Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 32 (MP)

Meerabai Mirdha v. State of M. P.

2026-01-19

ANAND PATHAK, ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT

body2026
ORDER Pathak, J.-- 1. The present writ appeal preferred under section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 by appellant against the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3569/2016, whereby petition preferred by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) has been dismissed. 2. The matter pertains to cancellation of allotment of house No.A-62 allotted under Apna Ghar Scheme at Shatabdipuram, Gwalior. Petitioner being belonging to Economically Weaker Session (EWS) category was allotted house No.A-62 by respondent No.3 vide order dated 16.11.2004. In terms of the allotment order dated 16.11.2004, the total cost of the house in question was Rs.52,500/-, against which petitioner deposited Rs.10,000/- towards registration charges at the relevant time. Since petitioner did not pay the installments, therefore, she was served with a notice dated 14.8.2012 asking her to pay installment amount of Rs.3,98,417/- as per the decision of the Board of Gwalior Development Authority (GDA) dated 8.6.2012, failing which the allotment would stand cancelled. Against the said notice, petitioner approached learned Writ Court by preferring W.P. No.6480/2012, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.9.2012, 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. 3. In compliance to the aforesaid order, petitioner appeared before the authorities. However, she was never informed regarding any decision and 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 installments amount, the allotment order stands cancelled. Petitioner again preferred writ petition bearing No.3569/2016 and since the said petition was dismissed, therefore, she is before this Court. 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the order impugned passed by the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. Petitioner is ready to pay all the standing amounts due against her but despite showing her willingness to the respondents, her allotment order has been cancelled. It is further submitted that the order passed by learned writ Court in earlier round of litigation was also not complied with by the respondents and abruptly cancelled the allotment order of petitioner. Petitioner is ready to pay all the standing amounts due against her but despite showing her willingness to the respondents, her allotment order has been cancelled. It is further submitted that the order passed by learned writ Court in earlier round of litigation was also not complied with by the respondents and abruptly cancelled the allotment order of petitioner. It is further submitted that learned writ Court also did not consider the controversy in correct perspective and dismissed the writ petition. Thus, prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 5. Counsel for the respondents/State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the Gwalior Development Authority opposed the prayer and submits that despite giving ample opporunities to deposit the amount, petitioner failed to do so, therefore, rightly her allotment order was cancelled. Petitioner was allotted the house in 2004 and at that time, she only paid registration fee of Rs.10,000/- and since then she is residing there without making payment of rest of the amount as agreed between the petitioner and Gwalior Development Authority. House was allotted to the petitioner in 2004 and till 2012 she did not make any payment, therefore, rightly her allotment was cancelled. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that in a bid proceedings, he has been allotted the house in 2018 and despite making full payment of the installments, he is still waiting for possession of the house. Since petitioner did not choose to pay the amount in time, therefore, the said house was allotted to him. Thus, prayed for dismissal of this writ appeal and handing over of possession to him. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. This is a case where petitioner is taking exception to the order dated 28.4.2016 whereby the allotment order of house of petitioner was cancelled. The fact remains that the house in question was allotted to the petitioner in 2004 and only on payment of registration fee of Rs.10,000/- she was given possession and rest of the amount was agreed to be paid in installments between the parties but till 2012 petitioner did not choose to make any payment. The fact remains that the house in question was allotted to the petitioner in 2004 and only on payment of registration fee of Rs.10,000/- she was given possession and rest of the amount was agreed to be paid in installments between the parties but till 2012 petitioner did not choose to make any payment. Earlier also despite the direction issued by Gwalior Development Authority in compliance of the order passed by learned writ Court in writ petition No.6480/2012, the amount as directed to be deposited by the GDA, was not paid by the petitioner till 14.6.2015. Thereafter only, the allotment order of petitioner was cancelled by the respondents vide impugned order dated 28.4.2016. 10. After allotment of house to the petitioner, since amount was not paid by the petitioner, therefore, no lease deed was entered into between the parties. Petitioner failed to fulfill the terms and conditions as contained in the allotment order dated 16.11.2004. Thus, no right accrued in favour of petitioner. 11. It is in fact the appellant who got benefited from the fact that for last more than 20-21 years, she is enjoying the accommodation of the house without paying any rent. Therefore, this aspect is also worth consideration in the case. 12. Despite giving continuous opportunities, appellant did not react to the proposal and the pious purpose for which she was given accommodation is defeated. This was a part of welfare scheme and when appellant did not avail the benefit then another person of EWS category was given the benefit, therefore, it is a case where accommodation of said EWS person is at stake, that too after full payment he is not enjoying the fruits of transaction and possession is still away from him. Therefore, on this count also, case of appellant falters. If some benefits are given to some persons, then it does not help the cause of appellant as no negative parity can be sought. Even otherwise those allegations are not substantiated. 13. Considering the rival submissions and also the discussion surfaced in the impugned order as well as looking to the facts situation, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the order passed by learned writ Court is hereby affirmed and the writ appeal preferred by the appellant is hereby dismissed. 14. Even otherwise those allegations are not substantiated. 13. Considering the rival submissions and also the discussion surfaced in the impugned order as well as looking to the facts situation, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the order passed by learned writ Court is hereby affirmed and the writ appeal preferred by the appellant is hereby dismissed. 14. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that appellant shall hand over the vacant possession to to the GDA within 45 days so that possession of the said house may be given to respondent No.5. The respondents –GDA shall cause entry of respondent No.5 so that he can be benefited without delay. If appellant resists in giving possession of the said house, then GDA shall seek police help for eviction of the house. 15. Writ appeal stands dismissed. Impugned order stands affirmed.