MUNNI DEVI Vs. ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Munni Devi has filed this writ petition with the prayer that the order dated 20.1.2001 (Annexure -12) passed by the Allahabad Development Authority (for short ADA) directing her ejectment from flat No. EWS 6 in a scheme known as 'Agnipath1 (hereinafter referred to as flat in scheme) be quashed. The other prayer, which is not connected with the ejectment, is that the petitioner should be directed to pay Rs. 10,000/ - only against flat No. 6.

(2.) WHEN the petition was filed, a Division Bench entertained the matter, admitted it and status -quo as on the date i.e. 16.2.2001 was directed to be maintained. The ADA and the prospective allottees of the said accommodation flat No. EWS 6 filed counter -affidavits with applications to vacate the stay order. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner. Under the pressing urgency felt by the respondents who are allottees -applicant in response to the advertisement may by the ADA, date was fixed in the matter, and the petition is being finally disposed of after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at the admission stage.

(3.) ISSUES are not too long to be decided in the instant case. The petitioner alleges that she was living with her family in a quarter in the land upon which the scheme has been executed. She has further pleaded that she was not alone, rather there were more persons. They were dispossessed from the land with an assurance that they will be allotted alternative accommodations. Reference has been made to the interim order which was passed in earlier writ petition in which ADA had made a statement that alternative accommodations shall be afforded to those who were occupying the out houses in the land in question. In due course, the quarters have come to be constructed in which apart from other quarters, there are two quarters which were numbered as EWS 6 and EWS 7. The petitioner's case proceeds that at some point of time she was, like other dispossessed persons, allotted temporary accommodation which was subsequently damaged in the year 1996 in a strong bail storm in Allahabad. It is said that subsequently, the petitioner's alternative accommodation was fixed by the respondent No. 1 and that being the flat EWS 6 which is a ground floor accommodation. Further pleading of the petitioner is that her husband is having a disability of 40% on the right leg because of polio attack in that leg.