Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 146 (JHR)

Nirupama Singh @ Nirupama v. State of Jharkhand

2019-01-16

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2019
JUDGMENT : No one appears for the petitioner. However, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents – State Housing Board is present. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing of the order dated 13.08.2000 passed in Appeal No. 30 of 1987 by the Deputy Commissioner cum Appellate Authority, Building Construction and Housing Department, Government of Bihar whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 5 had allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent no. 6 and directed the petitioner to vacate Flat No. J-4/7 immediately and handover the said flat to the Housing Board, failing which a sum of Rs. 30/- per sq. meter per day will be recovered in accordance with law. A further prayer has been made by the writ – petitioner for a direction upon the respondents to allot Janta Flat No. J-4/7 which she claims to be in her possession pursuant to the letter of possession issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of Bihar, Building Construction and Housing Department, Government of Bihar vide letter dated 06.07.1990 as contained in Memo No. 966. 3. From the averment made in the writ petition, it has been claimed by the petitioner that she had preferred an application before the Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Jamshedpur on 06.08.1983 for allotment of Janta flat on Hire Purchase Basis or rental basis at Adityapur and an alternative request was made that she be allotted the said flat on a rental basis. On such request, it has been stated that a direction was given to the Executive Engineer that if the said Janta Flat is available, it may be allotted to the petitioner on rent. The petitioner claims that she is regularly paying rent from August 1983 till date. An eviction case was filed by the respondent no. 6 before the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Seraikella being Eviction Case No. 42 of 1984 against one B. Ganguly and B. K. Singh. The petitioner on coming to know about the said eviction case appeared before the court of S.D.O., Seraikella and filed her claim stating therein that Sri B. Ganguly is a fictitious person and so far as Sri B. K. Singh is concerned, he has nothing to do with the said flat. Through her representation, the petitioner had claimed that Flat No. J-4/7 is allotted to her and she is regularly paying rent. Through her representation, the petitioner had claimed that Flat No. J-4/7 is allotted to her and she is regularly paying rent. It has further been averred by the petitioner that an application has been preferred by her before the Manager Estate, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna for allotment of the said flat in her favour in the year 1985 in which a report was called for from the Executive Engineer so that the representation of the petitioner can be finally dealt with. In the meantime, in the eviction case no. 42 of 1984 an order was passed on 29.12.1986 which was challenged by the Housing Board in appeal being Appeal No. 30 of 1987 in which an order was passed on 13.08.2000 directing the petitioner to vacate the flat in question and also imposing penal rent of Rs. 30/- sq. meter per day till she vacates the flat. It has thus been claimed by the petitioner that since she was in possession of the flat in question, pursuant to valid and legal sanctity and was regularly paying rent which was properly appreciated by the S.D.O., Seraikella, the impugned order dated 13.08.2000 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Housing Board has relied on his counter affidavit and has stated that the petitioner was an encroacher and the petitioner has failed to submit any document which would suggest that she was allotted the flat in question by the Housing Board thereby validating her occupation in the said flat. He has strenuously argued that Flat No. J-4/7 was never allotted to the petitioner and in fact the same was illegally claimed by Sri B. Ganguly who had sub-let the flat to the petitioner. It has further been stated that these factual aspects have been considered by the appellate court while deciding the appeal in favour of the Housing Board and directing the petitioner to vacate the flat in question. What has been stated by Mr. Singh appears to be a reiteration of the statement given in the counter affidavit. 5. In the writ petition, nothing of substance has been stated by the petitioner which would entitle the petitioner to claim Flat No. J-4/7 on the basis of a valid allotment. What has been stated by Mr. Singh appears to be a reiteration of the statement given in the counter affidavit. 5. In the writ petition, nothing of substance has been stated by the petitioner which would entitle the petitioner to claim Flat No. J-4/7 on the basis of a valid allotment. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Seraikella appears not to have taken into consideration as to whether there has been any valid document in favour of the petitioner. It has primarily considered the fact that the Housing Board had never intimated that the flat in question was validly allotted to her. The petitioner who claims to be residing in Flat No. J-4/7 since 1983 and also claims paying the rent regularly and possession thereof has to substantiate such contentions that the flat in question was validly allotted to her by supporting documents, but save and except vague assertions there does not appear any concrete fact or document which would suggest that the flat in question was actually allotted to the petitioner and she was occupying the same under the sanctity of law. The appellate court in his order dated 13.08.2000 while considering the evidence has come to a conclusion that the petitioner as well as the B. K. Singh was in illegal occupation of the quarter and that the quarter in question was being allotted under a Hire Purchase Scheme and not on a monthly rent as has been claimed by the petitioner. A plea has been taken by the petitioner that the flat was allotted in exercise of the powers under (Section 10 (2) Cha) of the Bihar State Housing Board (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulation, 1983. The said contention of the petitioner is based on Annexure 6 of the writ application, which is a letter issued by the Joint Secretary of the Government of Bihar. 6. At this, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Housing Board has stated that neither the provision of Section 9 of the said regulation nor the explanation to Regulation 10 has been followed by the petitioner as it has been categorically stated in the counter affidavit that there was no application made from the side of the petitioner for allotting Flat No. J-4/7 in her favour. 7. 7. Regulation 10 deals with the category of person who are to be allotted plot, quarter as well as flat and the various criteria have been enumerated in Regulation 9 as well as in Regulation 10. 8. Regulation 10(1) deals with those persons who have made an application for allotment and the petitioner has to be given flat in terms of the said regulation. The left out flat/quarter/plot has to be allotted in terms of guidelines set-forth in sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 10. The petitioner comes under Clause (Cha) of Regulation 10 (2) as in several circumstances on the ground of compassion, the petitioner was entitled to be allotted the quarter by the State Government directly. However, the Clause (Cha) is subject to certain conditions which has been mentioned in Regulation (iii) which reveals that within 60 days of such allotment there has to be an appropriate application for allotment as well as deposit of the earnest money. However, nothing has been stated by the writ petitioner as to whether after the flat in question was allotted to her by invoking the provision of Section 10 (2) (Cha) of Bihar State Housing Board (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulation, 1983, she had adhered to the Regulation (iii) and had made an application for the allotment of the said flat in question. It therefore appears that although Clause (Cha) of Section 10 (2) was invoked by the parties, but failure on the part of the petitioner to adhere to the subsequent conditions as enumerated in the extensions would render such order of the competent authority allotting the flat in question in favour of the petitioner redundant. Since the petitioner has failed to make out a case or have been able to show that she had applied for a valid allotment and had deposited the earnest amount and has followed/adhered to the other necessities, the appellate court had therefore, rightly passed the impugned order dated 13.08.2000 directing the petitioner to vacate Flat No. J-4/7 immediately and hand-over the same to the Housing Board officials. 9. In such circumstances, therefore I do not find any merit in this application which stands dismissed.