Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 612 (MP)

Meerabai Mirdha v. State of M. P.

2025-10-13

AMIT SETH

body2025
ORDER 1. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 28.4.2016 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.3 and prays for the following reliefs: "(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this writ petition. (ii) The respondents may kindly restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the house in question. (iii) The impugned order Annexure-P/1 may kindly be set aside. (iv) The respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitinoer to deposit the amount as per their allotment letter and also be directed to execute a lease agreement in favour of the petitioner within the stipulated time. (v) The cost of the petition may kindly be awarded. (vi) The allotment of house No.A-62 in favour of Gandhrav Singh may kindly be set aside." 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she belonging to EWS category, was allotted house No.A-62 by respondent No.3 vide order dated 16.11.2004, pursuant to the application submitted by her on "first come, first served" basis in Apna Ghar Scheme at Shatabdipuram Colony, Gwalior Development Authority. In terms of the allotment order dated 16.11.2004, the total cost of the house in question was Rs.52,500/-, against which the petitioner deposited Rs.10,000/- towards registration charges at the relevant time. 4. According to the petitioner, for the first time, she was served with a notice dated 14.08.2012 issued by respondent No.3, whereby she was informed that the installment amount pursuant to the allotment order dated 16.11.2004 had not been paid, and she was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.3,98,417/- as per the Board's decision of the Gwalior Development Authority dated 8.6.2012, i.e., the premium based on the rates prevalent on that date, failing which the allotment would stand cancelled. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that against the said communication dated 14.08.2012, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition bearing W.P. No.6480/2012, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.9.2012 (Annexure-P/3), directing the respondents to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner for redressal of her grievance and, till such time, the respondents were restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner. 6. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the petitioner appeared before the authorities. However, she was never informed regarding any decision requiring her to deposit the installment amount. Suddenly, the impugned order dated 28.4.2016 has been passed, whereby the petitioner has been informed that for non-deposit of the premium as well as the installment amount, the allotment made in her favour in the year 2004 stands cancelled vide order dated 7.5.2014. The application submitted by the petitioner seeking restoration of the allotment by payment of premium/ installment amount as contained in the initial allotment order, along with interest, was considered by the Board in its meeting dated 7.10.2014, subject to the condition that the premium/cost to be paid in terms of guidelines for the year 2014-15, time was granted to the petitioner until 14.6.2015. However, since no amount has been deposited, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. 7. Counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner, along with her son, approached the office of respondents on several occasions to deposit the installment/ premium amount, but they were informed that no deposit was required at that time and that she would be informed when payment became due. 8. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondents acted arbitrarily and illegally in calling upon the petitioner to make payment of the house in question on the basis of the prevalent guidelines for the year 2014-15. In case of a similarly situated person, namely, Ramlal Singh Tomar, the installment/premium was accepted on 16.7.2012 on the basis of rates prevalent in the year 2004 itself. A similar benefit has been extended to one Anita Bai W/o Santosh under another scheme. However, in the case of petitioner, a highly discriminatory attitude is being adopted by the respondents. 9. It is also submitted that, in compliance of interim order dated 31.12.2020 passed in the instant case, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.96,900/- with the respondents on 4.1.2021, which includes the total amount of Rs.52,500/-, along with the interest accrued till the said date. Therefore, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner deserves to be restored, and the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 10. Therefore, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner deserves to be restored, and the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4 opposed the writ petition and submits that except for payment of registration fee in the year 2004 pursuant to the allotment order dated 6.11.2004, not a single penny was paid by the petitioner up to the year 2012. The conditions of allotment, as contained in the allotment order dated 16.11.2004, specifically postulated that the installments were to be paid on the dates as stated in the allotment order itself. No separate notice for payment of installment amount would be issued, and in the event of default, the amount paid would be refunded with 10% interest. 11. He further submits that although the petitioner took possession of the house in question, no lease deed was executed in her favour. Except for the deposit of Rs.10,000/- towards the registration fee, no other payment was made. Therefore, the petitioner continued to occupy the premises without any legal entitlement. Unless and until a lease deed in executed in favour of the petitioner, no rights accrue to her. It is further submitted that in compliance with the order dated 14.9.2012 passed by this Court in W.P. No.6480/2012, the petitioner’s case was placed before the competent Board of the Gwalior Development Authority. A decision was taken that, in case the petitioner deposits the cost of the house at the rates prevalent in the year 2014–15, the allotment may be restored. Accordingly, time was granted to the petitioner up to 14.6.2015 vide communication dated 1.8.2015. However, since no amount was deposited by the petitioner, the allotment was cancelled vide order dated 28.4.2016. 12. It is also submitted by the counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 that on account of cancellation of the allotment of the petitioner, the house in question was put to auction in the year 2018, and the bid submitted by respondent No.5, being highest, was accepted at Rs.5,06,000/-. The entire amount has been deposited by respondent No.5. In view whereof, no right continues in favour of the petitioner, and the development authority is legally bound to hand over the possession of the house in question to respondent No.5 by executing an agreement in his favour. The entire amount has been deposited by respondent No.5. In view whereof, no right continues in favour of the petitioner, and the development authority is legally bound to hand over the possession of the house in question to respondent No.5 by executing an agreement in his favour. Merely because the petitioner deposited Rs.96,900/- pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court with the respondents, no right accrues in her favour, as the said amount was deposited by the petitioner after finalization of bid and the full payment by respondent No.5. He further submits that since the petitioner herself defaulted in payment of installment amount, she is not entitled for any relief. The petitioner cannot claim negative equality while invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 13. Similar arguments have been advanced by learned counsel for respondent No.5. 14. Counsel for the petitioner submits, in the alternative, that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the amount for the house in question as has been paid by respondent No.5. Therefore, a direction may be issued to respondents No.2 to 4 to restore the allotment in favour of the petitioner. 15. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 17. The records of the case indicate that the terms and conditions of registration/ allotment of the house to persons belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category, under the scheme floated by respondent No.3, specifically Clause 9 (at page 17 of the return filed by respondents No.2 to 4), clearly stipulated that if, for any reason, the installment amount is not deposited for a period of three months, then the allotment made in favour of the allottee shall stand automatically cancelled, in such a case, if possession of the house has already been handed over to the allottee, then he/she shall be liable to vacate the same and hand over the possession to the Gwalior Development Authority. It shall be within the rights of the authority to re-allot the said house/building and the amount paid by the original allottee shall be refunded after deducting overdue installments and the applicable interest, without any further interest, and rent for the house/ building shall also be recoverable at the rate of Rs.200 per month. 18. The petitioner herein submitted the application form for allotment of the house, which contained the aforesaid terms and conditions. On deposit of registration fee of Rs.10,000/-, she was allotted House No.A-62 vide allotment order dated 16.11.2004 (page 21 of return filed by respondents No.2 to 4) for a total cost of Rs.52,500/-. The allotment order clearly specified the dates for payment of remaining eight installment of Rs.5,312/- each, along with due dates for payment of lease rent and other charges (page 21 of the reply filed by respondents No.2 to 4). 19. The allotment order also specifically stated that no separate notice would be issued for payment of installments. In case of default, an application for extension of time could be submitted, which would be allowed only on payment of 10% interest on the due amount. 20. Records further indicate that admittedly apart from initial deposit of Rs.10,000/- towards the registration fee, no further payments were made by the petitioner until 2012, although she continued to remain in possession of the house. The notice dated 14.8.2012, calling upon her to deposit Rs.3,98,417/-, was challenged by filing W.P. No.6480/2012, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 14.9.2012, directing the respondents to consider her representation and till then the respondents were restrained from taking coercive action against her. 21. Perusal of the order dated 28.4.2016 impugned in the present writ petition indicates that in compliance with the aforesaid directions, the petitioner was was issued a notice dated 7.11.2012 and was granted a personal hearing. She submitted a representation dated 23.11.2012, stating that she was ready and willing to pay the original allotment cost of Rs.52,500/- (the rate of the building in the year 2004) along with interest. However, her representation was rejected vide order dated 7.5.2014 in view of the Board's decision dated 8.6.2012. She submitted a representation dated 23.11.2012, stating that she was ready and willing to pay the original allotment cost of Rs.52,500/- (the rate of the building in the year 2004) along with interest. However, her representation was rejected vide order dated 7.5.2014 in view of the Board's decision dated 8.6.2012. The petitioner herein again submitted a representation on 17.6.2014 seeking restoration of her allotment, in response to which she was informed that in the board meeting dated 7.10.2014, it has been resolved that the restoration would be permitted only if she paid the cost of house as per guidelines applicable for the year 2014-15. Despite time being granted until, 14.6.2015, the petitioner did not make any payment, resulting in cancellation of the allotment vide order dated 28.4.2016. 22. The conjoint reading of Clause 9 of the application form for allotment of home, so also the terms and conditions of the allotment order dated 16.11.2004 reveals that the petitioner was fully aware of her obligation to pay installments on the dates specified in the allotment order. The entire amount was required to be paid by 15.8.2006. However, despite being in possession of the house from 2004 to 2016, and even thereafter, she did not make any such payment. In the year 2018, the house was put to auction and was allotted to respondent No.5, who paid a total amount of Rs.5,06,000/-. The above facts clearly indicate that the petitioner willfully defaulted in payment of the cost of the home in question even while residing in the same, thereby flagrently violated the terms and conditions of allotment order and conditions of allotment application itself. The contention of the petitioner that no payment was made by her as the same was not demanded or she along with her son approached the authorities to make payment but same was not accepted is wholly unacceptable. It was the duty of the petitioner to make timely deposit of the installments in terms of the letter of allotment itself. 23. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, no illegality has been committed by the respondents No.2 to 4 in cancelling the allotment of the petitioner. 24. It was the duty of the petitioner to make timely deposit of the installments in terms of the letter of allotment itself. 23. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, no illegality has been committed by the respondents No.2 to 4 in cancelling the allotment of the petitioner. 24. Just because after finalization of the bid in favour of respondent No.5, under the interim order of this Court dated 31.12.2020, the petitioner has deposited a demand draft of Rs.96,900/- (AnnexureP/9) with the respondents, the same does not confer any equity in favour of petitioner, as the overall conduct of the petitioner in the matter lacks bonafides. 25. At this stage, neither can a direction be issued to restore the allotment on the basis of rates paid by respondent No.5, nor can the petitioner claim parity with other allottes such as Sunita and Ramlal Singh Tomar, since such parity would amount to negative equality, which is impermissible. Unless the petitioner can independently establish a legal right, she cannot claim relief merely on the basis of alleged similar treatment granted to other. (See: Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain and Others, (1997) 1 SCC 35 .) 26. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 27. The petitioner shall be entitled for refund of the amount deposited by her, pursuant to the interim order dated 31.12.2020. The said exercise be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 28.W ith the aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed. 29. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.