- (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by original respondent no. 3 in the W.P.(C) No. 63 of 2006 as the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 19th February, 2009, which was preferred by present respondent no. 1 (original petitioner) whereby the writ petition was allowed despite the house in question was allotted to this appellant and also despite the fact that without cancelling the allotment letter in favour of this appellant again the same has been reallotted to respondent no. 1 (original petitioner) and that too second allotment by a small employee of the respondent Housing Board, without authority of the Housing Board.
(2.) Factual Matrix: Quarter no. 42/1/6 situated at Bagbera Housing Colony, Bagbera, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum was allotted to this appellant on 27thMay, 1992. This decision was taken by the Bihar State Housing Board in its meeting no. 94/121. Thereafter, allotment letter was issued in favour of this appellant, which is at Annexure 1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. Thereafter, Hire Purchase Agreement was also entered into between this appellant and the Bihar State Housing Board on 14th July, 1997 which is at Annexure 2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. Necessary legally payable amount has also been paid by this appellant to the Bihar State Housing Board. Receipts of such money are at Annexures 3 and 4 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. Despite the allotment was in continuation which is valid in nature, one famous employee of the Housing Board as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, allotted the quarter in question to respondent no. 1 (original petitioner), without approval of the Housing Board. This has created all the disputes between the parties. Thus, one house is alloted to two persons. Second allotment has been cancelled by the Housing Board on 19th November, 2005 i.e. after couple of months of allotment by the very same famous employee, as alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant. This cancellation letter is at Annexure 6 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal which was under challenge in the writ petition preferred by respondent no. 1 (original petitioner) and the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition mainly on the ground that without hearing the original petitioner, the allotment was cancelled, but, the same argument is also canvassed by the original allottee of the flat that even without cancelling his allotment, second allotment has been made. As the writ petition preferred by respondent no. 1 was allowed by the learned Single Judge, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by respondent no. 3 of the writ petition.
(3.) Contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant: Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this appellant was allotted the house in question on 27thMay, 1992 vide order at Annexure 1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal and, therefore, Hire Purchase Agreement was also entered into on 14th July, 1997 and the legally payable amount has also been paid by this appellant vide Annexures 3 and 4money receipts. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no allegation by the Bihar State Housing Board that this appellant has committed breach of any conditions of the allotment of the house in question. Neither any notice has been issued to the appellant by the respondent-Housing Board nor allotment made in favour of this appellant by the respondent- Housing Board has been cancelled and without cancelling earlier allotment, second allotment has been made by one employee of the respondent-Housing Board in favour of respondent no. 1 (original petitioner). It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that when this mistake was pointed out to the respondent Housing Board, ultimately after couple of months second allotment letter issued in favour of respondent no. 1 (original petitioner) was cancelled vide order dated 19th November, 2005 (Annexure 6 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). Thus without cancelling earlier allotment, second allotment could not have been made in favour of respondent no. 1 (original petitioner). Moreover without giving any opportunity of being heard to this appellant, his house cannot be allotted to anyone else. Moreover, there is no breach of any of the conditions of the allotment by this appellant and never any notice has been given to this appellant by the respondent Housing Board. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 19th February, 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 63 of 2006 deserves to be quashed and set aside.;