Ghaziabad Development Authority & Ors. v. Machhla Devi
Background
Machhla Devi (the allottee) was allotted a house by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) in 1994 under a hire-purchase scheme but repeatedly defaulted on payments over several years, leading GDA to cancel the allotment. A first writ petition challenging the cancellation was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court in 2016 after detailed reasoning. When GDA later moved to evict her, she filed a second writ petition, and a different bench of the same High Court granted her relief, without even issuing notice to GDA, effectively reversing the earlier, final order of its own coordinate bench.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the second High Court order was legally impermissible because it undermined an earlier, final decision of a coordinate bench of the same High Court, violating basic judicial discipline and propriety. It also found the order was passed in breach of natural justice (audi alteram partem) since GDA was never given notice or a hearing. On facts, the Court found the allottee had been in unauthorised occupation of public property for about 14 years despite a final order against her, which amounted to unjust enrichment and abuse of process. The Court set aside the High Court's order, allowed the appeal, and directed the allottee's eviction, permitting GDA to use police assistance if necessary.
Lesson Learnt
Once a court finally decides an issue, even a differently constituted bench of the same court cannot simply override that decision in a later round of litigation without following due process, and continued unauthorised occupation of public property, however long-running, does not create a right to keep it.