\:< xs,'%s..Hx®C©WRS @» tFBBieA?»8B CtiiaTtisQASH AT »iiAsen t.:¥»»Q.-t7^ l^ffS? A cP i S-SSITXOSBR » Rajashifs Saateo S/e 3,1.. »am<—» »ge< •B»ut 44 yars, Is/ti KIS-2X/+» Sutaa Snelav®, BMfeaa Ch»wk» S»rk»naa-»lla»jiaff, BlBtt. Bil«»l»ur(C@) . , }-'f.4 •^A -y»\V.V^ VS8S9S 'n^^y'ssas'QmiSsvs •'•- .';A .L ^ '}• ^'''^•'^ p^ ^"fejt^**'- ^ I. -•••^%?,^^K. '^>"~. V:;-! f^^- '<?^ ••••"" 'i^ '- ^ »Ll?BAI.«»»urOeveleymeBt AatftTity ^ ' Thraagb Cbief Bevelapmea-b ©iticesy ^ •ilaapar Scvel»»a<atAatlaar.Lty,. Vya?ar Vib«r. Blfsyaff (<23). 2)' e AsslBtfat' Eag.iae®r» Seehaical Bnclrrge,,' Natan E>ielav,:Ht»taB e«l»ay, C/o Bi.la»?i»x-Bevla^ien'fe Aath»r.ltys?ya»as'Vihaa?, • »l.laK?uE.Sl!att;._Bila«aw>r.„,, I'S'i /VI ivw cipti-L c'c itpflMi.n'o n gi' ts-ypi*.~-Jkiw^)-h '~ Cow»"\S-'iC--\ Mlv-veira.i o»-iij>t.>"u'K°'i B'lli'^i'wii WSIT ?sT2Tie» BBgeR. AasiCLS _2^,§/227,.ey,;THS e»xsizro?jeNof X_.S,B X A . : ! • •a^l:«<|»<i< 91 fttl HI6H COURT OF JU&ICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHH.4TTIS6ARH WrlT parition No.1749 of 2002 &ajsshi,va" Naraass v^rsus - Siiasour &ev$iopr'ie"T AuThority and three others .,'.'^s^^ >OST FOR OR&ER ON 10 FEBRUAftY, LC.Bhadcso ,,,ss sy ^-1^&;^ &A4T^fe;. 'I6H COURT OF JUDICAT'v GF JU&ICATURE AT SILASPUR, CHH^.mSSARi •it_Petitisn__NoJ 74S of_20G2 "ajesnwar iNOmaeo - Vsrsus- iilaspur Cievelopment Au+hori+y and -i-hree other-s .,«sf ;i;aK^ » Prs^ertt;~ Shri P. Diwaker', Sr. Advocate with Shri S.L. Nomdeo dnd 3h"i 'yatindranath Mi'shr-a, ,4dvoca?es: For The peTiTioner. Sr'ifi AA.CS. Sharma, ndvoeate! Shrl Ksnsk Tlwsr'i. Sf. Actyoc^t^ with Shri Prateek Sharma. Advocate; For r'ea'oondenta No.l to For respondent No. 4. O R D ER (Passee on 10r" Februarv, 2000) f .•" n ^>^r: ^00, 1. Bv rhis wrlt DsTiTJon under ArTicle 226/227 of The Consrifutlon of India. the petitioris," has ehaiierioed the crde" dated 22.7.2002, n'hersby respona'ent No.2 asked *he DeTltloner To vacate the house No.MI'S-2/4 •A'ithin t'A'o days, otherwise, ths Biiaspur bevsiopwent Authority (BDA) wil! remove the ilieaai sossession of the oetitioner from the house. 3, Brief faets leadinq to filinq of thi< writ petition sre rhat resoondenfs No.l and 2 yjde notjfication AnMxure. A-l doted l SsBtember. 1958. in'./ited Qppiications from ths intending buyers for sate of three type< of flats, imong them there was one .MI'3-2 category Qt thR cost of Rs,3,6S.OOO./'- In fhe said notifieatlon, ir was rr.ade eiear that 'FIRST COME FZRST ©ET prineipte wiif be. applied, In pursuance of that noTJfication. the petjtioner herein applied for the house, apart from the petitioner ten other persons ilso appiied ror the hou'ie, and ii.'st (finne.wr&s A-4 A 4-5) in ordef of prjonty was prepared by thc B&A In whieh the petitioner was registered ct Ser'iaf No.l. First of dl' the petjtioner deposited money c'n 4.9.1998 and he elso deposited the entire money within the stipuiated rime, A [ ST'"."" Page 2 ot'6 ,; :K:^;?f '.;;.-:,;;^;"K< e.is-siltljg +d0<irtite aareement was s\ae execu'ted between the ostitione'*. ths B&A. and the Bank on 10.11.1999 under whtch a toan of Rs.2,50.000/- was eanctioned and the petitioner' decosited thut aifluunt with the B&A. Thereafter', vide tetter dated 27.2.2001 ('Annexure A-31, the oetitioner VMS asked to remain Si'essnt on the site on 15.3,2001 at 3 B.m, for ssiectinq the ftat. Ultimutefv, vide ietter dated 25.10.2001 ("^nnexure A- 10), the petitione" was mforiried by the "espondent Authority to con-ie aiona With stamps of Rs.24,700/- and reqistration fees of Rs.9,300/- for executicn of Suie deed in fsyour of the petitioner. In respc-nse t-s thct Sstter, the petitioner purchased stamps (hmett.we A-ll), however, vjde ietter dated 27.10.2001 (Annexure R-l), the petitioiier WGd informca by -he Estute Officer of respondenT AuThorJTy thaT one Pramod Kumar Chsudhury hu3 fiied Civil Suit No.76-A/2001 in the Court of 5T" Ci'vi! Jua'qe, Ciass-I, Biiaspur, with resoect to fiat No.,<AI6-2/4 in v<hich he hcs obtsined the stav or'der, therefore. i+ is not in uecordance with lu»vto uliot this fiat to the petiTJoner and it was furfher made clear that the ear'ier ietter duted 25.10.2001 was issued under a mistake. 'v'ide letter dated 30 Octobe". 2001. t'ne Estate Officer narr'ating the same ground canceiied the aiiotment in favour <?r the petitioner. 3. In thi^ £onn££tion;rs^poncisnt N-lo-4 h^rs'n "li^sly, Praa??'os |6jr?lei?1 Choudhary, flied s civii suit befoi'e tne 5 Civii Judae, Cioss-II, BiiasDu", I" rsspect of flat Mo.AAX^-2/4; and on 21£T March, 2001 ths learngd Clvil Judae pcssed order for maintaining the status quo untii further orders. 3.M thst ^uit 't'he wlfs of t.he pstitlofis?* herslRwo^ tni'icig psfty, yyho dld -^ot appear in the suit on the around that she is "ot the allottee of fiat ?'-]o..AAIfa-2/4. Houaeyef, the pe+itioner herein filsd sn applicction undsf Order 1 Kiile 10 of the uvil Procedure Code for addino him as Dartv in the aii'rt and that appiication vaaa ailouied on 12.12.2001, bu+ oa per t.hs •arp,urnent of lecrned Senlor Counsei for The Detltionef in oursuance of court's or'ds", r'espondent No.4 has no+ amendsd the p!aint so far. Tha ststus quo order was continued and the iast order was Dassed on 27" Juiy, 2001, In yjhle.h it wa^ ins"'rionsd thst ths 3ti3v or'dsr will conti^us tlll ths m Page 3 of6 i8»SBS| next date of h6arin9. i-lowever', ther'eofter, neither' the stsy order wae extended nor any other order was passed in respect of sfay. 4. The case of rssoondent No.4 herein before the Civil Judae is that one Smt. U.sha Pandey apptied for the house in response to the notice dated 1.9.1998, she deposited Rs.30,000/- on 4.9.1998, sh-e wos reaistersd at Ser'ia! No.4. (ater on. that reoj.strition was tran-sferred in fsyouF' of respondent No.4 he.rein and the amount WGS deposited by respondent No.4 h^reln- .A tripQrtite Q^rssiTsent wos executsd betw££?irespondgnt No-4. the Co-operat'ye Bank and the respondsnt 8QA, and s 'osn of Rs.2,50,000/- WQS advancsd ond the sam^ was d^posited wlth ths Sb.A. T" that tripartite ag-rssmsnt jt wss specificajiy msntionecj that this ioan is sefictionea' against house No.MTS-2/4. On 27.2.2001 a letter' was issued to resoondent No.4 herein aiso showinq his priority number at serial 10 and 'isklnQ hji^ to co?ne on 15.3.2001 fof sglection of flQt. l-^ow£\/gr. 'Qter Q.H he wss informea that the fiat in auestjon has been ailotted to the wife of ths Detitionsr hsreln- Th^rsfopg. resQondg"t No-4 issued thg riot'ce /snd f"sd civii suit fo" aeciaration ana oermanent injunction. 5. Zn this csnnsc+ion, it is not out of plase to mantion here thot in s!i sight ftats of MI$-2 cateaory were consT"ucTed, whereas, There were eieven appli.sants. In *h\s connectioR, when S,T!t. ftanu Trivedi, v;ho 'A'as st SeriaJ No.ll, cams To know abou* The altoTmenT of The flat. she fiied Wrlt Petil'ioR No.438/2001 (Annexcifs A-5) befor'e this Court fo," cSlotrnent of house in he" favour, jn which return was fitec' on behsif of the B&A and the Bt>A in reply submitted that it is •rrue that the ."esponcient BbA advertissd the ffoaTed scheme under Annexure R-l for elqht f'iats of AAI-$-2 catagory' and the cost of sc".s was fixsd st Rs.3,6o,QOO,''-, In resoonse To ths same some oersons deoosSTed the sfTiounT, The iist A,","exu"e R-2 was prspared, and uitjmateiy, sieven persona depositsd the amount !n which Smt. Rcnu Triv'edl was aT Serial No.ll. Therefore. JT was speclfi'csaiiy .".entionsd i'n para 9 of the rspiy that she was not entitled for ailoTmsnT, eight persons nameiy, R.L. Namdeo, &. SujiiTa, 5mt. Seema Shukla/Rajesh ShukSQ, Alfaran F. Ahemad, LakshiriJ VahinipQthi/UpencJr's Page 4 df 6 1'Si grt'llh Vahinipcthj, Jai Prskash Pathak, Nssi'mo Ssg/Savita Pothak, and Rejssh &iqhraskur, have deDosited the amount. thev' are the fi'rst eiaht oersons, who are entitied for house. 'riowever, s'mce -sne another dupiex AQS-2 house was avaiiabie, thererore, under the Court order dated 19.10.2001. the 6QA uljotted 1-hat fiat to Smt, Ranu Trivedi. Accor-dingiy, thut wrif Detition was disposed of, stay was vacated and the B&A was directed to tuke uppropriats ^+eps for uiiotiTient of remcining fiets aa the Oeepavali fesTivaj was fast aD.Droacbino, so thar the ailoTTees can celebrate the &eepav'u.i festiv'ai in their new fluts. Thereafter, "rhe proce.ss of a!iott7sen+ was initioTed and out of the first eiaht persons, exceot the petitioner, other seven per-sons •sers aijot+ed the fiat.s, and sven registrQtion of documents 'ha.s also been executed in thsir favour. nfter aiiotmenf of houses 1'Q other applicants aa per prjority oniy one f!at i.e. /]AIi?-2/4 iias been teft out, The DeTiTioner beinq The first person reqistered ut seriai No.l was entitied for house in 'FZRST COME FIRST SET' principie. However, registry s'n resuecT of house No.AIIS-2/4 has not besn execufea' in fiis fa'/our- on aecount of filina of suit by re^oondent No-4 herein, 6- The fict^ ?ifirratsd by ths Qstitiorig?1 hsrsin h^vs bgsn Qclwt^sd by ths SQA i.n its return in the wr't petition fiied by Smt. ftcnu Trivedi as a'so jn ths rsply fited In ci\/il ^Liit flled by respo^dent Kio.4 hersin I" lAfhic-h they have odmitted thot the oetitioner's orior'ty ts at seriai No.l. ftesoondent Mo.4 hsreln si'eQQe.d IM ths shQS.s of StTit- 'J^.hi pQndsv and hs yy/ss ^hoyyn st seriai No.IO. It is admitted oositio." that resDondent No.4 has wso d^po^ltfid ths whols sfnount ind o. tripcirtits Ggf>£^!iisn'r .h<is cilreQdy bss^ executed in his favour on 21.8.200u, in which the d'sputed fiat has been ^hown and th^ losn ha^ bssn ^finctloried to rs^pondsyt l\te.4 Qgfxln^t thist ftat and that amount was deoosited wi'th the BuA. All the above documents were refeffed by learned counsel for the fespec+ive parties, durma the course or arauments. 7. HavJns heard learned counsel for ths oarties. I have oerL'sed the whole record. It is udmifted position that responden* No.4 has fiied a civii suit aefore the Civi! Judae in resDect of the ssme houss in in.'hich ths Paee 5 ofo .:t.-i-..^4^ii5-m BtS :5BS<5;s=ga gte :...>... fw's&a application of ths ps+jtioner' herein has bsen ailowed for adding him ss a dsfendant. Resoondent No.4 herein was substituted in oiace of Sn"it. Usha Pandev. whose eariier reaistration numbei" 'vv&s ar seris} No.4. h'owever. rescondent No.4 was shifted to serial No.IO bv the B&A Ofricers. Triportjte •aareemen-1- m re^pect of the disputed heuse has siso been c.xscutBd In fuv'our vf ^esDondent No,4. uHu u tnDsrtltc QQrgsment wss also executed between the petitione", the B&A, and the Bank on 10.11.1999 in which the num&er of fiat has not been menTioned, whereas, in the case of respondent No.4, fiat No.4 has been irientioned. It is not eleai- whether at the time of execuTion of tripan'ite agreement it was neeessary TO mentic-n the fiat nui?ibec or it vvaa done oniy in case of reapondent No.4 und why not in case of The petiTioner who was at seriai No.l, ^.nother question [s that •ifhethsr' riata were aliottsd to +he purchusera accordiriy to seriuj nurnber of fiut vis-a-vis seriui number of purchas-er or they were uiloweu to seiect anv fiut sut of the eiaht fiuts ii-reaoecti'/e of their o.l'iop]'tv number and flat number. Therefore, it is a matTer of evidence and disputed facts are involv'ed in thia matter. It 13 true that the getitioner aliAfays remained at senal No.l and as oer the noTiflcatjon he was enTJtied for the house out of eight housea as the first person. If re:apsndent N0,4 is treated as seriai No.lO. then he is not entitled for any fiat out of the -aight co.nstr'ucted flats, but he was repiaced in a!ace of Srnt. Usha Pandey whos-e originai nwnber' was 4, thsrefore, it becomes the matter of evidence to sort out theise compiicatec) questions and civi! suit has aireiady been filea'. (Woreover.. this is a contr-aetuai mattsr and the Detitioner herein and r'edpondent N0,4 h'ef'ein want to enforce thei>* contract agairist the 8DA and that can be sorted out in a civii suit. 8. Slnce the ca.se of the petitioner is that under the oral d'rectlons he wss glvsn pos5gstflon of the hQLi^s on 26.10.20C'l anri ^in^^ th^n he ic L'Fi oossessw" and vlde ietter dated 25.10.2001 he was askeo' to brine the 5tc[r?lo^, hs brou^h^ ths ^to.i'np^ sl^o, ett! fh^^s "fGcfs esn bs oroygd by eyidence whether the oetitioner' was aiiowed to take oossessio" under the oral directions. '-—- / .g :'r Page 6 of6 9. Therefsrs, in the circumstanees, I sm or ths coneidersd '/iew that proper remedv for the oetitioner is to apDroach the ci'/ii Court and Dursue his remedy under the oi-dinarv civii iaw. 10, Learned Senior Counsel for* the petit'oner submitted that responde.nt No.4 herein is not pursuing his civii auit, the same i.s lyi.ng without any progre-ss and even afte-r the Court orde.r so far the petltioner has not amended his pl"int. If It Is so, then the petitioner can move that Court for psssing approprlQts order regarding rejsc'i'ion of the plalnt or Qthsrwise for nc't sgmpiylnR with ths Court ordsr* Sincs the pgtitlc'nsr and rsspondent No.4 are fiohtina since 2001. snd therebv more than 4 i- vears hsve slaQsed whsreas, both of thsm have deoosited the fuii amount with the BD.A a"d this whole cnQos has been created bv the Officers of BbA. in order to dscids ths disouts as sQriy as Doss'bis. ths trisl Court is dirsctsd to expedite the. trial of the civi! suit and decide the sa.me, within six months from the date of recsipt of a copy of this order. It 's expected that a!l the psrties Wili co-operate ar.d assist the Court, ond fiie their documents yfifj fjtJQij^g thsir svidsncs ois psr ths Court dirsction GT ths sariisst. 50 that the suit is dispQsed of at ths esrliest. ll. In the rssulr, The periTioners writ peTITIon Is noT mainTainabte, as diseussed abovs, a,id the sam®is dismissed. Howeve", since the oetitioRer is In oossesslon. Therefore. one-monTh tlnie from Todav 'is ailowed To approach th®civi! Court and obtain cppropriate order. Tii! the sxplry' of one-month Tlme from Today, the resDondenl' 80A shai! not disturb the ast!*ior!®"'soossession. L.C. BhadoG ^^ r^.'v