Back
2013 Supreme(All) 916
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rajiv Sharma, Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi, JJ.
S.N.A.Rizvi -Appellant
Versus
U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others -Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5984 (Mb) of 2000
Decided On : 22-03-2013
Vishal Singh , R.K. Choudhary for the Petitioner; Mahesh Chandra, C.S.C., R.K. Mehrotra , Shailendra Singh Chauhan for the Respondents.
Property disputes fall under the jurisdiction of the civil court and should be addressed through civil litigation.
Headnote:
Bank Draft - Property Dispute - Section 9 C.P.C - The court discussed the regulations and rules governing the allotment of a house, emphasizing that mere deposit of a bank draft does not constitute an allotment order. It highlighted the need for proper procedures, advertisement, and acceptance of offers for allotment. The court also pointed out that the dispute related to the right to hold property, which falls under the jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 9 C.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Scientist, deposited a bank draft for a house but faced disputes over the allotment. The court found that the writ petition lacked merit and advised the petitioner to approach the civil court for property rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the dispute was a civil matter related to property rights and did not fall under the purview of the writ jurisdiction.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the writ petition in addressing a property dispute, and the court's finding emphasized the need for approaching the civil court for such matters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the understanding that property disputes are civil matters falling under the jurisdiction of the civil court, and the writ jurisdiction was not suitable for addressing such disputes.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the court.
1. A peculiar prayer has been made through this writ petition on the averments of strange facts having eccentric variations and omissions in relation to the predicted pattern.
2. The petitioner, a Scientist in the Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow had deposited 40,000/- through Bank Draft in the office of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad. He alleges that the said Bank Draft was received by opposite party no. 2, who was a daily wage employee of opposite party no. 1. The petitioner further alleges that he has deposited the same Bank Draft as against the allotment of House No. D-1395/8, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. In lieu thereof, the opposite party delivered possession of the said house to the petitioner on 01.03.1998 and, since then, the petitioner is living in the house peacefully. But some manipulations were made in the office of the opposite party No. 1 and the Bank Draft deposited by the petitioner as contained in Annexure No. 1 was deposited in the name of opposite party no. 2, who is an ad-hoc employee of opposite party No. 1. That the price of the house, in question was Rs. 1,10,000/-. When the remaining amount was not accepted by the opposite party no. 1, the petitioner moved a representation dated 19.11.1999 as contained in Annexure No. 2 to the Commissioner, U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, who, in turn, referred the matter to Joint Housing Commissioner (Vigilance) as contained in Annexure No. 3, resulting in some enquiry. Upon enquiry, it was found that it is a matter of forgery as is evident from the copy of enquiry report as contained in Annexure No. 4. The petitioner, again moved an application to the Chairman of Opposite No. 1, as contained in Annexure No. 5. Ultimately, the petitioner was informed through letter contained in Annexure No. 7. Upon enquiry, it was found that it is a matter of personal give and take between the petitioner and Opposite party no. 2. The petitioner has come to this court for quashing of Annexure No. 7. Affidavits and counter affidavits have been exchanged.
3. We have heard both the parties and have gone through the records.
4. It is true that a Bank Draft of Rs. 40,000/- was deposited by the petitioner in the Office of opposite party no. 1, but the petitioner has failed to show as to how and in what connection the said Bank Draft was deposited by him. The opposite party No. 1 is an autonomous body run by the Government of U.P., which has its rules and regulations. Allotment of a house is regulated by various Regulations and Rules. Mere deposit of a Bank Draft does not, ipso facto become an allotment order, nor this Bank Draft shows as to why it was deposited and in what connection. The prevalent procedure is that the plots/houses when put to sale are being advertised properly, which is an "invitation to offer" to the general public for allotment of a particular plot/house. When the said offer of a particular person is accepted, it is followed by letter of acceptance and then consideration is passed. Mere passing of consideration, no presumption can be drawn in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, if the contents of the petition are considered to be true to the hilt, it becomes a civil dispute which relate to right to hold property which is obviously a civil right for which the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach the Civil Court in original jurisdiction under Section 9 C.P.C which says that the civil court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
5. We are unable to understand the reason behind filing of this writ petition, by which no relief, directly or indirectly regarding the right over house no. D- 1395/8 can be granted. A simple certiorari has been sought for quashing the order dated 23.09.2000 as contained in Annexure No. 1. The said letter shows nothing except that it has been found upon enquiry that there appears to be a matter of pers
