failed to provide adequate reasoning for the cancellation, violating principles of natural justice, and that the Appellate Authority did not properly consider the petitioner's circumstances, including medical issues and the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns. This lack of due process influenced the court's decision to quash the cancellation order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a flat under the LIG category with MHADA and was successful in the lottery. After several communications regarding document submission and payment, the petitioner faced health issues and was hospitalized. Despite a public notice extending payment deadlines, the petitioner was informed of the cancellation of his allotment due to non-payment. The petitioner appealed the decision, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, leading to the present writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the petitioner's allotment was not justified as the Chief Officer did not record satisfaction as required under Regulation 18(1). The Appellate Authority's dismissal of the appeal lacked proper reasoning and consideration of the petitioner's medical circumstances and the extended payment deadlines due to COVID-19.
Issues: Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's allotment was valid under Regulation 18(1) of the MHADA Regulations, and whether the Appellate Authority properly considered the petitioner's appeal and circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Chief Officer's failure to record satisfaction before canceling the allotment violated the principles of natural justice. Additionally, the Appellate Authority's dismissal of the appeal without adequate reasoning was improper, especially given the petitioner's medical issues and the extended deadlines for payment.
Final Decision: The court quashed the cancellation order and the Appellate Authority's decision, directing the petitioner to deposit the balance amount within a specified time and mandating MHADA to complete the allotment process thereafter.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission by consent of parties.
2. Present Writ Petition is filed by Petitioner under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and takes exception to the impugned communication dtd. 18/4/2022 (Exhibit "M" - page Nos. 98 - 99 of Petition) issued by Respondent No.2 (Deputy Chief Officer - MHADA) intimating decision of Chief Officer MHADA under Regulation 18(1) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development (Disposal of Land) Regulation, 1992 and resultant impugned order dtd. 2/5/2022 (Exhibit "P" - Page Nos.102 - 104 of Petition) passed under Regulation 18(4) of MHADA Regulation by Appellate Authority in Appeal No. ET-205 of 2022.
3. Briefly stated, such of the relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the present Petition are outlined as under:-
3.1. On 23/11/2018, in response to advertisement issued by Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board (for short "MHADA"), Petitioner applied for allotment of flat in Lower Income Group (for short "LIG") category under Scheme 352-PMGP.
3.2. Petitioner was declared successful for allotment of tenement in the lottery.
3.3. On 30/1/2019, MHADA issued first intimation letter of allotment of tenement 2018 informing Petitioner that he was declared successful against Sr. No.19 and called upon him to submit relevant documents for scrutiny. Petitioner was informed that after submission and scrutiny of documents for determining his eligibility by Authorized Officer, provisional allotment letter would be issued.
3.4. On 8/2/2019, Petitioner was once again intimated by letter that he was declared as winner in the lottery and was directed to submit the required documents online.
3.5. On 7/11/2020, Administrative Officer informed Petitioner to cure deficiencies in the documents submitted by him offline.
3.6. On 1/12/2020, Petitioner addressed letter to Administrative Officer, MHADA seeking extension of time to submit documents.
3.7. On 22/1/2021, Authorized Officer issued eligibility letter to Petitioner informing him that on consideration of the documents submitted by him, he was declared as eligible. He was for the first time informed that Unit No.1B-3-303 was allotted to him and on completion of construction of the building, he would be informed about the terms and conditions, consideration payable etc. by provisional offer letter.
3.8. On 4/3/2021, Petitioner was issued provisional offer letter in Form-II under Regulation 17(I) of MHADA Regulations, inter alia, calling upon him to deposit 25% i.e. Rs.7,29,478.5 of total amount payable within a period of 30 days from the end of 15 days of the date of letter dtd. 4/3/2021. It was also informed that he would require to pay the balance 75% amount i.e. Rs.21,88,435.5 within a period of 60 days thereafter.
3.9. On 4/8/2021, Petitioner deposited the amount of Rs.3,90,000.00 by Demand Draft No.015 707 with MHADA.
3.10. On 25/11/2021, MHADA issued a public notice extending the period for deposit of amounts for all allottees who were issued provisional allotment letter between January 2020 and June 2021 upto 16/1/2022, on payment of prevailing interest rate.
3.11. From 22/10/2021 to 30/10/2021 Petitioner was admitted to Medstar Hospital for acute interstitial edematous pancreatitis and enteric fever. Next from 3/12/2021 to 8/12/2021 Petitioner was once again hospitalized in Medstar Hospital for treatment of chronic pancreatitis. The medical history and hospital Reports are placed on record.
3.12. On 30/12/2021, Petitioner addressed letter to MHADA seeking extension of time to pay the balance amount being oblivious of the fact that time was infact extended by MHADA upto 16/1/2022.
3.13. On 18/4/2022, the impugned communication was issued by the Deputy Chief Officer / Marketing Department, MHADA informing Petitioner that Chief Officer, MHADA had cancelled his allotment under Regulation 18(1) since he did not deposit the balance amount
The cancellation of allotment was justified due to the petitioner's failure to comply with payment terms, emphasizing the importance of adhering to auction conditions and public interest.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority's power to condone the delay in exceptional circumstances and restore the plot, as supported by the GMADA Act, 1966, and previous cas....
Timely action against administrative decisions is essential, as courts cannot condone delays after significant lapses, particularly when property rights have transferred.
Failure to adhere to mandatory payment schedules in housing scheme allotments, particularly involving a delay of over three years, constitutes a valid ground for automatic cancellation under contract....
Extension of completion period and waiver of penal interest altered the original terms of the contract, making time no longer the essence of the payment.
The cancellation of land allotment was invalid as the respondents failed to follow due process and were estopped from questioning the allotment after five years of acquiescence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
