BHUPINDER CHAWLA Vs. HARYANA HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-Housing Board Haryana advertised a scheme in the year 1976 for allotment of constructed houses in Baldev Nagar, Ambala Cantt. In the advertisement, it was pointed out that the houses in question had been beautifully constructed and were being sold with amenities like sewerage and water connections. As there appeared to be no takers for the houses in question the Board re-advertised the houses in 1984. The petitioners applied for allotment of houses pursuant to this advertisement. They were issued letters of allotments for various categories of houses on 25.5.1987 and as per condition No. 3 of the allotment letter they were asked to take possession of their respective houses within thirty days failing which the penalty clause would be invoked. In condition No. 10 of the said letter, it was also mentioned that the tenements are being allotted on the basis of the construction that existed and in case any difficult, was noticed at the time of taking over of the possession by the allottee, the same was to be notified in writing to the Assistant Engineer of the colony before the taking over of the possession. Copies of the allotment letters have been appended to this petition as Annexures P-2, P-2/A and P-28. It appears that the condition of the houses was not satisfactory and the President of the Colony made various representations including one dated 30.6.1987, copy Annexure P-3 to the petition pointing out inter alia that as the water supply and drainage schemes had not been properly implemented, the petitioners were depositing the amounts claimed from them towards the price under protest. The petitioners, however, received a communication dated 10.7.1987, copy Annexure P-4 to the petitioners calling upon them to take possession as per the condition of the allotment letters and that in case, they did not take possession, the penalty clause would be enforced. It appears that some of the petitioners did in fact take possession of their houses in the month of July, 1987. The petitioners, however, continued to make representations to the Board pointing out that the facilities provided were not in accordance with those advertised and the Board was, thus, not entitled to claim the payment of instalments; or to levy interest on the delayed payments. As no satisfactory reply was received from the Housing Board and the Board continued to demand instalments from the petitioners, the present writ petition was filed on 20.1.1988 and this Court on 21.1.1988 while issuing notice of motion stayed penalty proceedings till further orders. The said stay order continues to operate as of today.

(2.) A reply has been filed by the respondent-Board in which it has been submitted that the petitioners had taken the possession of their respective houses in the year 1987 or in the year 1991 without doors and windows fixed thereon as it was thought proper that the choice be left to the owners to get the fixtures as per their choice and that no amount had been charged from the petitioners on these two counts. It has further been pleaded that all the distribution lines for water supply and sewerage including a pump chamber had been completed and the connections from the houses to the main sewerage had been given whereas action with regard to the releasing of water connections was to be taken by the Municipal Committee, Ambala City, to whom the management of the Colony had been handed over.

(3.) Mr. Ashok Gupta the learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that from the documents on record, it appeared that the basic facilities had not been provided to the petitioners as per the advertisement and as such the payment of instalments and the levy of penalty on the delayed payment was wholly unauthorised.