M. KATJU, J. Both these writ petitions are being disposed off by a common judgment. 2. Writ Petition No. 29721 of 1991 has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 21-10-1991 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and for a mandamus directing the respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from the accommodation 14 L. I. G. Katju Nagar, Awas Yojana, Allahabad. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 4. It is alleged in para 2 of the petition that the petitioner in pursuance to an advertisement applied for the allotment of a suitable Lower Income Group (L. I. G.) accommodation, and accordingly respondent Allahabad Development Authority (A. D. A.) by order dated 5-5-1990 allotted premises No. 85, L. I. G. Katju Ki Bagiya Housing Scheme. Photocopy of the allotment order is Annexure-1 to the petition. The terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase Scheme are mentioned in the allotment order dated 5-5- 1990. It is mentioned therein that the estimated cost of the flat is Rs. 80,000. 00 approximately which is likely to increase or decrease at the time of final costing. It is also stated therein that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 1,500. 00 as registration amount, and the balance amount is Rs. 78,500. 00. The petitioner had to pay 25% of the balance amount which comes to Rs. 19625. 00 upto 4-6-1990. The remaining amount of Rs. 58,875. 00 was payable by the petitioner with 15. 5% interest in 180 monthly instalments of Rs. 845. 00. In case of default of the payment of the installments the money with penal interest at 15% shall be payable. The instalments had to be paid every month from the date of possession. The possession of the allotted flat shall be handed over after depositing the money required, and in case of any increase or decrease of the cost at the time of final costing, the increased cost shall be payable in one installment. Since the flat was constructed on leasehold land and the petitioner had to pay pre-paid lease rent being 10% of the proportionate land cost in lump sum for the lease period of 90 years. The petitioner was informed by the letter that if he fails to deposit Rs. 19,625. 00 by 4-6-1990, the allotment of the flat will be cancelled, and the registration money will be forfeited. 5. The petitioner was informed by the letter that if he fails to deposit Rs. 19,625. 00 by 4-6-1990, the allotment of the flat will be cancelled, and the registration money will be forfeited. 5. It is alleged in para 4 of the petition that thereafter the petitioner applied for change of the accommodation and as such the premises No. 85 L. I. G. was changed to premises No. 14 L. I. G. by the respondent, and the petitioner had to pay 2% transfer fee. True copy of the order of change of accommodation is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 6. In para 5 it is alleged that the petitioner was given possession of the said accommodation 14 L. I. G. on 2-8-1991. True copy of the possession letter dated 1-8-1991 is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 7. In para 7 of the petition it is alleged that the petitioner had paid a total amount of Rs. 24,425. 00. The details are given in the said paragraph. The petitioner had paid house tax, water tax etc. 8. In para 9 of the petition it is alleged that to the utter surprise of the petitioner, her allotment was cancelled by order of the Secretary, A. D. A. dated 21-10-1991 vide Annexure-5 to the petition. 9. It is alleged in para 11 of the petition that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before cancellation, and no reason has been given, hence this writ petition. 10. A counter-affidavit filed by Smt. Sobha Tripathi who is the petitioner in connected writ petition No. 34753 of 1991. 11. In para 3 of the same it is alleged that the allotment of the plot to the petitioner was absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction. Allotment of the flat is governed by the statutory rules and regulations framed by the Allahabad Development Authority. The petitioner was employed only on daily wages, and a daily wager is not a member of the service or establishment. In para 4 it is alleged that a flat in question was allotted to Smt. Sobha Tripathi and hence it could not have been allotted to the petitioner. Hence it was validly cancelled. It is denied that the possession of the accommodation was delivered to the petitioner Km. Sujata Sinha. In para 4 it is alleged that a flat in question was allotted to Smt. Sobha Tripathi and hence it could not have been allotted to the petitioner. Hence it was validly cancelled. It is denied that the possession of the accommodation was delivered to the petitioner Km. Sujata Sinha. Annexure-2 is not the memo of possession but only an order permitting change of allotment of house from 85 to 14 L. I. G. and only a paper transaction. 12. In para 6 of the same it is denied that the petitioner was residing in the house in dispute. It is stated that delivery of possession was a mere paper transaction. In para 7 it is stated since Sujata Sinha was not an employee of the authority, she could not have been allotted any house either house No. 85 or house No. 14 L. I. G. Hence the allotment was illegal and void. Hence there is no question of affording an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was in fact an unlawful occupant. Moreover, the house in question was allotted to Smt. Sobha Tripathi and unless that allotment was cancelled it could not have been allotted to the petitioner. 13. A counter-affidavit has already been filed by the A. D. A. , and we have perused the same. 14. In para 4 of the same it is denied that the petitioner was given physical possession of the said accommodation of 14 L. I. G. Possession letter was issued to the petitioner inadvertently by the office of A. D. A. because the premises No. 14 had already been allotted to Smt. Sobha Tripathi by the Secretary, A. D. A. When the mistake was detected by the officer the allotment was cancelled. It is stated that on 25-10-1991 the Secretary, A. D. A. directed that the possession of the 14 L. I. G. may not be given to anyone. The impugned order was passed by the Secretary, A. D. A. in pursuance of the order dated 24-10- 1991 passed by the Vice- Chairman, A. D. A. The aforesaid L. I. G. 14 was allotted to Smt. Sobha Tripathi on 10-5-1990, i. e. earlier to the allotment in favour of the petitioner. Photostat copy of the order of the Secretary, A. D. A. dated 25-10-1991 is Annexure-CA-1. 15. Photostat copy of the order of the Secretary, A. D. A. dated 25-10-1991 is Annexure-CA-1. 15. In para 6 it is denied that the physical possession of the accommodation was neither given to the petitioner Sujata Sinha nor is she living therein. It is stated that the petitioner does not have electric connection. Water tax and house tax was assessed prior to the order dated 25-10-1991 when the mistake about the allotment of L. I. G. 14 was detected. Hence house tax and water tax adjustment does not entitle to the petitioner to claim ownership of the house. 16. It is alleged in para 8 that the cancellation order was perfectly legal and in accordance with law, and was passed when the mistake of allotment of LIG 14 was detected. The office of A. D. A. inadvertently accepted some of the instalments from the petitioner, but when irregularity was found the office has stopped accepting any instalment from the petitioner. 17. From the facts of the case, it appears that allotment of L. I. G. 14 was made in favour of Smt. Sobha Tripathi on 10-5-1990. As regards Km. Sujata Sinha she was allotted the accommodation at 85 L. I. G. on 5-5-1990. Since Sobha Tripathi did not pay instalments in time hence her allotment was cancelled. Thereafter Sujata Sinha applied for change of allotment from 85 L. I. G. to 14 L. I. G. , and the order of change of allotment was passed on 11-10- 1990, by which 14 L. I. G. was allotted in favour of Sujata Sinha. However, thereafter the allotment committee of A. D. A. restored the allotment of 14 L. I. G. in favour of Sobha Tripathi vide Annexure CA-4 to the counter-affidavit in writ petition No. 34753 of 1991. 18. In writ petition No. 34753 of 1991, Smt. Sobha Tripathi v. A. D. A. and others, it is stated therein that except premises No. 14 L. I. G. other premises were allotted to different persons including employees of the A. D. A. on hire purchase basis. In para 3 of the petition it is stated that premises No. 14 was allotted to the petitioner Sobha Tripathi on lottery system by order dated 7-5-1990. Other premises in the yojya were allotted to different persons by the A. D. A. through same order dated 7-5-1990. In para 3 of the petition it is stated that premises No. 14 was allotted to the petitioner Sobha Tripathi on lottery system by order dated 7-5-1990. Other premises in the yojya were allotted to different persons by the A. D. A. through same order dated 7-5-1990. The letter dated 7- 5-1990 was signed on the abovementioned date but it was originally typed as 5-5- 1990 and in some allotment orders the date was corrected by hand as 10-5-1990. Photocopy of the allotment order originally typed as 5-5-1990 having been corrected as 10-5-1990 signed on 7-5-1990 is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 19. In para 5 of the writ petition it is stated that Km. Sujata Sinha is not a permanent employee of the Allahabad Development Authority but she was a daily wager who was engaged for specified work and days. Hence she was not entitled for the accommodation in the awas Yojna which was meant for employees of A. D. A. Respondent No. 3 Sujata Sinha was allotted the premises No. 85 L. I. G. by letter dated 5-5-1990. 20. In para 7 to 13 of the petition it is stated that after allotment of premises No. 14 of the yojna, by means of an application the petitioner requested the Secretary of respondent No. 1 to extend the period of one year for depositing the amount of instalment vide para 8 to the petition. In the letter dated 30-5-1990, the petitioner stated that premises No. 14 L. I. G. was not ready for delivery of possession to the petitioner because the premises was not complete. The petitioner prayed that she may be allowed to deposit the remaining amount of instalments upto July. The Secretary, A. D. A. was pleased to order for deposit of Rs. 5,000 as prayed by the petitioner and the period of one year was also extended for depositing the balance amount in pursuance of the direction of the Secretary, A. D. A. It is alleged in para 11 of the petition that the premises was ready for delivery of possession in the month of June, 1991 and the petitioner approached respondent No. 1 for delivery of possession. However, petitioner was informed that allotment of premises No. 14 in her favour had been cancelled. However, petitioner was informed that allotment of premises No. 14 in her favour had been cancelled. It is alleged that the Joint Secretary has no authority to cancel the allotment order and it was passed in violation of natural justice as no show-cause notice was given to the petitioner. However, it is admitted in the counter-affidavit (vide para 8) that subsequently the allotment committee of A. D. A. restored the allotment of Sobha Tripathi. It is stated that illegally the premises No. 14 L. I. G. was allotted in favour of Sujata Sinha. 21. A short counter-affidavit has been filed by the A. D. A. In para 5 it is stated that Sobha Tripathi was allottee of flat No. 14 but as stated in para 6 she was defaulter in payment of instalments and hence a show-cause notice dated 18-8-1990 was issued to her by A. D. A. but despite receipt of the said notice she did not pay costs of the flat. Hence the A. D. A. cancelled the allotment of flat No. 14 L. I. G. and allotted it to Sujata Sinha and she was put in possession of the same on 2-8-1991 vide Annexure-CA 1 and CA 2 respectively. 22. Smt. Sobha Tripathi applied for restoration of flat No. 14 in her favour and on that application the Secretary, A. D. A. passed an order dated 16-7-1991 calling for a report vide Annexure CA 3. On 7-8-1991 the office of A. D. A. reported that allotment of flat No. 14 in the name of Smt. Sobha Tripathi had been cancelled on account of failure to deposit the agreed amount. However, the allotment Committee of A. D. A. , passed the order dated 14-10-1991 ordering restoration of L. I. G. No. 14 to Smt. Sobha Tripathi. Copy of the order of the allotment Committee dated 14-10-1991 is Annexure CA 4. 23. In our opinion, highly disputed question of facts are involved in this case, as the facts narrated above reveal. Even the Nagar Awas Yojna (Housing Scheme) L. I. G. Katju Ki Bagiya has not been filed with any of the affidavits in these petitions. Copy of the order of the allotment Committee dated 14-10-1991 is Annexure CA 4. 23. In our opinion, highly disputed question of facts are involved in this case, as the facts narrated above reveal. Even the Nagar Awas Yojna (Housing Scheme) L. I. G. Katju Ki Bagiya has not been filed with any of the affidavits in these petitions. We do not know whether Sujata Sinha was entitled for allotment of 14 L. I. G. , particularly when it has been alleged that she was only a daily-wager and not a regular employee of A. D. A. We also do not know whether the allotment committee was entitled to restore the allotment in favour of Sobha Tripathi after it had been cancelled for non-payment of instalments. There are a large number of other disputed questions of fact involved in these two petitions and in our opinion writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for this purpose. 24. We, therefore, dispose off both these writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Vice Chairman A. D. A. who will examine the entire matter and look into the relevant rules and documents and thereafter decide whether Sujata Sinha or Sobha Tripathi was entitled to allotment of 14 L. I. G. or whether none of them was entitled for the same. The Vice-Chairman shall give his decision preferably within three months from the date of production of the judgment before him. The Vice Chairman shall also give opportunity of hearing to Sujata Sinha and Sobha Tripathi and others concerned in this connection. Petition disposed off. .