LAJPAT RAI SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought quashing of the two communications (Annexures-P4 and P5). It is alleged that plot No.A-286 in Shivalik Colony, New Delhi was allotted to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was the founder member of the Re-habilitation Ministry Employees Co-operative House Building Society, while serving in Re-habilitation Department. The allotment was made on 14.12.1989. It is alleged that the petitioner had paid more than Rs.65,000.00 but had not been issued any lease deed or possession letter despite requests. It is alleged that respondent No.2. in connivance with certain group of persons had obtained the petitioner's signatures of which the petitioner came to know subsequently that the same were manipulated by respondent No.2 as documents of sale/transfer of the plot on petitioner's behalf, which resulted in issuance of letters (Annexures-P.4 and P.5). The same have the effect of cancellation of the petitioner's allotment. The petitioner has further alleged that a notice was got issued by him to the Secretary of the Society on 27.2.1996. The petitioner had neither been allotted the said flat, nor been delivered possession thereof, as such there was no question of the petitioner making any transfer to any third party as wrongly alleged. In this background the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the two orders on a number of grounds.

(2.) Respondents 1 and 2 in their reply filed on the affidavit of Shri Surjit Singh, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Rehabilitation Division, New Delhi stated that the petitioner was allocated plot No.A-286 by the Society, but he had violated the bye-laws of the Society by entering into an agreement for sale of the plot. The petitioner had thus violated the terms of the agreement dated 10.8.1982 entered into between the Society and the Government, which was entered into in order to ensure that the Members of the Society use the plot for their own use and do not part with the same by way of sale. In order to bind every member to this condition, an affidavit sworn before the Magistrate First Class was obtained from them to the effect that he has not entered into any oral or written agreement for sale/transfer of the plot allotted to him, in any manner, whatsoever to any person before his case is sponsored by the Society to the Ministry for execution of sub-lease. The petitioner also submitted an affidavit dated 28.2.1991. Reference is thereafter made to the complaint received in the office from Shri K.K.Taneja about the agreement entered into between the petitioner and Shri K.K.Behl.

(3.) After narrating the facts disclosed in the complaint, it is stated in reply that a show cause notice was duly issued to the petitioner as to why the plot allocated to him by the Society be not cancelled, in view of the fact that he had violated the terms of the agreement. The petitioner was asked to file reply to the show cause notice. Sufficient opportunity was given to him of being heard. After affording full opportunity and finding no merit in the arguments of the petitioner, the Society was directed to cancel the allotment.