RAJ KAUR Vs. HOUSING BOARD HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders Annexures P1, P3 and P5. The petitioner purchased shop No. 5, Sector 22, Housing Board Colony, Faridabad, measuring 18 sq. yards from the Housing Board, Haryana (for short 'the Board') in an open auction held in the year 1975 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 45,000/-. As per terms and conditions of the sale a sum of Rs. 6750/- i.e. 15 per cent of the total bid money was paid at the time of auction and another sum of Rs. 6750/- was paid thereafter. The balance 70 per cent of the sale consideration was to be paid within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter dated 24.3.1975 or with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereafter in four educated annual instalments. Physical possession of the shop was handed over to the petitioner immediately after deposit of the requisite 30 per cent of the sale consideration and since then she continued to be in possession of the shop. Further instalments were paid by her. However, an amount of Rs. 16,448.80 remained due from her. The Collector, Faridabad (respondent No. 3) vide order dated 17.3.1982 (Annexure P1) directed the petitioner to deposit the said sum of Rs. 16,448.80 on or before 30.3.1982 failing which the petitioner would be liable for eviction. The petitioner paid further sum of Rs. 17,700.80 by way of Bank Drafts dated 22.3.1982 (Rs. 9700.80), 9.1.1984 (Rs. 5000/-) and dated 19.1.1984 (Rs. 3000/-). Though the petitioner has paid the entire amount of sale consideration including interest accrued thereon, yet the payment had not been made within the specified period i.e. upto 30.3.1982. Consequently, the Collector (respondent No. 2) vide order dated 11.9.1985 (Annexure P3) ordered the eviction of the petitioner from the shop in dispute. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of eviction passed by the Collector, was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ambala Division vide order dated 17.2.1987 (Annexure P5). To challenge the orders annexures P1, P3 and P5 the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in this Court.

(2.) IT has been contended by Mr. Arun Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders passed by the authorities concerned have no legal basis. According to him, the petitioner is not a tenant under the Board but she is the owner of the shop in dispute. He contends that the provisions of Section 51 of the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 are not applicable in the case of petitioner. He contends that once the auction sale is complete, the title in the land or building does not remain with the Government even though a portion of the sale consideration remains unpaid. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on M/s Jagdish Chand Radhey Shyam v. The State of Punjab and others, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2587.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 51 of the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') is to the following effect :-