Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, JJ.
Prasanna Narayan – Appellant
Versus
Jharkhand State Housing Board – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 221 of 2021
Decided On : 01-09-2023
Cancellation of Allotment - Housing Board - Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000, Regulation of 2004 - Section 28(3), Clause 30, Clause 2(xxxi), Clause 30(Ga), Clause 36 - The court discussed the cancellation of the allotment of 'chhitput plot' (cut plot) in favor of the appellant, highlighting the provisions of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000 and the Regulation of 2004. The court emphasized the distinction between private lease and government lease, citing relevant judgments and legal principles. The court found that the allotment of the plot to the appellant was in violation of the Regulation of 2004 and was obtained by misrepresentation, justifying the cancellation of the allotment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's appeal was filed against the judgment dismissing the writ petition filed to challenge the Housing Board's cancellation of the allotment of 'chhitput plot' (cut plot) in her name and handing it over to another party for construction of flats under Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category. The appellant had been allotted a LIG house, which was subsequently cancelled due to non-execution of the agreement. The appellant was then allotted the 'chhitput plot' near her existing house, but the Housing Board later issued a show-cause notice alleging violations and subsequently cancelled the allotment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allotment of the 'chhitput plot' to the appellant was in violation of the Regulation of 2004 and was obtained by misrepresentation, justifying the cancellation of the allotment. The court also rejected the appellant's argument that the cancellation required a declaration from a competent civil court, citing relevant legal principles and distinguishing judgments. The court concluded that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it.
Issues: The issues involved the cancellation of the allotment of the 'chhitput plot' to the appellant, the applicability of the Regulation of 2004, and the requirement for a declaration from a civil court for cancellation of the allotment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the allotment of the 'chhitput plot' to the appellant was in violation of the Regulation of 2004 and was obtained by misrepresentation, justifying the cancellation of the allotment. The court also emphasized the distinction between private lease and government lease, citing relevant legal principles and distinguishing judgments.
Final Decision: The court found no merit in the appellant's appeal and dismissed it, upholding the cancellation of the allotment of the 'chhitput plot' in favor of the appellant.
ORDER :
1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 22nd March 2021 passed in W.P. (C) No. 4880 of 2019 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
3. The writ petition was filed by the appellant dismissing the order of the Housing Board cancelling the allotment of ‘chhitput plot’ (cut plot) in her name and handing over the same to the respondent no. 5 vide letter no. 537 dated 03rd August 2019 for construction of flats over the same under Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category.
4. It is not in dispute that the appellant was allotted a LIG house being LRA-51 vide allotment letter no. 186 dated 30th May 1992 pursuant to her application dated 16th March 1985 under the Scheduled Caste category. The said allotment was subsequently cancelled due to the non-execution of the agreement by the appellant. However, the said house was re-allotted in favour of the appellant, and possession of the same was handed over on 3rd June 2018 and a registered lease-deed was also executed.
5. The State of Jharkhand in the exercise of its powers conferred under section 28(3) of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000 framed the Jharkhand State Housing Board (Management and Disposal of Housing Estate) Regulation, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation of 2004). Clause 30 of the said Regulation provides for allotment of ‘chhitput plot’ (cut plot) to an adjacent existing allottee who has sought allotment of such type of plot. The appellant filed an application dated 21st March 2009 for allotment of ‘chhitput plot’ (cut plot) measuring an area of 2500 square feet which was situated near her existing house being LRA-51. Thereafter, a report was submitted by the Executive Engineer as required under Clause 30 of the Regulation of 2004 and vide letter no. 295 dated 03rd March 2010 and the said ‘chhitput plot’ (cut plot) was allotted in favour of the appellant on payment of commercial rate but she was restrained from using the said plot for any commercial purpose. The appellant deposited the requisite amount and thereafter a hire purchase agreement dated 12th October 2010 was executed between the appellant and the Housing Board. Possession of the said ‘chhitput plot’ (cut plot) was also handed over to the appellant on 21st October 2010 and a registered deed of lease was executed by the Housing Board in favour of the appellant on 27th November 2010.
6. In the year 2015, the Managing Director of the Housing Board issued a show-cause notice to the appellant vide Memo No. 324 dated 10th March 2015 directing the appellant to explain why the restoration of allotment of the house being LRA-51 be not cancelled alleging that re-allocation was made in contravention of Clause 8 (Gh) and 9 (Kh) of the Regulation of 2004. The appellant was also directed vide said show-cause notice to explain why the allotment of ‘chhitput plot’ (cut plot) near her house being LRA-51 be not cancelled as the allotment letter no. 295 dated 3rd March 2010 was issued in contravention of Clause 2(xxxi), 8(Gh), 9(Kh), 30(Ga) and 30(Gh) of the Regulation of 2004. The appellant filed a reply to the said show-cause notice on 30th March 2015. The appellant was not served with any order passed by the Housing Board, rather vide letter no. 537 dated 03rd August 2019, the said ‘chhitput plot’ (cut plot) was allotted to respondent no. 5 for the construction of flats under Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category over it.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition was filed for the following reliefs:
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of government lease, governed by statutory regulations, can be justified if the allotment was obtained by misrepresentation o....
The Housing Board's cancellation of plot allotment was invalid due to lack of notice and failure to follow due process, violating principles of natural justice.
Future acquisitions are not prohibited, and eligibility is to be seen at the relevant date. Allegations of transfer of leasehold rights require supporting evidence.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that allotments obtained by misrepresentation or fraud can be cancelled without limitation, and such allotments do not confer any title over the pr....
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
