SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Jhk) 623

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Bibhash Chandra Mishra – Petitioner
Versus
Jharkhand State Housing Board – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 4870 of 2022
Decided On : 19-12-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Siddhartha Ranjan.
For the Respondent: Sachin Kumar, Surabhi.

Headnote:

Allotment - Low Income Group Flat - Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000, Regulations 1983, Regulations 2004 - The court discussed the allotment of a low-income group flat, the cancellation of the allotment, and the subsequent eviction order. The key legal provisions discussed were the Regulations 1983 and 2004, the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000, and the principles of natural justice. The court found that the allotment was made contrary to the purpose and object for which it was constructed, and the petitioner failed to challenge the cancellation of the allotment within a reasonable period. The court also dismissed the claim for regularization of the flat in favor of the petitioner.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was allotted a low-income group flat on a monthly rental basis, which was later cancelled, and an eviction order was issued. The petitioner argued that the allotment was not unauthorized and that the Managing Director exceeded his jurisdiction. The respondents argued that the allotment was made without following due procedure and that the petitioner failed to appear in the eviction proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allotment was made contrary to the purpose for which the flat was constructed, and the petitioner failed to challenge the cancellation of the allotment within a reasonable period. The court also dismissed the claim for regularization of the flat in favor of the petitioner.

Issues: The issues included the validity of the allotment, the jurisdiction of the Managing Director, and the petitioner's failure to challenge the cancellation of the allotment within a reasonable period.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allotment was made contrary to the purpose and object for which the flat was constructed, and the petitioner failed to challenge the cancellation of the allotment within a reasonable period.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 458/Aa dated 15.04.2015 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 2- the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi, whereby allotment of Low Income Group Flat No. R302 (hereinafter referred to as “the said flat”) situated at Harmu Housing Colony, Ranchi in favour of the petitioner vide letter no. 593/Aa dated 25.10.2002, has been cancelled. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents either to allow the petitioner to stay in the said flat on monthly rental basis as per the agreement of allotment executed between the parties on 24.01.2003 or to make allotment of the said flat in favour of the petitioner on Hire Purchase basis since he has incurred considerable expenses in maintaining the said flat. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 22.06.22 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 4-Competent Authority, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi whereby he has been directed to vacate the said flat.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that various houses/flats under the jurisdiction of Jharkhand State Housing Board (JSHB) remained un-allotted for years after construction which were also in unauthorized occupation and during the year 2002, it was not possible for the JSHB to allot or sale such houses/flats permanently, due to which their condition were deteriorating as well as no revenue was being received by the Board from such houses/flats. Hence, in order to save those from further deterioration as well as to get rid of unauthorized occupants, the petitioner was allotted one of the flats i.e. LIG-R-302 at Harmu Housing Colony, Ranchi on monthly rental basis vide letter no. letter no. 593/Aa dated 25.10.2002 issued under the signature of the respondent no. 2. Thereafter, on deposit of advance rent, an agreement for the said flat was executed between the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 the Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi on 24.01.2003 and vide memo no. 96 dated 25.01.2003, possession of the same was directed to be handed over to the petitioner which was occupied by him on 08.02.2003. Since then, the petitioner has been residing in the said flat and is paying monthly rent to the Board. Surprisingly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 2 vide memo no. 549 dated 01.04.2015 calling upon him as to why allotment of the said flat be not cancelled and the same be not vacated considering that the allotment made on 25.10.2002 was against the provisions of clause 2(xi) and (xx), 6, 7 and 25 (i), (ii) and (iv) of the Jharkhand State Housing Board (Management and Settlement of Residential Real Estate) Regulations, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations 2004”). The petitioner submitted his reply before the respondent no. 2 on 11.04.2015 stating that when the flat was allotted to him, it was in dilapidated condition and he had to incur considerable expenses in renovating the same with the consent of the Board and as such, the said flat may be allotted to him on hire purchase basis. However, the respondent no. 2 arbitrarily cancelled the allotment of the said flat vide memo no. 458/Aa dated 15.04.2015. The respondent no. 3 issued Notice No. 445 dated 09.05.2015 to the petitioner under Section 83(A) of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2000”) and directed him to vacate the said flat within 10 days as well as to deposit penalty with the respondent no. 3 for the damages caused due to said unauthorized occupation, failing which a case would be registered against the petitioner before the respondent no. 4 under Section 59 of the Act, 2000 for removal of unauthorized occupation and payment of damages.

3. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot be said to be in unauthorized occupation as he has not viola

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top