ANJANI KUMAR, SABHAJEET YADAV, JJ. - (1.) THE petitioner by means of this writ petition has sought relief for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the respondent No. 1 dated 29.4.1999 (Annexure-10) whereby the allotment of land in dispute in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled and for quashing the order of the respondent No. 3 dated 11.5.1999 (Annexure-11) whereby the petitioner has been directed to vacate the allotted land and to remove her constructions thereon forthwith, further relief for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner from the shop in question and respondents be restrained from demolition of the petitioner's shop on the piece of land allotted to her on for 19.2.1998 has also been sought for.
(2.) THE reliefs sought in the writ petition rests on the assertion that on 15.6.1996 the Nagar Palika Parishad had passed a resolution (Annexure-1 of the writ petition) for letting out waste and unused land of the Parishad on rent in public auction after eviction of unauthorised occupants there from. The said resolution also has sanction contemplated in G. O., dated 15.2.1997 (Annexure-2 of the writ petition). In pursuance of the said resolution the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 took a decision to let out the land over a public drain to the petitioner. The petitioner was allotted an Arazi of Nala admeasuring 22 ft. x 8.5 ft. at Patwai Road by order of respondent No. 2, dated 19.2.1998 on a premium of Rs. 5000/- and monthly rent of Rs. 50/- (Annexure-3 of the writ petition) in pursuance of public auction held on 15.2.1998. The petitioner has deposited the aforesaid premium on 19.2.1998 and thereafter has obtained permission for making construction over the land allotted to her and for that purpose she has deposited a sum of Rs. 150/- on 9.3.1998 and her site plan has also been approved by Nagar Palika Parishad. Thereafter the petitioner has constructed three pakka shops over the said land costing about a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs and that petitioner is paying regular monthly rent, but all of sudden the impugned order dated 29.4.1999 has been passed cancelling the said allotment on incorrect facts and on irrelevant grounds without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter consequential order dated 11th May, 1999 has also been passed directing the petitioner to remove her construction, if any, made over the land and vacate the same, hence this petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid allotment order has been cancelled without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to have her say in the matter, therefore, the same is nullity and non-est on account of utter violation of principles of natural justice. He further submitted mat after allotment of the aforesaid land the petitioner has constructed three pakka rooms and shops by expending over Rs. 2.00 lacs in the aforesaid construction by placing the slab over the drain/nala in question after obtaining permission from Nagar Palika Parishad. Thus, the impugned action of respondents have caused material and pecuniary loss of the petitioner. It is also submitted that recital contained in the impugned order dated 29.4.1999 is based on incorrect statement of facts and in nay view of the matter since the petitioner has altered her position by investing substantial amount of money towards the aforesaid construction, therefore, the Nagar Palika Parishad cannot be permitted to change its earlier stand and resile therefrom, thus the respondent is estopped from changing its earlier stand on principle of estoppel operating against it, accordingly, the impugned order and consequential order dated 11.5.1999 could not have been passed in given facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also place reliance upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23845 of 1999, Purshottam Saran v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 3.12.2004, wherein in similar facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition filed by another person has been allowed on the limited question that the impugned order has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner of the aforesaid case with liberty to the concerned authority to initiate inquiry in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to all concerned in the matter.
(3.) A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 refuting the assertions made in the writ petition and justifying the impugned action taken against the petitioner. However in paras 6, 7 and in subsequent paragraphs of the counter-affidavit, it has been specifically stated that Ex-Executive Officer and Ex-Chairman allotted the aforesaid land to the petitioner and 18 other persons without any publication and advertisement of public auction and without holding it at proper and notified place without sanction and no approval of District Magistrate, the prescribed authority was obtained by Nagar Palika Parishad. The Nagar Palika Parishad rather in collusion of petitioner and others allotted the land on a throw premium, thus causing huge pecuniary loss to the Nagar Palika Parishad.;