Murari Das @ Mahirajdhwaj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urba Devt. Lucknow and Ors. — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Murari Das @ Mahirajdhwaj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urba Devt. Lucknow and Ors. — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 20.4.2019 quashed; respondent no. 3 (City Magistrate/Rent Control & Eviction Officer) directed to decide the review application preferred by respondent no. 5 after hearing both the parties, intimating the next date fixed to both parties, and to endeavour to decide the review application as early as possible.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned review order dated 20.4.2019, cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioner, is vitiated because it was passed without issuing notice to the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity of hearing (violation of principles of natural justice). +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 20.4.2019 was passed in contravention of the principle of natural justice, there being a procedural lapse in that it was passed without issuing notice to the petitioner and without providing any opportunity of hearing; accordingly the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was quashed.

Ratio / Principle

The questions raised regarding fraud in obtaining the allotment are disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction; the Court noted the procedural lapse in the impugned order rather than deciding the fraud allegations on merits.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rent Control & Eviction — Allotment of premises — Review — Cancellation of allotment by review order dated 20.4.2019 without issuing notice to the allottee or affording him opportunity of hearing — Held to be in contravention of the principle of natural justice — Writ petition allowed and review order quashed — Allegations that the allotment was procured by fraud (concealment of attachment in proceedings under Section 146 Cr.P.C.; showing deceased R.K. Langer as owner) being disputed questions of fact, not adjudicable in writ jurisdiction — Respondent no. 3 (City Magistrate/Rent Control & Eviction Officer) directed to decide the pending review application of respondent no. 5 afresh after hearing both parties.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:53101

Court No. - 19

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12613 of 2019

Petitioner :- Murari Das @ Mahirajdhwaj Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urba Devt. Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jag Prasad Yadav

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 20.4.2019 passed by the opposite party no. 3 i.e. City Magistrate/Rent Control & Eviction Officer in Review Application preferred by the respondent no. 5, whereby reviewed its order and cancelled the allotment order dated 30.1.2019 passed in favour of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent no. 3 prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 20.4.2019 has neither issued any notice to the petitioner in whose favour the allotment order was passed nor any opportunity of hearing was given to him.

The said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is neither denied nor disputed by learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 but he has submitted that the allotment order was obtained by the petitioner fraudulently by not disclosing the fact that the property has already been attached in the proceedings under Section 146 Cr.P.c.

In reply thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had moved an application for allotment of the building on 5.5.2018 in pursuance thereof after the enquiry the vacancy was notified by the respondent no. 3 by its order dated 19.1.2019 thereafter the allotment order was issued in his favour on 30.1.2019.

In reply, learned counsel for the respondent no 5 has submitted that it was the petitioner, who had committed the fraud at the time of moving application for allotment, as he had shown R.K. Langer as owner of the property whereas he has expired on 14.5.2008 whereas as per the learned counsel for the petitioner his name was in the records of Nagar Nigam till the year, 2019 so there is no fraud played by the petitioner by moving an application.

All these question are disputed question of facts, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction but there is procedural lapse in passing the impugned order dated 20.4.2019 i.e. the same has been passed without issuing notice to the petitioner and without providing any opportunity of hearing.

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for both the parties are agreed that impugned order dated 20.4.2019 may be quashed and direction may be issued to the respondent no. 3 to decide the review application preferred by the respondent no. 5 after hearing both the parties within a stipulated time as this Court may fix.

As discussed above, the impugned order dated 20.4.2019 has been passed in contravention of principle of natural justice, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.4.2019 is hereby quashed.

Respondent no. 3 is directed to decide the review application preferred by the respondent no. 5 after hearing both the parties by intimating the next date fixed in the matter to both the parties and shall make endeavour to decide the review application as earliest.

Order Date :- 2.8.2024 A nuj Singh

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench