# Ram Dulari v. Moradabad Development Authority and others

- **Citation:** (2001) 2 ILRA 106
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1998-04-02
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-dulari-v-moradabad-development-authority-and-others-39757
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

2All] Ram Dulari V. Moradabad Development Authority and others

106
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21
%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21
%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21
%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< -
7+( +21
%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

5DP 'XODUL
«3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
0RUDGDEDG 'HYHORSPHQW $XWKRULW\ DQG
RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
6KUL 93 5DL
6KUL %% 5DL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
05 3. 6LQJK
0U '9 -DLVZDO

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH DQG
3HWLWLRQHU GHVWLWXWH ZLGRZ DSSOLHG IRU D
KRXVH
XQGHU
D
6FKHPH
IORDWHG
E\
0RUDGDEDG
'HYHORSPHQW
$XWKRULW\
LQ
 RQ ILUVW FRPH ILUVW VHUYH EDVLV 6KH
IXOILOOHG DOO UHTXLUHPHQWV RI GHSRVLWV
5HVSRQGHQW 1R DOORWWHG WKH KRXVH LQ
TXHVWLRQ WR UHVSRQGHQW QR ZLIH RI WKH
JXQQHU
RI
&KDLUPDQ
RI
0RUDGDEDG
'HYHORSPHQW $XWKRULW\ GHVSLWH WKH IDFW
WKDW QHLWKHU UHVSRQGHQW QR QRU KHU
KXVEDQG LV DQ HPSOR\HH RI 'HYHORSPHQW
$XWKRULW\+HQFH
WKH
LPSXJQHG
DOORWPHQW
KHOG
WR
EH
DUELWUDU\
DQG
VKRZHG
IDYRULWLVP
,PSXJQHG
RUGHU
WKHUHIRUH TXDVKHG
+HOG 3DUD
7KH VFKHPH LQ TXHVWLRQ QHYHU SHUPLWWHG
DQ DOORWPHQW RI KRXVH LQ IDYRXU RI ZLIH RI
D
JXQQHUERG\
JXDUG
RI
DQ\
RI
WKH
RIILFLDOV RI WKH 0RUDGDEDG 'HYHORSPHQW
$XWKRULW\
$SSDUHQWO\
WKH
GLUHFWLRQ
LVVXHG
VKRZHG
IDYRXULWLVP
ZKLFK
LV
LPSHUPLVVLEOH
DQG
DJDLQVW
WKH
FRQVWLWXWLRQDO
SKLORVRSK\
HQVKULQHG
XQGHU
$UWLFOH
 RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ
)XUWKHU LW LV LQGHHG UHJUHWWDEOH WKDW WKH
UHSHDWHG FU\ RI WKH GHVWLWXWH ZLGRZ ZKR
KDV ORVW KHU VRQ DQG ZDV UHVLGLQJ LQ D
GLODSLGDWHG KRXVH RQ UHQW KDG JRQH LQ
YDLQ

By the Court

1. The petitioner, who is a destitute
widow having lost her young son residing
on rent in a dilapidated house, and who
had applied for a house under a scheme
floated
by
Moradabad
Development
Authority in 1993 and having paid in that
regard a sum of Rs. 48,000 in all as
evident from Annexure-2, has come up
with a prayer to quash the Office
Note/D.O. dated 2.4.1998 as contained in
Annexure-3, and allotment order dated
2/4-4-1998 as contained in Annexure-4,
allotting House no. 5, Navin Nagar
Aawaasiya Yojna pursuant to order dated
12.12.1996 passed by Respondent No.1
and to command Respondent Nos. 1 & 2
to allot that house to her.

2. She asserts as follows:- As per the
scheme as contained in Annexure-1 to the
writ petition houses were to be allotted to
persons belonging to general category on
first come first served basis for which one
was required to deposit 25% towards cost
of the house alongwith his application and
further 25% at the time of handing over
possession of the house and remaining
amount of 50% was required to be
deposited in 48 equal instalments with an
interest rate of 16% per annum within a
span of four years plus 12% for freehold
charges; she fulfilled all requirements and
thereby was/is entitled to the house in
question; even though she had made
deposits but no action was taken by the
Development Authority ; she moved from
pillar to post but without any result; in the
meantime Respondent no. 2 allotted the
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001

107
house in question to respondent no. 3
Smt. Shiksha Rani - wife of the gunner of
the
Chairman
of
the
Moradabad
Development Authority despite the fact
that neither respondent no. 3 nor is her
husband an employee of the Development
Authority
concerned;
and
thus
the
allotment of the houses in question is
arbitrary and as a result of misuse of
powers vested in the Authority.

3. In the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of respondent no. 1 & 2, which has
been sworn by an Office Assistant of the
Development
Authority,
the
deposits
made by the petitioner for the purposes of
residential flat has been admitted. It has
however,
been
asserted
that
merely
because of the principle of first come first
served the petitioner was not entitled to
the allotment rather she is required to
complete formalities; the allotment order
of the disputed house was issued in
compliance to the direction made by the
Commissioner, Moradabad Division who
is
Chairman
of
the
Moradabad
Development Authority; there has been
no arbitrariness in allotment of the house
in favour of respondent no. 3; she has an
alternative remedy for seeking redressal
of her grievances from the civil court; and
that the writ petition is misconceived.

4. The petitioner has filed a
rejoinder to the aforementioned counter
affidavit denying the stand taken in the
Counter.

5. No counter has been filed by
respondent no. 3.

6. Sri B.B. Rai, the learned counsel
for the petitioner contended that in view
of the fact stated in the counter it is
crystal clear that the allotment of the
house in question was made at the
instance of the Commissioner, Moradabad
Division,
who happens to be also
Chairman of the Moradabad Development
Authority and not on the principles
evolved for allotment of the house under
the scheme in question. Respondent no. 3,
who is wife of the gunner of the
Commission, does not fall in any category
whatsoever and accordingly, the allotment
in her favour is fit to be quashed and/or
mollified by this Court and respondent
nos. 1& 2 be commanded to allot the
house in question in favour of the
petitioner who has fulfilled all the
necessary terms and conditions and has
also admittedly deposited the amount as
claimed by her.

7. Learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in reply
contended as follows :-

Since directions were made by the
Chairman of the Moradabad Development
Authority for allotting the house in favour
of the wife of his gunner its officials were
obliged to allot that house to Respondent
No. 3 and in doing so no irregularity
and/or impropriety has been committed. It
is a fact, however, that the wife of the
gunner
of
the
Commissioner
of
Moradabad Division - cum- Chairman of
the Moradabad Development Authority
does not figure in any of the specialised
category.

He however, very fairly admitted of
the applicability of the principle of first
come first served and of the fact that the
petitioner had deposited the amount from
time to time as per the requirement.

8. Learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No. 3 contended as follows :-
2All] Smt. Raju V. John V. Moradabad Development Authority and others

108
Since the husband of Respondent No.
3 was serving the Chairman of the
Moradabad Development Authority no
wrong has been committed in allotting the
house in question.

9. We are astonished to learn of the
direction issued by the highest executive
of
the
Commissionary
who
is
the
Chairman of the Moradabad Development
Authority. The scheme in question never
permitted an allotment of house in favour
of wife of a gunner/body guard of any of
the
officials
of
the
Moradabad
Development Authority. Apparently the
direction
issued
showed
favouritism
which is impermissible and against the
constitutional philosophy enshrined under
Article 14 of the constitution. Further it is
indeed regrettable that the repeated cry of
the destitute widow, who has lost her son
and was residing in a dilapidated house on
rent, had gone in vain. Admittedly she
had complied with all the terms and
conditions imposed for allotment of the
house under the scheme in question and
her
learned
counsel
assures
further
compliance by her of the remaining terms
and conditions. To have a house for
shelter is a basic requirement of every
citizen of our country. We are satisfied
that her right has been breached and she
has been coerced to knock the doors of
this Court for securing justice. We hold
that she is entitled to have the house, apart
from suitable damages.

10. In the result we quash the order
of allotment of the house in question in
favour
of
Respondent
No.
3
and
command Respondent No. 1 & 2 to allot
the house in question in favour of the
petitioner
provided
she
shows
her
willingness to comply with the remaining
terms and conditions, and allow this writ
petition with cost quantified however, to
Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only
which must be paid by Respondent Nos. 1
& 2 within three months from today.

11. The office is directed to hand
over a copy of this order to Sri P.K.
Singh, learned counsel for Respondent
Nos. 1 & 2 for its intimation to and follow
up action by them.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21
%/( $.<2* -
7+( +21
%/( $.<2* -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

6PW 5DMX 9 -RKQ
«3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
7KH 5HJLRQDO -RLQW 'LUHFWRU RI (GXFDWLRQ
DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
6KUL $VKRN %KXVKDQ
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

3D\PHQW RI 6DODU\ ± 0LQRULW\ UHFRJQLVHG
LQVWLWXWLRQ FRPH XQGHU WKH SXUYLHZ RI
83
+LJK
6FKRRO
DQG
,QWHUPHGLDWH
&ROOHJH 3D\PHQW RI VDODU\ $FW ±
3HWLWLRQHU EHLQJ 06F 0SKLO DQG %(G
JRW DSSRLQWHG $VVWW 7HDFKHU RQ
SHUVXHQW WR DGYHUWLVHPHQW SXEOLVKHG LQ
μ$PDU 8MMDOD¶ 2QFH WKH DXWKRULWLHV IRXQG
WKH DSSURYDO ± 6DODU\ QRW SDLG XQGHU WKH
3D\PHQW RI 6DODU\ $FW LV QR VLJQLILFDQW
+HOG ± 3DUD
2QFH
WKH
DXWKRULW\
KDV
QRWHG
LQ
LWV
UHSRUW WKDW WKH DSSRLQWPHQW RI SHWLWLRQHU
LV DSSURYHG WKH IDFW WKDW WKH SHWLWLRQHU
ZDV QRW SDLG VDODU\ XQGHU 3D\PHQW RI