HOUSING BOARD HARYANA Vs. RAM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HOUSING Board Haryana, Chandigarh invited applications for the allotment of various categories of houses vide advertisement published in 'The Tribune' dated 28.4.1987. In response to the said advertisement, Ram Nath applied on the prescribed form No. 041821 on 19.5.1987 alongwith the requisite earnest money of Rs. 7500/- vide draft No. TTA/11/561793 dated 19.5.87 complete in all respects within the due date. Clauses 4(i) and 6 of the advertisement, Annexure P1, read as under :-

(2.) DEFENDANTS No. 1 and 2 contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that, in fact, according to the Housing Board Rules and Regulations Act, 1971, after draw of lots, the reserve houses for scheduled castes and backward classes will be reserved for scheduled castes and backward classes. It was denied that rest of seven houses were transferred to general category. It was submitted that the reserved quota of scheduled castes/backward classes would be utilised only for scheduled castes/backward classes and not for general category as per Housing Board Haryana Rules and Regulations Act, 1971. It was denied that plaintiff was one of the successful candidates in the draw of lots or formal letter of allotment was to be issued in his favour by the Housing Board Haryana. In fact, plaintiff was not successful in the draw of lots. His name figured at serial No. 35 in the waiting list. Formal allotment letters were issued to the successful allottees and as per draw, the successful candidates were asked to deposit Rs. 15,000/- as per conditions of allotment. No allotment letter was issued to the plaintiff when he did not emerge successful in the draw of lots. As such, plaintiff could not be called upon to deposit Rs. 15,000/-. 28 houses were meant for general category and 10 houses were meant for scheduled caste and backward classes category. Claim of general category for allotment could operate only on 28 houses.

(3.) ON the application of one Dr. Mrs. Vineeta Bhatnagar made under Order 1 Rule 10 Sub-Rule 2 CPC to whom one of the HIG houses was allotted she was impleaded as party (defendant No. 3). Smt. Vineeta Bhatnagar defendant No. 3 contested the suit of the plaintiff. It was urged that in response to the advertisement issued by the Housing Board in the Tribune of 28.4.87, she applied on a prescribed form No. 563471 on 1.6.87 for the allotment of HIG house in Housing Board, Colony, Sector 1, Rohtak. She submitted all the necessary papers including income statement and amount of Rs. 7500/- through a demand draft drawn from State Bank of India, Rohtak payable at Chandigarh in favour of Housing Board Haryana. Her name was included in the list of candidates, who were to be included in the draw. As per terms of the contract with Housing Board the draw of lots was held on 29.1.88. She was amongst the successful candidates in whose favour lots were opened and allotment was made then and there on 29.1.88. Thereafter, Housing Board Haryana vide communication No. HBH/CRO-I/RA-II/88/2024 dated 3.3.1988 despatched on 7.3.88 confirmed the allotment of HIG house at Rohtak to her issuing her final registration No. 28/HIG/RTK/87 and on demand, she deposited Rs. 15,000/- for getting allotted the house. Advertisement disclosed last date for submission of the application for service personnel as 31.8.87, for scheduled caste/backward class was till the day of allotment or upto the date, quota is exhausted, whichever is earlier and for general category as 1.6.87. There were 54 houses in HIG scheme, 44 houses were for Ex-servicemen and general category, 10 were reserved for scheduled caste/backward class. Till 29.1.88 quota for Ex-serviceman and general category was fully exhausted while only three applications were received against the reserved quota of scheduled caste/backward class. As quota of scheduled caste/backward class was not exhausted, the draw of lots was held and all other applicants including plaintiff who had applied in general category alongwith all other candidates were included in the draw of lots which was held for 44 houses and the houses for general category were 28 and while drawing lots for general category, the name of Vineeta Bhatnagar appeared on 28th lot and hence she was successful in getting one HIG house in Housing Board Colony, Sector 1 Rohtak for general category. The quota for scheduled caste/backward class is still lying vacant for the purpose of allotment to the scheduled Caste/backward class personnel. The remaining quota of backward class/scheduled caste was never transferred to general category. Waiting list for general category was prepared, in which plaintiff figured at Sr. No. 7. It was urged that in this way plaintiff had no claim against any of the first 28 HIG houses meant for general category as his name did not appear in the first 28 lots. Unexhausted quota of scheduled caste/backward class reservation was never transferred to the general category. 10 HIG houses reserved for scheduled castes/backward classes are still lying un-allotted. Neither plaintiff was given any registration number nor was he asked to deposit any money for allotment of house because no draw was opened in his name in first 28 lots.