Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 73 (ALL)

Sheela Devi v. Special/A. D. and S. J.

2014-01-08

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. The writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 25.5.1989 passed by Revisional Court, i.e. Special/Additional District Judge, Saharanpur allowing Rent Revision No. 29 of 1984 preferred by Sri Ravindra Kumar Talwar, respondent no. 2, and setting aside order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer (hereinafter referred to as "RCEO") dated 16.1.1984 remanding him to reconsider the matter in the light of the order dated 1.5.1970 already passed in favour of Revisionist, Ravindra Kumar Talwar, respondent no. 2. 2. It appears that an order of allotment was passed in favour of respondent no. 3 on 1.5.1970. The Landlord Dr. Harish Chandra, moved an application seeking cancellation of allotment dated 1.5.1970. When the said matter was pending, the allottee, Ravindra Kumar Talwar, moved a Transfer Application before Additional District Magistrate, who, by order dated 24.12.1970 transferred the case to the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saharanpur from the Court of RCEO. It is this order of transfer of case, which was challenged in Writ Petition No. 741 of 1971 on the ground that Additional District Magistrate and RCEO are the Officers of co-ordinate jurisdiction, therefore, Additional District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to transfer the case from Court of RCEO to Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The contention was sustained by this Court and Writ Petition was allowed quashing the aforesaid order of Transfer dated 24.12.1970. This Court permitted the RCEO to himself look into the pending application for cancellation of allotment order moved by landlord. When this matter was pending, without recalling the allotment order dated 1.5.1970, another order was passed by RCEO on 16.1.1984 allotting accommodation in question in favour of petitioner, Smt. Sheela Devi with the consent of landlord. It is this order, which was challenged in Revision and has been set aside by Revisional Court observing that since there was already an order of allotment dated 1.5.1970 in favour of Ravindra Kumar Talwar, it was not open to RCEO to pass another order of allotment on 16.1.1984, and, that too, in the collusion with landlord in favour of petitioner, Smt. Sheela Devi. 3. It is not disputed before this Court that the allotment order dated 1.5.1970 has not been set aside so far. 3. It is not disputed before this Court that the allotment order dated 1.5.1970 has not been set aside so far. That being so, I do not find any authority or jurisdiction vested with the RCEO to pass a fresh order of allotment, since, once the building has been allotted in favour of a person, it was not available for fresh allotment subsequently, in favour of another person, unless the earlier allotment order is revoked, or set aside in accordance with law. 4. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned revisional order warranting interference. 5. The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed.