# Smt. Suman & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 3 ILRA 1371
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-08-28
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 41005 of 2009
- **Bench:** Krishna Murari, Amar Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-suman-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43322
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Demand
notice-without
adjusting
amounts
already
paid-in
spite
of
specific
direction-no
statement
of
accounts
placed-petitioner
belongs
to
economically weaker section of societyin absence of specific denial in counter
affidavit-development
authority
to
execute sale deed in favor of petitioner.
Held: Para-12
In
the
facts
and
circumstances,
respondent authority since has failed to
bring
on
record
the
details
of
outstanding
balance
against
the
petitioners though specifically required
to do so vide order dated 11.8.2009, we
are left with no option but to believe the
averments made by the petitioners in the
writ petition that all outstanding dues
against them was deposited, the receipts
whereof are on the record of the case as
annexures 10 & 12 to the writ petition.

## Text

3 All] Smt. Suman & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1371
as contained in Chapter III of the
Regulations framed under the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 has
held that the benefit of change of
academic session cannot be provided to
those teachers who were continuing on
session
benefit
on
the
date
of
commencement of the Academic session
2015-16.
13. In view of the above discussion,
the petitioner cannot be allowed to
continue till 31st March, 2016 for the
reason that she had attained the age of
superannuation
during the Academic
Session 2014-15 and had continued till
30th June, 2015 i.e. end of that academic
session 2014-15.
14. There is no merits in the writ
petition. The writ petition is dismissed. .
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.08.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.
THE HON'BLE AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
Writ-C No. 41005 of 2009
Smt. Suman & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Rajeev Kumar Pandey, Sri N.K.
Dwivedi
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Sanjay Singh Jatav, Sri Shiv
Nath Singh, Sri Vivek Varma
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Demand
notice-without
adjusting
amounts
already
paid-in
spite
of
specific
direction-no
statement
of
accounts
placed-petitioner
belongs
to
economically weaker section of societyin absence of specific denial in counter
affidavit-development
authority
to
execute sale deed in favor of petitioner.
Held: Para-12
In
the
facts
and
circumstances,
respondent authority since has failed to
bring
on
record
the
details
of
outstanding
balance
against
the
petitioners though specifically required
to do so vide order dated 11.8.2009, we
are left with no option but to believe the
averments made by the petitioners in the
writ petition that all outstanding dues
against them was deposited, the receipts
whereof are on the record of the case as
annexures 10 & 12 to the writ petition.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.)
1.
The petitioners, 19 in numbers ,
have approached this Court seeking a writ
of Certiorari to quash the notices dated
09.04.2009, 25.04.2009, 26.05.2009 and
25.06.2009 (Annexure-14 to the writ
petition) for payment of outstanding dues
of EWS Flats allotted to them by the
respondent no. 2 Kanpur Development
Authority (hereinafter referred to as the
'Development Authority'). The notices
further specified that the calculation
mentioned has been made on the basis of
One time Settlement (OTS) and if the
petitioners intended to take advantage of
the said scheme they may deposit Rs.200/-
with the prescribed bank and produce the
receipt, failing which this benefit of the
scheme will not be extended. Further a
writ of mandamus has been claimed
commanding the respondents to execute
sale deed in favour of the petitioners as all
the petitioners have deposited entire
amount and interest furnished by the
respondents
vide
statement
of
account/letter dated 13.12.2007.
1372
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. Aforesaid reliefs have been claimed
in the background of the following facts :
3. The petitioners, who belong to the
economically weaker section of the society,
have applied for flats in pursuance of the
advertisement published by the Development
Authority in Hindi Daily newspaper 'Dainik
Jagran' on 14.09.1987 in respect of Yojna
No. 40, Barra Bhag-2, Azad Kutiya, Kanpur
Nagar. In accordance with the provisions of
the Scheme, the petitioners alleged to have
deposited 1/4th of the cost in the UCo Bank
and accordingly all the petitioners were
issued allotment letters on different dates in
the year 1988 and 1989 on a price ranging
between 25,500/- to 30,000/-. The allotment
letter stipulated a condition that after
adjustment of 7600/-, the balance amount
would be payable within 20 years in
quarterly instalment with 15% interest. The
petitioners and various other allottees
defaulted in making payment of instalment
resulting in a public notice published in
'Dainik Jagran' dated 18.8.2007 requiring all
the allottees in arrears of instalment to
deposit the balance payable by 22.08.2007,
failing which allotment would be cancelled
after 23.08.2007. Subsequently, another
public notice dated 25.08.2007 was again
published in Hindi daily 'Dainik Jagran'
stating that 400 allotments of such persons
who are defaulters have been cancelled
pursuant to the earlier notice dated
18.8.2007. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the
petitioners along with certain other similarly
situated allottees had approached this Court
by filing writ petition no. 43533 of 2007. A
Division Bench of this Court dismissed the
writ petition by passing the following orders
:
"Heard counsel for the petitioners
and Sri M.C. Tripathi Advocate on behalf
of the Kanpur Development Authority,
Kanpur. The petitioners had been allotted
flats
by
the
Kanpur
Development
Authority
on
a
meager
prices
of
Rs.24,000/- to 30,000/-. The allotment
letters issued incorporated all the terms
and conditions qua such allotment.
So far as the petitioner No.1 is
concerned, his allotment letter dated 16th
June, 1988 Annexure-2 to the writ petition
clearly reveals that the flat allotted to him
was for a price of Rs.30,000/- and he had
deposited a sum of Rs. 7,600/- on the date
of allotment, the balance amount had to
be paid by him in three monthly equal
installments over a span of twenty years.
After adjusting the payment of Rs.7,600/-
against the total price of 30,000/-, the
balance amount Rs.22,400/- had to be
paid by the petitioner with 15% interest
as indicated above. Admittedly, the
petitioner has not deposited a single
installment in last 19 years.
Under challenge is a show cause
notice issued to the petitioners to deposit
the entire payment or to vacate the
premises. Hence this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
not replied to the simple question as to
under
what
circumstances,
after
the
allotment, the payment has not been made.
Similar is the position of the respondent
Kanpur Development Authority. It has no
explanation as to under what circumstances
it could not show the courage too throw out
the petitioners from their possession over
the flat in question and could not auction
the same to some other persons in case
petitioners had not deposited any of the
installments whatsoever.
Even today the only contention
raised is that in one case in similar
situation the flat has been allotted at
cheaper rate. Therefore, the balance
amount of 22,400/- cannot be recovered
from the petitioner with interest.
3 All] Smt. Suman & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1373
Article
14
is
for
a
positive
discrimination, it does not envisage in
negative equality qua an order passed
illegally and for ulterior consideration,
there arise no plea of discrimination nor
gives a cause to the petitioners to agitate
the issue before the Court. Therefore, we
not only dismiss this writ petition but also
direct
the
Vice
Chairman,
Kanpur
Development Authority to make the
recovery of entire balance amount with
interest treating the petitioners to be
defaulters from the very beginning and, in
case they do not make the entire payment
within four weeks, to take possession of
the flat forcibly. In such a situation
compensation for use and occupation of
the flat for all these years must also be
determined and recovered. The Kanpur
Development Authority to make fresh
allotment of the flats in question to some
other persons by auction, in case deposit
of outstanding amount is not made as
indicated above.
With the aforesaid observations/
directions the present writ petition is
dismissed."
4. Specific case set up by the
petitioners in the present writ petition is
that after order dated 17.09.2007 passed
by this Court they approached the
respondents with the request to furnish the
account so that they may deposit the
entire balance within the stipulated time
alloted by this Court. However, when no
statement of account was furnished till
September, 2007, some of the petitioners
deposited some amount in respect of the
dues as per their own calculation in the
month of October, 2007 on different
dates. Photocopy of receipt of deposit is
on record as annexure-10 to the writ
petition. Respondent no. 2 issued letter
dated 13.12.2007 to all the petitioners
mentioning the amount due against them
and requiring them to make payment
within 30 days from the date of receipt of
the said letter.
.
5. It is categorically stated in
paragraph 33 of the writ petition that
thereafter some of the petitioners who had
made certain deposit in October, 2008
deposited the balance after adjusting the
said deposit and those petitioners who had
not deposited anything, they deposited
entire amount mentioned in the letter
issued to them and the photocopy of the
deposit made by them is on record as
Annexure - 12 to the writ petition. In
paragraph 34 of the writ petition, it has
been categorically stated as under :
"That it is specifically stated here
that all the petitioners have deposited
entire amount and interest as mentioned
in the letters dated 13.12.2007 issued to
the petitioners within the stipulated
period from the date of receiving of the
aforesaid letters. It is further stated here
that no amount is due against the
petitioners regarding the E.W.S. Quarters
allotted by the respondents."
6. The respondent authority issued
fresh notices to the petitioners on different
dates (collectively filed as annexure-14 to
the writ petition). It has been mentioned
therein the amount due against them and
for the said purpose they have been asked
to take benefit of O.T.S. and to deposit
Rs.200/- for availing the said benefit of
O.T.S.
7. Alleging that they have already
deposited the entire amount due as per
notice/letter dated 13.12.2007 issued to
them in pursuance of the earlier order
dated 17.09.2007, the instant writ petition
1374
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was preferred. A Division bench of this
Court vide order dated 11.08.2009 while
calling for a counter affidavit passed the
following order :
" Sri Sanjay Singh Jatav has
accepted notice on respondent no. 2.
It is stated by the petitioners that
immediately after judgement dated 17.09.2009
by which this court directed that the petitioners
have to pay interest treating the petitioners to be
defaulters from the very beginning, the
petitioners had immediately deposited the
amounts due against them. Fresh notices were
issued on 13.12.2007 working out the balance of
payment without adjusting the amount deposited
on 01.10.2007 (all other petitioenrs also
deposited same amounts in October 2007).
It is stated that the petitioners made
good the shortfall in December 2007. The
respondents however have not adjusted
the amounts depostied by them in October
2007 and have given fresh notice for
depositing the entire amount all over
again.
Learned counsel for the Kanpur
Development
Authority
will
seek
instructions and give the calculation after
adjusting the payments of each of the
petitioners, in tabular form.
List on 26.08.2009.
As an interim measure, we provide
that until 26.08.2009, no coercive action
would be taken against the petitioners."
8.
Even though the case has been
called out in the revised list but no one has
appeared
on
behalf
of
the
Kanpur
Development Authority though the name of
S/Sri Sanjay Singh Jatav, Shiv Nath Singh
and Vivek Varma is shown in the cause list.
9. Counter affidavit of respondent
no. 2 filed through Sri Sanjay Singh Jatav
is on record, which has been perused by
us.
10. At the outset, it may be mentioned
that though a counter affidavit has been filed
by the respondent no. 2 but as desired by the
Court vide order dated 11.8.2009 to give
calculation after adjusting the payment of
each of the petitioners in tabular form has not
been provided. The counter affidavit is also
very sketchy and there is no specific denial
of the allegation made in the writ petition
that entire outstanding amount as shown in
the letter dated 13.12.2007 issued by the
respondent in respect of the outstanding dues
against the petitioners stands deposited by
them. In paragraph 31, 32 & 33, specific
averments have been made that when no
statement of account was furnished till the
month of September, 2007, some of the
petitioners have deposited some amount
against their dues in the month of October,
2007 on different dates and thereafter, the
respondents have issued statement of account
vide letter dated 13.12.2007 to all the
petitioners mentioning the amount due
against them and required them to make
payment within 30 days from the date of
receipt of the letter. A categorical averment
has been made in paragraph 33 that thereafter
all the petitioners have deposited entire
balance amount mentioned in the letter dated
13.12.2007
on
different
dates
within
stipulated time. The reply to the said
paragraph of the writ petition in the counter
affidavit is reproduced hereunder :
"28. That the contents of paragraph
no. 31 of the writ petition, refers deposit
of part of cost price of the flats by some of
the petitioners on different dates and is
correct and is admitted but this will not
serve the desired purpose.
29. That the contents of paragraph
no. 32 of the writ petition, issuance of
3 All] Smt. Suman & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1375
statement
of
account
to
allottees/petitioners on 13.12.2007 by the
respondents is mentioned and is admitted
being the matter of record.
30. That the contents of paragraph
no. 33 and 34 are not correct and it is
denied that the petitioners have deposited
their balance/entire amount as mentioned
in the letter dated 13.12.2007 within the
stipulated
period.
As
such,
there
paragraphs are not admitted."
11. It is to be taken note of that though
paragraph 30 of the counter affidavit to the
reply of the averments made in paragraphs
33 & 34 of the writ petition with respect to
entire demand having been deposited is
denied but the respondent authority has failed
to deny that the deposit alleged by the
petitioners has been made. It has also failed
to specify in the counter affidavit the
outstanding balance against the petitioners.
Specific case set up by the petitioners is that
when the statement of account was not
furnished some of the petitioners deposited
certain amount on different dates in October,
2007 and after notice dated 13.12.2007 entire
amount has been deposited by all the
petitioners of course after making adjustment
by those petitioners who had deposited some
amount in October, 2007 and for this
reasons, the Court vide order dated 11.8.2009
required the Kanpur Development Authority
to give calculation of outstanding in respect
of each of the petitioners after adjusting the
payment in a tabular form. Despite specific
directions, the respondent has not come up
giving calculation much less in a tabular
form. Specific averments made in the writ
petition regarding entire payment has been
made in response to the notice and there was
no outstanding dues does not stand
categorically denied in the counter affidavit
nor any material has been produced to
demonstrate any outstanding balance against
any of the petitioners.
12.
In the facts and circumstances,
respondent authority since has failed to bring
on record the details of outstanding balance
against the petitioners though specifically
required to do so vide order dated 11.8.2009,
we are left with no option but to believe the
averments made by the petitioners in the writ
petition that all outstanding dues against
them was deposited, the receipts whereof are
on the record of the case as annexures 10 &
12 to the writ petition.
13.
From a perusal of the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2,
we have not been able to find out any
justifiable ground on the part of the
respondent
authority
to
have
issued
impugned notice to the petitioners requiring
them to deposit the amount calculated under
One Time Settlement Scheme.
14. In view of of the aforesaid facts
and discussions, the impugned notices
dated 09.04.2009, 25.04.2009, 26.05.2009
and 25.06.2009 (Annexure-14 to the writ
petition) are not liable to be sustained and
are hereby quashed.
15. Writ Petition stands allowed.
16. A writ of mandamus is issued to
the respondent Development Authority to
execute sale deed/lease deed in favour of
the petitioners in accordance with law
after following the formalities and the
prescribed procedure within a period of
two months from the date of production
of a certified copy of this order before it.
17. However, there shall be no order
as to costs.
--------
1376
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.08.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
Writ-A No. 44397 of 2015
Satish Chandra Yadav
 ..Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dharmendra Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri B.N. Singh Rathore
U.P. Public premises (Eviction of unauthorized
Occupants) Act-1972-Section 11-read with
Indian Penal code-Section 441-unauthorized
occupant in public premises-authorities to
follow the procedure given in S.D. Bandi casein view of guide lines of Apex Court-no relief
can be granted-petition dismissed.
Held: Para-12
Therefore, the authority concerned shall
adopt an uniform policy for granting
extension
to
retain
the
government
accommodation beyond prescribed limit. The
State functionaries would follow the law laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of
S.D. Bandi (supra) in letter and spirit.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Singh Baghel, J.)
1. The petitioner is a Sub Inspector
in Civil Police. He was allotted a
government
accommodation
being
Quarter
No.B-11,
Police
Colony,
Atarsuiya Compound, District Allahabad
when he was posted at Allahabad.
2. From the record, it transpires that
the petitioner was transferred from
Allahabad to Sitapur on 5.11.2013 and the
accommodation of the petitioner was allotted
to the respondent no.8 on 13.2.2014. The
respondent
no.8
had
filed
several
representations before the Police Officers for
taking possession of the said accommodation
but no action was taken, whereupon, he
preferred Writ Petition No.9900 of 2015 for
a direction upon the respondents to take
appropriate action. The said writ petition was
disposed of on 16.2.2015 by issuing a
direction upon the fourth respondent to
consider the cause of the petitioner therein.
3. It appears that in compliance of
the order of this Court dated 19.2.2015,
the fourth respondent has passed the
impugned order against the petitioner to
vacate the premises in question within
five days.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
5. The experience reveals that several
writ petitions have been filed in this Court
for the similar relief. In the case in hand, for
the same accommodation, two writ petitions
have been filed, one by the allottee and
another by the person, who is occupying the
accommodation.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of
S.D. Bandi v. Divisional Traffic Officer,
Karnataka
State
Road
Transport
Corporation and others, (2013) 12 SCC
631, has laid down the law that an
employee should not overstay after his
retirement or transfer. The Court has
noticed that the States of Uttar Pradesh
and Orissa have amended Section 441 of
the Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC").
The Supreme Court has observed that the
Government in two States are in a
position to file criminal proceedings in the