JAYVANDANA Vs. GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this group of 7 petitions the common questions of law and facts are involved. Hence at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties these are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners belong to the Economically Weaker Section of the So- ciety. The respondent Housing Board had formulated a scheme for housing these poor people under Save a Rupee per day wand Own Your House Scheme (hereinafter Save Rupee Scheme or S.R.D. Scheme) whereby the applicants were required to make an initial deposit of Rs. 1050.00 and thereafter to deposit article rate of Re. 1/- a day to own a small tenement estimated to cost approxi- mately Rs. 6000.00. Along with others. the petitioners applied for joining the said S.R.D. Scheme. Subsequently the said S.R.D. Scheme appears to have run into difficulties as the expected finances were not forthcoming and therefore eventually the said Scheme had to be abandoned. However the respondent Housing Board made arrangements with Housing and Urban Development Cor- poration (hereinafter - HUDCO) for loan to construct houses for the poor people under the scheme known as Economically Weaker Section Scheme (hereinafter E.W.S. Scheme). The cost of the tenement was estimated to be approximately Rs. 8 0 under this scheme. The petitioners had applied for the tenements proposed to be constructed at Vadaj. As the S.R.D. Scheme at Vadaj was not feasible the respondent Housing Board offered them tenements at Chandkheda under the E.W.S. Scheme where the total cost was estimated to be Rs. 12 0 when the tenements were ready. The petitioners were offered the said E.W.S. Scheme tenements at Chandkheda at Rs. 12 0 Each one of these petitioners was allotted one tenement. It is the case d the respondent Housing Board that each of these petitioners accepted the allotment on the terms and conditions on which it was offered. Each petitioner has entered into a separate agreement with the respondent Housing Board. The petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of their respective tenements since then.

(3.) The petitioners have contended that they had originally applied for allotment of tenements under S.R.D. Scheme which the respondent Housing Board had accepted and therefore the Housing Board is bound by it and must provide tenements to the petitioners under S.R.D. Scheme. According to them the respondent Housing Board is prevented from imposing the E.W.S. Scheme on the petitioners under the principle of promissory estoppel.