Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 4 (PNJ)

Raj Kaur v. Housing Board Haryana

2004-01-06

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2004
Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders Annexures P1, P3 and P5. The petitioner purchased shop No. 5, Sector 22, Housing Board Colony, Faridabad, measuring 18 sq. yards from the Housing Board, Haryana (for short the Board) in an open auction held in the year 1975 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 45,000/-. As per terms and conditions of the sale a sum of Rs. 6750/- i.e. 15 per cent of the total bid money was paid at the time of auction and another sum of Rs. 6750/- was paid thereafter. The balance 70 per cent of the sale consideration was to be paid within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter dated 24.3.1975 or with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereafter in four educated annual instalments. Physical possession of the shop was handed over to the petitioner immediately after deposit of the requisite 30 per cent of the sale consideration and since then she continued to be in possession of the shop. Further instalments were paid by her. However, an amount of Rs. 16,448.80 remained due from her. The Collector, Faridabad (Respondent No. 3) vide order dated 17.3.1982 (Annexure P1) directed the petitioner to deposit the said sum of Rs. 16,448.80 on or before 30.3.1982 failing which the petitioner would be liable for eviction. The petitioner paid further sum of Rs. 17,700.80 by way of Bank Drafts dated 22.3.1982 (Rs. 9700.80), 9.1.1984 (Rs. 5000/-) and dated 19.1.1984 (Rs. 3000/-). Though the petitioner has paid the entire amount of sale consideration including interest accrued thereon, yet the payment had not been made within the specified period i.e. upto 30.3.1982. Consequently, the Collector (respondent No. 2) vide order dated 11.9.1984 (Annexure P3) ordered the eviction of the petitioner from the shop in dispute. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of eviction passed by the Collector, was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ambala Division vide order dated 17.2.1987 (Annexure P5). To challenge the orders Annexures P1, P3 and P5 the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in this Court. 2. It has been contended by Mr. Arun Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders passed by the authorities concerned have no legal basis. To challenge the orders Annexures P1, P3 and P5 the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in this Court. 2. It has been contended by Mr. Arun Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders passed by the authorities concerned have no legal basis. According to him, the petitioner is not a tenant under the Board but she is the owner of the shop in dispute. He contends that the provisions of Section 51 of the Haryana" Housing Board Act, 1971 are not applicable in the case of petitioner. He contends that once the auction sale is complete, the title in the land or building does not remain with the Government even though a portion of the sale consideration remains unpaid. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Jagdish Chand Radhey Shyam v. The State of Punjab and Ors., A.I.R. 1972 Supreme Court 2587. 3. The contention raised by Mr. Arun Jain, have been vehemently contested by Ms. Mamta Singla, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 51 of the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 (for short the Act) is to the following effect:- "51. Arun Jain, have been vehemently contested by Ms. Mamta Singla, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 51 of the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 (for short the Act) is to the following effect:- "51. Power to evict persons from Board Premises.- (1) If the competent authority is satisfied, - (a) that the person authorised to occupy any Board premises has - (i) not paid rent lawfully due from him in respect of such premises for a period of more than two months; or (ii) sublet, without the permission of the Board the whole or any part of such premises; or (iii) otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms, expressed or implied, under which he is authorised to occupy such premises; or (b) that any person is in authorised occupation of any Board premises; the competent authority may, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force by notice served by post or by affixing a copy of it on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of such premises, or in such other manner as may be prescribed, order that the person as well as any other person, who may be in occupation of the whole or any part of the premises shall vacate them within one month from the date of service of the notice." 5. The afore-mentioned provision relates to the eviction of tenants or any other person who may be in an unauthorised occupation of the premises of the Board. In the present case the petitioner is not a tenant of the Board nor she is in unauthorised occupation of the shop in dispute. She had purchased the shop in question in an open auction held by the Board and the auction sale had been completed when the allotment letter dated 24.3.1975 was issued in her favour. In view of this letter, the petitioner was in occupation of the shop as its owner and not otherwise. Moreover, she has already paid the whole sale consideration with interest accrued thereon, though at a later stage, the money deposited by her had been accepted by the Board, which fact becomes clear from a perusal of the written statement filed on behalf of the Board. Moreover, she has already paid the whole sale consideration with interest accrued thereon, though at a later stage, the money deposited by her had been accepted by the Board, which fact becomes clear from a perusal of the written statement filed on behalf of the Board. In M/s Jagdish Chand Radhey Shyams case (supra) it has been held by their Lordship of the Supreme Court as under:- "Once auction sale of Government land or building is complete the title in the property vests in the purchaser and it cannot be said that the Government remains the owner of the property till full consideration is paid." 6. The afore-quoted dictum of their Lordships of the Supreme Court is fully applicable in the present case. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had not paid the sale consideration. Even when the eviction orders were passed by the authorities, the sale consideration with interest accruing thereon had already been paid by the petitioner. On the auction sale of the shop in dispute, the Board did not remain the owner thereof. The ownership of the shop shifted to the petitioner, even though a portion of the sale consideration remained unpaid. Consequently, I allow the writ petition and quash the orders dated 17.3.1982 (Annexure P1), 11.9.1985 (Annexure P3) and 17.2.1987 (Annexures P5). However, there shall be no order as to costs.