SHUKUNTLA DEVI Vs. JOGINDER SINGH DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is taken up today in view of my order dated 30.7.1996, on which day the arguments from both sides were heard and the final decision was also declared, but the dictation of the detailed judgement was postponed for considering imposition of costs in the appeal, which depended on ascertaining whether the appellant would be in a position to abide by the decree within reasonable time. Today neither the counsel for the appellant, nor the appellant appeared, though this Court waited till 2.00 P.M..

(2.) This unfortunate litigation could have been avoided if the Deputy Commissioner of Gurdaspur had exercised a little restraint while passing the order of allotment of a Government accommodation avail- able at that station. It is an undisputed fact that the said Deputy Commissioner, without holding a meeting of the Allotment Committee, issued orders of allotment of Government premises to the present appellant. In my opinion, such an action by the Deputy Commissioner was contrary to the rules, and was illegal. Therefore, it did not confer any authority to the appellant to occupy the premises in question. In the context of this, it would be pertinent to consider the relevant rules pertaining to the allotment of houses by the Allotment Committee. These rules are the Punjab Government Houses (General Pool) Allotment Rules 1983. Before the introduction of these rules, there were earlier rules also, but the counsel from both the sides were unable to secure those rules. Presently, however, these earlier rules are not relevant for the disposal of this case. As per these rules, a House Allotment Committee is formed consisting of the Deputy Commissioner at the district as a Chairman and other Officers as the Members including the District & Sessions Judge as one of the Members of the said Committee. The function of this committee pertains to allotment of houses as per the rules. It is not necessary to refer in detail these rules because in this case the real question would be whether the Deputy Commissioner alone was justified in allotting the premises by issuing the order without holding the meeting of the Allotment Committee. Needless to State that there is no such power available to the Deputy Commissioner. It is surprising that despite such clear position, the Deputy Commissioner had the audacity to allot the premises to the appellant without holding meeting of the Allotment Committee I would, therefore, direct the State Government to hold enquiry against the concerned Deputy Commissioner who had disregarded the rules, and thus provoked the present litigation. I further direct that the State Government shall take necessary action against the concerned persons if on enquiry they are found guilty of violating the rules and thereby lending strength to this otherwise avoidable litigation.

(3.) The premises in question is a residential house described as house No.5-B in 'kutchery' compound. That premises was originally occupied by an employee from the Sessions Court, Gurdaspur. After his retirement, he vacated the premises. Thereupon the District & Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur allotted that premises to respondent Joginder Singh, Junior Assistant Officer of the District & Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. He occupied the premises on 20th July, 1995. The material before me indicates that thereafter on 10th August, 1995 the appellant broke open the lock of the respondent Joginder Singh and occupied the premises. At this juncture, it would also be necessary to clarify the correctness of the Allotment order thus issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, in favour of respondent Joginder Singh. In the context of that, the counsel for the respondent brought my attention to a resolution passed by the said. House Allotment Committee on 1.7.1970. The relevant extract of the said meeting is as follows:-