Akhilesh Chaturvedi and Others vs M.P. Housing Board and Others

This writ appeal is filed u/s 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchch Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. The order of writ court dated 10.12.2008 passed in WP No. 2364/2004 is called in question in the present writ appeal. Shri H.D. Gupta, senior counsel assisted by Shri H.K. Shukla, Advocate advanced limited contention. By placing reliance on the judgment of writ court, it is contended that the writ court has not erred in passing the directions mentioned in para 12(i) and (ii) (first portion). Learned senior counsel submits that the case of the employees before the writ court was that they were allotted residential quarters by the MPRTC (Corporation). Admittedly the title of the accommodation is with Housing Board and Corporation was enjoying the accommodation pursuant to some hire purchase agreement entered into between the Corporation and the Board. Employees were residing in the accommodation for a considerable long time. Thus, a resolution was passed by the Board with a view to allot these accommodations to the employees on ownership basis on fulfillment of certain conditions. The employees are willing to pay the remaining rent for the same and had already deposited Rs. 75,000/- per person as directed by the writ Court. Thus, the Housing Board and the Corporation are obliged to ensure that the said resolution is enforced.

The contention of the learned senior counsel is that the appellants are not aggrieved by para 12(i) and are aggrieved only with action of the respondents whereby they are compelling employees to vacate the residential accommodations.

Prayer was opposed by the other side. It is contended by Shri K.N. Gupta, Sr. Advocate for the M.P. Housing Board and Shri Prashant Sharma, Advocate for M.P.R.T.C. that the appellants have no legal right to get accommodation on ownership basis. They were merely employees and in that capacity the accommodations were provided to them. It did not create any legal right in their favour to continue to occupy it for all times to come or become owner of the same.

We have bestowed by anxious consideration on the rival contention advanced at the bar.

It is apt to quote the directions issued by the writ Court in para 12 which reads as under:

In such Circumstances, petition of the petitioners is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) That the Housing Board and the Corporation shall settle the payment as per the hire purchase agreement with regard to the houses. The Housing Board shall also take into consideration the amount which has been deposited by the Corporation, Subsequently also the amount which has been paid by the petitioners as rent in accordance with interim order of this Court dated 13.05.2005 and if there is any outstanding due, the Corporation shall pay the amount within a period of one month.

(ii) The respondents No. 4 & 5 Corporation shall decide the question with regard to sell the houses in favour of the petitioners within a period of two months. If the Corporation decides not to sell the houses to the petitioners, in that circumstances, it shall refund the amount as Rs. 75,000/- with an interest of 9% per annum to the petitioners immediately and thereafter the petitioner shall hand over possession of the houses occupied by them to the Corporation, failing to handover possession, the Corporation will be at liberty to take possession immediately.

As contended, appellants are not aggrieved by para 12(i). In this para the writ Court directed that the Housing Board and Corporation shall settle the issue in the manner mentioned in the said para. In the considered opinion of this Court, if this portion is not complied with by the respondents, the remedy is elsewhere. Para 12(ii) will apply only when para 12(i) is fulfilled. On a specific question by the Bench, learned counsel for the respondents informed that the directions of 12(i) are not fulfilled nor any decision as directed has been taken by the respondents. The only grievance canvassed by the appellants is that without fulfilling 12(i) and (ii) the Corporation has directed them to handover the possession. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid aspect is systematically covered in the directions of writ court in para 12(ii), no further modification or direction is required.

In our opinion, merely because the employees occupied accommodations for sometime and resolution is passed by the Board for the purpose of deciding the ownership in their favour, no legal vested or constitutional right is created in favour of the appellant. No such right is either emerged or could be enforced in writ petition. Considering the aforesaid Writ Court passed directions in para 12 reproduced above, whereby directing the Corporation and the Board to take a decision. We find no reason to interfere or modify the order passed by the Writ Court. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.