Most Jeorani Devi v. the Chairman Cum Managing Director Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Jharkhand HC13 Aug 2019WPC/5515/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed substitution of legal heirs for the deceased petitioner. The writ petition, challenging eviction proceedings, was disposed of with directions to the respondent Chief of Township to consider the petitioners claim for long-term lease of the quarters afresh and issue a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Substitution of legal heirs allowed. Writ petition disposed of with direction to respondent to reconsider lease claim and pass reasoned order within 12 weeks.

Most Jeorani Devi Vs the Chairman Cum Managing… — Landlord and Tenant | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5515 of 2014

Most. Jeorani Devi

.... Petitioner

Versus

The C.M.D., Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., Ranchi

¶6

The Estate Officer, Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., Ranchi

¶7

The Chief of Township, T.A. Division, Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., Ranchi

¶8

… Respondents ---

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶10

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhijit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Advocate --- Order No. 05 Dated 13^th August, 2019

¶11

I.A. No. 6261 of 2019

¶12

Heard Mr. Abhijit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Piyush Chitresh learned counsel appearing for respondents.

¶13

This application has been preferred for substitution of the petitioner who has died on 22.06.2016 leaving behind her legal heirs, who are as follows:

¶14

i. Bijendra Kumar, son of late Moti Ravidas, resident of Qr. No. B-0149, Sector-1, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi,

¶15

ii. Sanjay Kumar, son of late Moti Ravidas, resident of Qr. No. B- 0149, Sector-1, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi,

¶16

iii. Sangita Kumari, daughter of late Moti Ravidas, resident of Qr. No. B-0149, Sector-1, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi,

¶17

iv. Ranjay Kumar, son of late Moti Ravidas, resident of Qr. No. B- 0149, Sector-1, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.

¶18

On consideration of the averment made in the instant application, the legal heirs as mentioned above are allowed to be substituted in place of original petitioner, namely, Most. Jeorani Devi and the instant application is allowed.

¶19

W.P.(C) No. 5515 of 2014

¶20

In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceeding in connection with Case No. PP Act/Estate/2013-105 instituted

¶21

¶22

by the respondents under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 for evicting the original petitioner from the Qr. No. B-149, Sector-1, HEC Colony.

¶23

It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to issuance of Circular No. 02/2004 for allotment of quarters on Long Term Lease (LTL), the original writ petitioner had duly applied but the same has not been considered and in fact on the ground of unauthorized occupier of B-149, Sector-1, HEC Colony, steps have been taken by the respondents for evicting the petitioner from the said quarter.

¶24

Mr. Piyush Chitresh learned counsel appearing for respondents on the other hand has stated that LTL which was circulated in the year 2004 has already come to an end in the year 2011 and therefore the petitioner has no subsisting right either to claim on the basis of LTL or to retain the quarter and such occupation by the original petitioner can be termed as unauthorized occupation.

¶25

The factual aspect of the case reveals that the husband of the original writ petitioner was a regular employee of the Company who was working as Assistant Manager under HMBP unit. Consequently during his service period he was allotted a quarter being B-149, Sector-1, HEC Colony on the terms and conditions as contained in the allotment order. Unfortunately the husband of the original writ petitioner died on 19.07.1996 during his service period for which an application was also made for grant of compassionate appointment to the original writ petitioner. The same however was not considered. It has also been stated that the several representations were made for payment of lawful dues on account of death-cum-retiral dues. A circular was issued by the respondent HEC inviting applications for long term lease of quarters including Qr. No. B-149, Sector-1, HEC Colony on the prescribed terms and conditions of the lease agreement. Consequent to the said circular, the original writ petitioner had applied on 1.09.2004. It is the grievance of the petitioner that neither the application for grant of quarter in question on LTL was considered nor the death-cum-retiral benefit of the husband of the original writ petitioner was released in her favour. Subsequently the petitioner was issued a letter in which she was advised to apply for DT, A and AN type of quarter after surrendering the present quarter, but the

¶26

¶27

original writ petitioner pleaded that since the Qr. No. B-149, Sector-1, HEC Colony was allotted to her husband in the year 1967 therefore the said quarter be allotted to her on LTL basis.

¶28

In the meantime, a proceeding was initiated under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 in which the petitioner was issued notice with which the petitioner is aggrieved. 6. The retention of the Qr. No. B-149, Sector-1 appears to be solely on the basis that an application was made by the original writ petitioner for allotting the said quarter on LTL. 7. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that so far as the payments of death-cum-retiral benefit are concerned, the G.P.F. to the tune of Rs.3,24,817/- has already been paid on 28.11.1996. It has also been stated that 15 days’ grace period for vacation of quarter was given to vacate the quarter but the same was not vacated and therefore the amount of Rs. 2,12,123/stands due and payable from the original petitioner which also include the electricity charges. It has also been stated that the amount payable to the original petitioner is Rs. 1,62,890.62 under the head of death-cum-retiral dues. So far as the claim of the original writ petitioner with respect to allotment of Qr. No. B-149, Sector-1 to her on LTL is concerned the same has not been appropriately been dealt with by the respondents. Although in the writ petition a statement was made that the original writ petitioner was advised for applying of DT, A and AN type of quarter after surrendering the present quarter, but nothing has been stated in the present application as to whether she was entitled for allotment of Qr. No. B-149, Sector-1 or her entitlement was only with respect to DT, A and AN type of quarter. The counter affidavit therefore is silent with respect to the application preferred by the petitioner for grant of LTL.

¶29

Therefore it is necessary that the respondents shall consider the claim of the petitioners/ original writ petitioner afresh in view of the aforesaid. This writ petition stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh representation before the respondent No 3. If such representation is filed, the respondent No. 3 shall appropriately consider the same and dispose it of by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶30

¶31

If the respondent No. 3 comes to a finding that the petitioners is not entitled for grant of lease for a B type quarter necessary steps shall be taken by the respondent No. 3 under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 since it has been stated that the case instituted under the provisions of said Act has not concluded as yet. However if the claim of the petitioners is found to be in the affirmative, the respondent shall take appropriate steps so that the grievance of the petitioners is redressed.

¶32

This writ application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶33

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶34

Most Jeorani Devi v. the Chairman Cum Managing Director Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Most Jeorani Devi v. the Chairman Cum Managing Director Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Krishna Kumar Neelam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manash Ray Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sigma R D Consultants Pvt. Ltd. through Its Executive Director Dhananjay Kumar Verma Vs Chief Secretory

Teko Sao and Ors. Vs Lalo Devi and Ors.