ORDER

Per: Justice Anand Pathak

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, appeal is heard finally.

2. The present Writ Appeal under section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 20.9.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.1617/2013, whereby petition filed by the petitioner (respondent no.1 herein) has been allowed.

3. Precisely stated facts of the case are that a Scheme was floated by the appellant - M.P.Housing and Infrastructure Development Board at Pt. Dindayal Nagar, Gwalior for allotment of plots to the members of SC ST community. Since the petitioner belongs to the SC community, therefore, he applied for the same. Initially, installment of Rs.2,400/- was paid and as per allotment letter dt.15.7.2003 (Annexure P/3), petitioner was allotted a plot No. EE-613 subject to certain conditions including the payment of Rs.17,202/- in total as cost of the plot. Since the petitioner deposited Rs.4,900/- already, therefore, remaining amount of Rs.12,327/- had to be deposited by him within fifteen days. Since the petitioner did not deposit the remaining amount for years together, therefore, Housing Board did not allot him the plot.

4. After nine years, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.7583/2012, in which he raised a plea that he deposited the amount as required but in spite of that, possession over the plot has not been delivered to the petitioner. Considering such factual narration/representation, learned Writ Court vide order dated 19.10.2012 directed the appellant Housing Board to decide the representation preferred by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Said representation was considered by the appellant Housing Board and rejected it vide order dt.4.2.2013 on the ground that remaining amount was never deposited by the petitioner and therefore this prayer can not be considered after around ten years of allotment in the year 2012. Said rejection passed by the Estate Officer of the Housing Board was placed as Annexure P/1 with the writ petition. Said order gave cause of action to the petitioner to prefer another Writ Petition No.1617/2013, the order of which is under challenge in the present Writ Appeal.

5. Before learned Writ Court, it was the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner did not deposit the amount within fifteen days, but there is no stipulation in the allotment order that what would be the effect if the amount is not deposited. Therefore, he may be permitted to re-claim the plot on the basis of allotment order issued in the year 2003.

6. No reply was filed by the M.P.Housing and Infrastructure Development Board in the writ proceeding. It was orally contested.

7. After considering the rival submissions, learned Writ Court passed the impugned order and allowed the petition preferred by the petitioner and the order dated 4.2.2013 was quashed and the matter is relegated back to the Housing Board to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the scheme under which he had earlier been allotted the plot and if any plot is available under the scheme, the Board was directed to allot the plot to the petitioner on such rates as may be fixed by them taking note of the earlier allotment conditions mentioned in the allotment order. It was further directed that if any other plot is not available with them under the said scheme at Pt. Dindayal Nagar, then the petitioner may be given plot in some other scheme in accordance with law.

8. Against such order, appellant/M.P.Housing and Infrastructure Development Board is before this Court.

9. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that allotment order dated 15.7.2003 (Annexure P/3 in the writ petition) was issued to the petitioner with clear stipulation that out of Rs.17,202/-, part payment was made by the petitioner and the remaining amount of