Order Per D.N. Patel, J.: 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by original respondent no.3 in the W.P.(C) No. 63 of 2006 as the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 19th February, 2009, which was preferred by present respondent no. 1 (original petitioner) whereby the writ petition was allowed despite the house in question was allotted to this appellant and also despite the fact that without cancelling the allotment letter in favour of this appellant again the same has been re-allotted to respondent no.1 (original petitioner) and that too second allotment by a small employee of the respondent-Housing Board, without authority of the Housing Board. 2. Factual Matrix: ? Quarter no. 42/1/6 situated at Bagbera Housing Colony, Bagbera, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum was allotted to this appellant on 27th May, 1992. This decision was taken by the Bihar State Housing Board in its meeting no. 94/121. ? Thereafter, allotment letter was issued in favour of this appellant, which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. ? Thereafter, Hire Purchase Agreement was also entered into between this appellant and the Bihar State Housing Board on 14th July, 1997 which is at Annexure-2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. ? Necessary legally payable amount has also been paid by this appellant to the Bihar State Housing Board. Receipts of such money are at Annexures-3 and 4 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. ? Despite the allotment was in continuation which is valid in nature, one famous employee of the Housing Board as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, allotted the quarter in question to respondent no. 1 (original petitioner), without approval of the Housing Board. This has created all the disputes between the parties. ? Thus, one house is alloted to two persons. ? Second allotment has been cancelled by the Housing Board on 19th November, 2005 i.e. after couple of months of allotment by the very same famous employee, as alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant. ? This cancellation letter is at Annexure-6 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal which was under challenge in the writ petition preferred by respondent no. ? This cancellation letter is at Annexure-6 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal which was under challenge in the writ petition preferred by respondent no. 1 (original petitioner) and the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition mainly on the ground that without hearing the original petitioner, the allotment was cancelled, but, the same argument is also canvassed by the original allottee of the flat that even without cancelling his allotment, second allotment has been made. ? As the writ petition preferred by respondent no. 1 was allowed by the learned Single Judge, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by respondent no. 3 of the writ petition. 3. Contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant: ? Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this appellant was allotted the house in question on 27th May, 1992 vide order at Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal and, therefore, Hire Purchase Agreement was also entered into on 14th July, 1997 and the legally payable amount has also been paid by this appellant vide Annexures-3 and 4 money receipts. ? It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no allegation by the Bihar State Housing Board that this appellant has committed breach of any conditions of the allotment of the house in question. Neither any notice has been issued to the appellant by the respondent-Housing Board nor allotment made in favour of this appellant by the respondent-Housing Board has been cancelled and without cancelling earlier allotment, second allotment has been made by one employee of the respondent-Housing Board in favour of respondent no. 1 (original petitioner). ? It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that when this mistake was pointed out to the respondent-Housing Board, ultimately after couple of months second allotment letter issued in favour of respondent no. 1 (original petitioner) was cancelled vide order dated 19th November, 2005 (Annexure-6 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). Thus without cancelling earlier allotment, second allotment could not have been made in favour of respondent no. 1 (original petitioner). Moreover without giving any opportunity of being heard to this appellant, his house cannot be allotted to anyone else. 1 (original petitioner) was cancelled vide order dated 19th November, 2005 (Annexure-6 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). Thus without cancelling earlier allotment, second allotment could not have been made in favour of respondent no. 1 (original petitioner). Moreover without giving any opportunity of being heard to this appellant, his house cannot be allotted to anyone else. Moreover, there is no breach of any of the conditions of the allotment by this appellant and never any notice has been given to this appellant by the respondent-Housing Board. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 19th February, 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 63 of 2006 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Contention raised by learned counsel for respondent no. 1: ? It is submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 that as per Annexure- 3 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 63 of 2006, the respondent-Housing Board has allotted the same house in question to respondent no. 1 (original petitioner) vide allotment letter dated 14th June, 2004 and without giving any opportunity of being heard, this allotment was cancelled by the respondent-Housing Board on 19th November, 2005 which is at Annexure-6 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal and, therefore, writ petition was preferred by respondent no.1 (original petitioner) and, hence, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition preferred by the original petitioner. 5. Contention raised by learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3: ? It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Housing Board (earlier it was Bihar State Housing Board) that it is true that the present appellant was allotted house in question earlier in point of time vide allotment letter at Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal and, thereafter, Hire Purchase Agreement was also entered into between this appellant and the respondent-Housing Board which is at Annexure-2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. ? It is further submitted by learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 that it is also an admitted fact that this appellant has made payment of several amounts as per Annexures-3 and 4 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. ? ? It is further submitted by learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 that it is also an admitted fact that this appellant has made payment of several amounts as per Annexures-3 and 4 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. ? It is also submitted by learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 that as certain fabricated documents were given by respondent no. 1 (original petitioner), the said allotment was cancelled as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Housing Board in the writ petition. Thus, second allotment was cancelled on 19th November, 2005. REASONS: 6. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby quash and set aside the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 19th February, 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 63 of 2006 mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) The respondent-Housing Board had allotted house/quarter no. 42/1/6 situated at Bagbera Housing Colony, Bagbera, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum to this appellant on 27th May, 1992. The allotment letter is at Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. (ii) Thereafter, Hire Purchase Agreement was also entered into between this appellant and the respondent-Housing Board on 14th July, 1997 which is at Annexure-2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. (iii) It further appears from the facts of the case that legally payable amount has also been deposited by this appellant (original respondent no. 3 in the writ petition) vide Annexures-3 and 4 which are money receipts. (iv) It further appears from the facts of the case that the possession of the property was also given to this appellant and he was staying there. (v) It further appears from the facts of the case that without cancelling earlier allotment letter issued in favour of this appellant, second allotment of the very same house was made in favour of respondent no. 1 original petitioner). This is not permissible in the eye of law. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. This is a vital fact in this matter. (vi) Never the respondent-Housing Board has given any notice to this appellant that there is breach of any of the conditions of the allotment by this appellant. These facts have also been admitted by the respondent-Housing Board. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. This is a vital fact in this matter. (vi) Never the respondent-Housing Board has given any notice to this appellant that there is breach of any of the conditions of the allotment by this appellant. These facts have also been admitted by the respondent-Housing Board. Thus without giving any notice, second allotment of the very same house could not have been allotted to respondent no. 1 (original petitioner). (vii) This appellant was never heard before giving allotment, of the very same house in which this appellant was staying, to respondent no. 1 (original petitioner). This is a grossest violation committed by the respondent-Housing Board. We are not finding any other fault with the respondent no. 1 (original petitioner) because whether she has produced fraudulent documents or not, it is a matter of dispute between the original petitioner and the Housing Board. We are mainly allowing this Letters Patent Appeal on the ground that when one house is allotted to this appellant and without giving any opportunity of being heard to this appellant, he cannot be ousted from the said house especially when there is allotment letter in favour of this appellant and there is Hire Purchase Agreement in favour of this appellant and both these documents are prior in point of time than the so called allotment of the house to respondent no. 1 (original petitioner). 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, we hereby quash and set aside the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 19th February, 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 63 of 2006. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. Liberty is reserved with the respondent-7Housing Board to initiate action against any of the erring defaulter of the occupier of the house. 8. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5 of 2010 and I.A. No. 3303 of 2014 are also disposed of.