GULABRAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to allot a flat to the petitioner in the 10% Chief Minister's quota having an area above 500 sq.ft. as per his application, dated 26/05/1997. By amending the petition, the petitioner also challenges the order of the respondent No. 2 -Additional Collector and Competent Authority (Housing), cancelling the allotment of the flat of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to have retired from the defence services after attaining the age of 62 years on 13/09/1989. The petitioner had applied for a residential flat in Mumbai in the 10% Chief Minister's quota by an application. The application seeking allotment of a residential flat is not annexed to the petition. According to the petitioner, on 15/10/1988, the State of Maharashtra informed the petitioner that he was eligible for allotment of flat admeasuring 800 sq.ft., in the category of "dire need" from the 10% Chief Minister's quota. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to a flat admeasuring 800 sq.ft., but on 23/04/1997, the respondent No. 2 allotted a flat admeasuring 24 sq.mtrs., i.e. 240 sq.ft. to the petitioner. The petitioner conveyed to the respondent No. 2 that the flat allotted to the petitioner was small in size and was not convenient to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, claimed a bigger flat as the flat allotted to him was not acceptable to him. It is claimed that the petitioner sent representations to the respondent No. 2 from time to time, but they were not favourably considered. The petitioner, therefore, filed the instant petition seeking a direction to the respondents to allot a flat of an area of more than 500 sq.ft. as per his application, dated 26/05/1997. Since the allotment of the flat admeasuring 24 sq.mtrs. was cancelled during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the cancellation order, dated 26/06/2000 by the instant petition.

(3.) SHRI Patil, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, supported the action of the respondents. It is stated that two housing schemes were floated by the Government Under Sections 20 and 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976 and flats were allotted as per the procedure laid down in the Government Resolution, dated 20/09/1994. The petitioner was included in the list from the "dire need of space category" and he was placed at Sr. No. 38. The petitioner was informed regarding the allotment and placement as per his seniority vide letter, dated 15/10/1998. It is submitted that the petitioner was never allotted 800 sq.ft. flat by the communication, dated 15/10/1998 and it was only conveyed to the petitioner by the communication that the petitioner was eligible for sanction of one flat from the 10% quota in accordance with the discretionary powers of the Government. It is stated that the petitioner did not continue to reside on the address stated in the application and since the address of the petitioner was changed and he had failed to inform about the new address to the respondents, the address of the petitioner was found with great difficulty and the petitioner was allotted a flat. Initially, it is submitted that the petitioner was allotted a flat having an area 40.08 sq.mtrs., but the petitioner did not accept the said flat on the ground that he was entitled to a flat of 800 sq.ft. The said flat was, therefore, allotted to one V.B. Mitra. It is stated that the petitioner was again allotted a flat in Borivali, admeasuring 24 sq.mtrs., but the petitioner did not accept the said allotment also. It is stated that by the communication, dated 21/06/1997, the petitioner had informed that he was not willing to accept the allotment of a flat having smaller area and wanted a flat at a convenient place and not at a place at the address at Borivali. It is stated that the petitioner was offered the allotment of flat on two occasions, but the petitioner did not accept the same and hence there was no other alternative for the respondents but to cancel the allotment of the flat admeasuring 24 sq.mtrs. by the impugned communication. It is stated that the petitioner had concealed material facts while applying to the respondents for allotment and the petitioner does not appear to be eligible for allotment.