GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. MACHHLA DEVI

1  NON­REPORTABLE                                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION              CIVIL APPEAL No.10670  OF 2018            (Arising out of SLP(C)No.11206 of 2018) GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT  … APPELLANTS AUTHORITY & ORS.           Versus MACHHLA DEVI       … RESPONDENT WITH        CIVIL APPEAL No.10671 OF 2018           (Arising out of SLP(C)No.12881 of 2018)       J U D G M E N T N.V.RAMANA, J. Civil Appeal No. 10670 of 2018  (arising out of SLP(C) No.11206 of 2018) 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard   Mr.   Rakesh   Uttamchandra   Upadhyay,   learned counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   and   Mr.   K. 2 Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. This appeal is directed against order dated 21.03.2018 passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   at   Allahabad   in   Writ Petition(C) No.7928 of 2018 wherein without issuance of notice to the Ghaziabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “GDA” )   an   order   was   passed   in   the   favour   of   Machhla   Devi (hereinafter referred to as the   “allottee” ).   It is worthwhile to be noted  that   the   impugned   order   in   essence   nullifies   the   detailed order of cancellation of allotment passed by the co­ordinate Bench of   the   same   High   Court   dated   17.05.2016   in   Writ   Petition (C)No.28834 of 2004. Facts in brief  4. The facts giving rise to the present dispute are that GDA launched a scheme known as Shastri Nagar Housing Scheme.  The allottee had applied for a High Income Group Duplex “A” Category of house under hire­purchase scheme. Vide letter dated 05.10.1994, the allottee was informed of the allotment of House No.E­376.  The estimated cost of the house was mentioned as Rs.4,33,248/­.  The allottee had already paid the registration amount of Rs.5,000/­ and the balance registration amount of Rs.38,325/­ was required to be 3 deposited   within   a   week   from   the   issuance   of   letter   dated 05.10.1994   by   which   the   allotment   was   made.     The   remaining amount was to be paid in accordance with a payment schedule which had to be notified at a later date.  The terms and conditions of allotment letter included that in the eventuality of default in payment to GDA within the prescribed time limit, a penal interest of 21% per annum would follow. Further in the eventuality of a further default for a period of three months from the due date along with penal interest, the allotment shall be treated as cancelled.  It was also mentioned that possession could be taken pursuant to 50% of payment of the final cost of the house.  The allottee deposited the amount of Rs.38,325/­ on 17.10.1994.   It is to be noted that the respondent thereafter deposited instalments without following any schedule and a lump sum amount from time to time was deposited as under­

4

5. The total amount payable by the allottee increased as the balance amount of cost of the house included interest and for non­ payment of the same in time also attracted a penal interest at the rate of 21%. The fact on record as alleged is that the respondent failed to make payment of substantial amount to the GDA. It is alleged that the husband of the respondent – Chandra Pal Singh was posted  in  U.P.  Police  and  by  influence  of  his  position,   she continued in unauthorised possession of said house.     6. In light of the non­payment of any amount by the allottee after 19.05.1998 for a period of almost three and half years, GDA treated   the   allotment   cancelled.   However,   on   the   representation made by the allottee subsequently, a direction was made by GDA dated 07.05.2004 regarding depositing of Rs.20,00,000/­ (Rupees twenty lakhs) within 15 days for the restoration of the cancelled allotment.   7. The respondent herein challenged the said cancellation of allotment by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 28834 of 2004 before the Allahabad High Court.  The Allahabad High Court vide interim order 5 dated 29.07.2004 directed the GDA not to take coercive measures for 6 weeks, if the respondent deposits Rs.2 lakhs. This writ petition was dismissed finally by a detailed order dated 17.05.2016 with cost of Rs.5,000/­ on the respondent herein.  8. Despite the  final order of the High Court, the allottee continued   with   the   unauthorized   possession   of   the   property. Accordingly,   the   GDA   issued   a   letter   to   the   District   Magistrate, Ghaziabad dated 10.01.2018 for the eviction of the allottee from the property in question.   9. The respondent filed Writ Petition (C) No.7928 of 2018 before the Allahabad High Court for prayer of Writ of   for Certiorari quashing the said letter dated 10.01.2018 and   mandamus   for not dispossessing her from the property in question. Adjudicating upon the said  matter, the  Allahabad High  Court  disposed  of the  writ petition by granting material relief to the allottee without issuance of notice to GDA on the first material date of hearing itself.   This disposal of writ petition by the Allahabad High Court is in essence a nullification of the order dated 17.05.2016 of its own co­ordinate Bench in Writ Petition (C) No. 28834 of 2004.   The High Court passed directions for acceptance of amount by the GDA and thereby regularized   the   allotment,   the   cancellation   of   which   had   been 6 upheld   by   a   co­ordinate   Bench   of   the   same   High   Court   on 17.05.2016.     It   is   against   this   writ   petition,   that   special   leave petitions   have   been   filed   by   both   the   GDA   and   the   allottee   as Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11206 of 2018 and 12881 of 2018 respectively. Contentions on behalf of the appellants 10.  The   broad  contentions   raised   by  the   Ld.   Counsel  on behalf of GDA are threefold. 11 , it is contended that   the detailed judgement of . Firstly via 17.05.2016 passed by a two Judge bench of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 28834 of 2004, the cancellation of allotment was upheld, and, thus, it attained finality. Hence, it was wrong and  illegal on  the part of  the  Allahabad  High Court to interfere in the matter and pass directions to accept the monetary amount which is tantamount to regularization of the allotment. 12 . Secondly , the High Court ought to have dismissed the Writ Petition No.7928 of 2018 as the allottee had approached it with unclean hands. The allottee had remained in unauthorized possession of the property in question for 14 long years by virtue of the influence of her husband who is in Uttar Pradesh Police. 13. Thirdly ,   the   impugned   order   was   passed   without 7 issuance of notice to the GDA on the first material date of hearing, and, merely on the ground of statements made by the counsel. They assert that GDA had not issued any instructions regarding compromise of the matter and had notices been issued, the truth could have been discerned.  Contentions on behalf of the respondent 14. On the other hand, the learned counsel on behalf of the allottee has made twofold submissions. 15. Firstly , it is a settled law that a person in peaceful and settled possession cannot be forcefully dispossessed. The allottee claims   its   possession   by   virtue   of   allotment   letter   dated 05.10.1994 which was lawfully issued by the GDA. Accordingly, it is pleaded that there could be no dispossession except by due process of law. 16. Secondly , it is contended that the appellants owing to their own act of negligence, arbitrarily demanded exorbitant price of the property, and, thereafter forcibly sought to dispossess the allottee.   R EASONING   17. It   is   abundantly   clear   that   the   allottee   was   allotted 8 House   No.   E­376   under   the   hire­purchase   scheme   vide   letter dated 05.10.1994 by the GDA. The allottee’s conduct of delayed payment with respect to the allotment is evident from the fact that even the balance registration amount of Rs. 38,325/­ which was required to be deposited within a week from the issuance of letter dated 05.10.1994 was actually deposited on 17.10.1994. Further, the deposits made thereafter, were also done so without following any schedule as is evident from the facts stated hereinabove in para No.4. In fact, the last deposit of the balance amount above­ mentioned was made almost after three and half years which led to   cancellation   of   allotment   by   the   GDA.   It   is   only   on   the subsequent representation being made to the GDA that a direction was   issued   to   deposit   Rs.20,00,000/­   within   15   days   for   the restoration of the cancelled allotment. In the light of this factual matrix   it   becomes   clear   that   the   allottee   has   not   honored   the stipulations of the hire­purchase scheme under which allotment of House No. E­376 was made to her. 18. Pursuant   to   this   came   the   first   round   of   litigation wherein the Writ Petition (Civil) No.28834 of 2004 was filed in the Allahabad High Court by the allottee, challenging the order of GDA seeking   payment   of   Rs.20,00,000/­   within   15   days   for   the 9 restoration of the cancelled allotment. This writ petition eventually culminated in an order dated 17.05.2016 wherein the same was dismissed   for   having   no   merit   after   a   detailed   reasoning   and imposition of cost of Rs.5,000/­ on the allottee. Despite the final order   of   the   High   Court,   the   allottee   continued   with   the unauthorized possession of the property. This is indicative of the lack of  bona fides  on part of the allottee. 19. Accordingly,   the   GDA   issued   a   letter   to   the   District Magistrate, Ghaziabad dated 10.01.2018 for the eviction of the allottee from the property in question. It is pursuant to this letter, that the second round of litigation started.  20. The   allottee’s   assertion   is   twofold.   Firstly ,   the   GDA owing   to   its   act   of   negligence,   arbitrarily   demanded   exorbitant price of the property and thereafter forcibly sought to dispossess the allottee and,  secondly , it is a settled proposition of law that a person   in   peaceful   and   settled   possession   cannot   be   forcefully dispossessed which can only be done by following due process of law. The latter is very much true. However, it is to be noted that, the allottee claims possession by virtue of allotment letter which was lawfully issued by the GDA dated 05.10.1994. It is this very letter that incorporates the terms and conditions that the amount 10 is to be paid within the prescribed time limits failing which a penal interest at  the  rate  of   21%  would   be  charged,  and,   further,  if default continues for a further period of three months from due date,   inclusive   of   penal   interest,   then   the   allotment   shall   be treated as cancelled. The conduct of the allottee as evident from paragraphs   17   and   18   not   only   fall   foul   of   the   terms   and conditions envisaged under the allotment letter issued under the hire­purchase scheme but also shows that she has approached the Court with unclean hands. With reference to the possession of the allottee, the eviction was sought pursuant to the order of the Allahabad   High   Court   dated   17.05.2016   which   upheld   the cancellation of the allotment, and, thus, fulfils the due process of law requirement. 21. It   is   well­settled   principle   of   law   that   unlawful possession of public property without having paid for the same would tantamount to unjust enrichment and would be against public   interest.   We   find   support   for   the   abovementioned proposition   in     v.   Delhi   Development   Authority Anant   Raj 1 Agencies (P) Ltd .  wherein this Hon’ble Court speaking by Justice V. Gopala Gowda has noted that, 1 . (2016) 11 SCC 406 11

12

22. These observations were made in the context of a lease being   granted   by   the   Delhi   Development   Authority   getting terminated by efflux of time despite which the lessee continued in unauthorized   possession   of   the   same.   The   same   principle   is applicable in our context wherein allotment of a house is made by GDA. The unauthorized occupation of public property is contrary to public interest. Further, the manner in which it is done by multiple   rounds   of   protracted   litigation   shocks   our   judicial conscience wherein unauthorized possession of a public property of GDA has been continued for over 14 long years. It is nothing 13 but an abuse of process of law. 23. At this juncture, we found that the effect of the disposal of Writ Petition Civil No.7928 of 2018 by the Allahabad High Court is in essence a nullification of the order dated 17.05.2016 in Writ Petition   Civil   No.28834/04   of   its   own   co­ordinate   Bench.   This approach is highly condemnable as,   firstly , it is against judicial propriety to issue orders contrary to the orders of its own co­ ordinate   Bench,   as   the   same   had   attained   finality.   Judicial discipline mandates respecting of orders of co­ordinate Benches of the High Court.  Secondly , the manner in which the order is made without even issuance of notice to the GDA on the first material date of hearing goes against the cherished Principle of Natural Justice,   audi alteram partem ,   the right to fair hearing. This is of immense importance  vis­à­vis  the assertion of the GDA that it had not issued any instructions regarding compromise of the matter that   was   ordered   by   the   Allahabad   High   Court   in   its abovementioned order. Had the rule of  audi alteram partem  been followed and notices issued, the truth could have been discerned. 24. Thus,   in   light   of   the   observations   made   above,   the appeal is allowed. The order of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition Civil No.7928 of 2018 dated 21.03.2018 is set aside and it 14 is directed that the allottee be evicted forthwith. The appellants are at  liberty   to   take   the   assistance   of   local   police   for   getting   the peaceful possession of the property in question. 25. There shall be no order as to costs. Civil Appeal No.10671  of 2018   (arising out of SLP (C) No. 12881 of 2018) 26. Leave granted. 27. As   the   instant   appeal   is   filed   against   the   same impugned order dated 21.03.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition (C) No.7928 of 2018, the same is also disposed of in terms of the order passed in C.A. No.10670 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C)No.11206 of 2018). 28. There shall be no order as to costs.     ...........................J.       (N.V. RAMANA)  ……………………............................J.  (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR) NEW DELHI;                                                  OCTOBER 23, 2018.