Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1070 (JHR)

Kanhaiya Prasad Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand

2013-09-18

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2013
ORDER This is an application for quashing the order dated 17.06.2011 (Annexure-6), passed by Jharkhand State Housing Board whereby and whereunder, all the allotments of the Flats, on rental basis, had been cancelled and it is ordered that the said Flats will be allotted to different persons on the basis of lottery. 2. It is stated that by Annexure-1, Executive Engineer of Jharkhand State Housing Board, Jamshedpur asked the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1080 because he is occupying Flat No. 7/6 from last six months unauthorizedly. It also stated in the said letter that if petitioner will deposit the rent for six months, then the said Flat will be allotted to him on rent in accordance with law. It appears that thereafter the petitioner deposited Rs. 1080, rent of last six months and thereafter by Annexure-2, the said Flat allotted to him on rent. It is stated that petitioner is residing in that house after taking electrical connection and is paying the rent regularly. It is submitted that thereafter by Annexure-6, suddenly the allotment of Flat No. 7/6 in favour of petitioner on rental basis has been cancelled. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Flat in question, allotted to him by the Divisional Allotment Committee, according to the provisions contained in the Bihar State Housing Board Regulation 1983. Thus, before canceling the aforesaid allotment, it is necessary for the Jharkhand State Housing Board to give notice to the petitioner. It is further submitted that even though it is found that the petitioner is in illegal occupation of the Flat, as per Section 59 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, it is necessary for the Housing Board to initiate a proceeding for eviction against the petitioner. It is submitted that since the Housing Board has not initiated any proceeding under section 59 of the Act, therefore, it cannot evict the petitioner from the Flat in question. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Housing Board, submits that in the instant case, allotment letter as contained in Annexure-2, shows that the same was issued by the Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Jamshedpur. The Executive Engineer has no power to make allotment of any Flat. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Housing Board, submits that in the instant case, allotment letter as contained in Annexure-2, shows that the same was issued by the Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Jamshedpur. The Executive Engineer has no power to make allotment of any Flat. Learned counsel further submits that if any order is without jurisdiction then the same is nullity and no notice is require to be given before canceling the same. Learned counsel further submits that from Annexure-5 and Annexure-6, the order of allotment has been cancelled and petitioner was directed to vacate the quarter voluntarily. If the petitioner will not vacate the quarter then only the Board will take steps for evicting him as per procedure laid down under section 59 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act. 5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. It reveals from Annexure-1 that petitioner was in illegal occupation of flat No. 7/6 from last six months and being so, he gave application before the then Executive Engineer of Jharkhand State Housing Board, Jamshedpur for allotment of that quarter on rental basis. It further appears from Anexure-1 that taking a compassionate view on the application of petitioner, Executive Engineer, allotted the said quarter in favour of petitioner by Annexure-2. There is no stipulation in Annexure-2 to show that before allotment, the matter was placed before the Divisional Allotment Committee as required under Regulation 25 of the Bihar State Housing Board Regulation, 1983 which according to petitioner, adapted in the State of Jharkhand. Aforesaid regulation, shows that the Divisional Allotment Committee is competent to allot flat. The Executive Engineer is merely a convener/member secretary of that committee. Under the said circumstance, I find that the allotment made to the petitioner by Executive Engineer vide letter no. 2048 dated 20.09.2002 is wholly without jurisdiction. 6. It is well settled that if an order is without jurisdiction then the same is nonest in the eye of law. In that view of the matter for canceling the said order, no notice is required to be given to the petitioner. Thus, the first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that annexure-6 has been passed without giving him notice, is wholly misconceived, therefore rejected. 7. In that view of the matter for canceling the said order, no notice is required to be given to the petitioner. Thus, the first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that annexure-6 has been passed without giving him notice, is wholly misconceived, therefore rejected. 7. The second point i.e. the Housing Board has not initiated any proceeding under section 59 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, for evicting the petitioner, appears to be premature, because from perusal of Annexure-5 and Annexure-6, I find that the petitioner has been asked to vacate the quarter within 10 days, otherwise, action will be taken against him. 8. In that view of the matter,, stage for initiating a proceeding under section 59 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, has not riped, on the date when this writ application has been filed. It is admitted that petitioner is still residing in the said quarter though his allotment cancelled on 17.06.2011. Under the said circumstances, I direct the Jharkhand State Housing Board to initiate a proceeding against the petitioner for his eviction as per the provisions, contained under section 59 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act and get the petitioner evicted in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this application is disposed of.