Madhya Pradesh High Court
M P Housing And Infrastructure ... vs Bhu Datta Sagar on 8 January, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:357
1 WA-3049-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 8 th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 3049 of 2024
M P HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD
THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
Versus
BHU DATTA SAGAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Harish Dixit - Senior Advocate with Shri Parth Dixit - Advocate for the
appellants.
Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Ankur Mody - Additional Advocate General for the respondent No.2/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, appeal is heard
finally.
2. The present Writ Appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is
preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 20.09.2024
passed in Writ Petition No.1617/2013, whereby petition filed by the
petitioner (respondent no.1 herein) has been allowed.
3. Precisely stated facts of the case are that a Scheme was floated by
the appellant - M.P.Housing and Infrastructure Development Board at Pt.
Dindayal Nagar, Gwalior for allotment of plots to the members of SC ST
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:357
2 WA-3049-2024
community. Since the petitioner belongs to the SC community, therefore, he
applied for the same. Initially, installment of Rs.2,400/- was paid and as per
allotment letter dt.15.07.2003 (Annexure P/3), petitioner was allotted a plot
No. EE-613 subject to certain conditions including the payment of
Rs.17,202/- in total as cost of the plot. Since the petitioner deposited
Rs.4,900/- already, therefore, remaining amount of Rs.12,327/- had to be
deposited by him within fifteen days. Since the petitioner did not deposit the
remaining amount for years together, therefore, Housing Board did not allot
him the plot.
4. After nine years, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition
No.7583/2012, in which he raised a plea that he deposited the amount as
required but in spite of that, possession over the plot has not been delivered
to the petitioner. Considering such factual narration/representation, learned
Writ Court vide order dated 19.10.2012 directed the appellant Housing Board
to decide the representation preferred by the petitioner within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Said
representation was considered by the appellant Housing Board and rejected it
vide order dt.04.02.2013 on the ground that remaining amount was never
deposited by the petitioner and therefore this prayer can not be considered
after around ten years of allotment in the year 2012. Said rejection passed by
the Estate Officer of the Housing Board was placed as Annexure P/1 with the
writ petition. Said order gave cause of action to the petitioner to prefer
another Writ Petition No.1617/2013, the order of which is under challenge in
the present Writ Appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:357
3 WA-3049-2024
5. Before learned Writ Court, it was the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that petitioner did not deposit the amount within
fifteen days, but there is no stipulation in the allotment order that what would
be the effect if the amount is not deposited. Therefore, he may be permitted
to re-claim the plot on the basis of allotment order issued in the year 2003.
6. No reply was filed by the M.P.Housing and Infrastructure
Development Board in the writ proceeding. It was orally contested.
7. After considering the rival submissions, learned Writ Court passed
the impugned order and allowed the petition preferred by the petitioner and
the order dated 04.02.2013 was quashed and the matter is relegated back to
the Housing Board to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the
scheme under which he had earlier been allotted the plot and if any plot is
available under the scheme, the Board was directed to allot the plot to the
petitioner on such rates as may be fixed by them taking note of the earlier
allotment conditions mentioned in the allotment order. It was further
directed that if any other plot is not available with them under the said
scheme at Pt. Dindayal Nagar, then the petitioner may be given plot in some
other scheme in accordance with law.
8. Against such order, appellant/M.P.Housing and Infrastructure
Development Board is before this Court.
9. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that
allotment order dated 15.07.2003 (Annexure P/3 in the writ petition) was
issued to the petitioner with clear stipulation that out of Rs.17,202/-, part
payment was made by the petitioner and the remaining amount of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:357
4 WA-3049-2024
Rs.12,327/- was to be paid by him within fifteen days and thereafter
possession could have been handed over to the petitioner subject to the
regular deposit of annual installment towards lease rent @ Rs.7/- per sqr.
mtr. and maintenance amount @ Rs.5/- per sq. mtr. per year. Therefore, it
was clearly stipulated that remaining amount of Rs.12,327/- had to be
deposited within fifteen days and the same was not deposited by the
petitioner for nine long years. After nine years instead of depositing the
amount, he entered into litigation where he mis-represented the fact that he
deposited the remaining amount and therefore order dt.19.10.2012 was
passed in W.P.No.7583/2012, in which direction was given to the appellant
to consider the representation of the petitioner. At that time, he did not
deposit the remaining amount and made a wrong statement to get the
misplaced sympathy of the Court. After the matter being remanded back, the
authority concerned considered the matter in correct perspective and passed
the impugned order, whereby the representation preferred by the petitioner
got dismissed. No case for interference was made out because now we are in
2025 and after 22 years the petitioner can not be given any benefit. It would
amount to give benefit to the petitioner who was otherwise reluctant to pay
the amount. Other persons of weaker sections complied with the conditions
of allotment order and they were duly given plots as per the scheme.
10. According to learned counsel for the appellant, learned Writ Court
erred in passing the impugned order, whereby direction was given for
reconsideration after such long lapse of time.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supported the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:357
5 WA-3049-2024
order. According to him, after getting the allotment order in the year 2003,
he tried to pay the amount but he could not deposit the amount because of
casualness of appellant/Housing Board. At that point of time, he was ready
to pay the amount. No stipulation is raised in case remaining amount is not
deposited by the petitioner, therefore, allotment order is still intact. He
prayed for dismissal of appeal.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
documents appended thereto.
13. This is the case where appellant/M.P.Housing and Infrastructure
Development Board is aggrieved by the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by
the learned Writ Court in W.P.No.1617/2013 whereby directions have been
given to the appellant Housing Board to either adjust the petitioner in
existing scheme or he be given preference to any other scheme for allotment
of plot.
14. Admittedly, the petitioner was given allotment of the plot No. EE-
613 vide allotment letter dt.15.07.2003. It was stipulated in the order itself
that amount is to be deposited by the petitioner within fifteen days which at
that point of time came around Rs.12,327/-. This was the amount which was
to be paid by the petitioner within fifteen days and thereafter possession of
the plot could had been given to him, thereafter lease rent @ Rs.7/- per sqr.
mtr. and maintenance amount @ Rs.5/- per sq. mtr. per year had to be
deposited by the petitioner after possession. Therefore, payment of remaining
amount was sine qua non for getting the possession over the plot in question.
Mere allotment does not create any right. Admittedly, the petitioner never
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:357
6 WA-3049-2024
deposited said amount between the period 15.07.2003 till filing of writ
petition (Writ Petition No.7583/2012) in the year 2012.
15. After lapse of nine years, petitioner preferred Writ Petition for
ventilation of his grievance regarding non-handing over of possession of
plot, which was to be handed over to him in the month of August 2003 at
best subject to of course payment of remaining amount. Therefore, fault lied
with the petitioner only. No document is available on record to suggest that
interregnum period was utilized by the petitioner to make correspondence or
to raise his legitimate grievance regarding delayed payment.
16. After nine years, when petition was preferred, then he made
misrepresentation of fact that he deposited the amount whereas actually he
never deposited the same. On the basis of such statement, writ petition was
disposed of with the direction to consider the representation of the petitioner
as per law. If the petitioner would have disclosed non-payment of remaining
amount at that point of time, then said order would not have been passed.
Therefore, that was fraud committed by the petitioner by making
misrepresentation of fact.
17. It is well settled principle of law that Fraud Vitiates Everything.
This principle has been dealt with by the Apex Court in its
various judgments viz. in the case of R. Ravindra Reddy Vs. H.
Ramaiah Reddy, (2010) 3 SCC 214, Badami Bai (D) Tr. L.R. Vs.
Bhali, (2012) 11 SCC 574, Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd. Vs. Sant Singh,
(2016) 11 SCC 378, K.D. Sharma Vs. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481, Express
Newspapers (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1986) 1 SCC 133, DDA Vs.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:357
7 WA-3049-2024
Skipper Construction, (2007) 15 SCC 601 and in the case of Jai Narain
Parasrampuria Vs. Pushpa Devi Saraf, reported in (2006) 7 SCC 756. In
R. Ravindra Reddy (supra) , the Apex Court held as under:
"39. As far as fraud is concerned, it is no doubt true, as
submitted by Mr Ramachandran, that fraud vitiates all
actions taken pursuant thereto and in Lord Denning's
words "fraud unravels everything......."
18. Besides that, contention of the petitioner that no penalty or penal
caution is stipulated in case of non-deposit of remaining amount, appears to
be misplaced for the reason that Housing Board can not wait till eternity for
petitioner to deposit the remaining amount. If the period is stipulated as
fifteen days for payment of remaining amount, then it is to be construed as it
is in any commercial transactional relationship. At best within that fifteen
days, if any genuine difficulty arises, then a person like petitioner could have
raised grievance and authorities usually consider such practical predicament
and take a way out. Even period to deposit the amount could have been
extended to a reasonable limit. However, in the absence of any penal
provision for non- deposit of amount does not mean that petitioner could
have stretched it to the extent where after 23 years he is getting premium for
his own default. This was a scheme for weaker section of society and some
other members of weaker section got the benefit, therefore, petitioner cannot
be permitted to get the benefit of his casualness or carelessness in dealing
with such matter.
19. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned Writ
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:357
8 WA-3049-2024
Court exceeded the jurisdiction while interpreting the cause of the petitioner
in a manner to give premium to his default, that too, after a lapse of 23 years
in time line. Even a direction for consideration of the case of the petitioner in
other scheme is concerned, the same cannot be maintainable because other
schemes would be operated and regulated by their own terms and conditions.
Therefore, that direction also needs to be diluted to the extent that the
petitioner if applies for any other scheme, then same shall be treated in
accordance with law without any preference.
20. In cumulative analysis, appeal succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned order dt.20.09.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.1617.2013 is
hereby set aside. Appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
