ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA Vs. HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIL Kumar Chawla through present petition filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks writ in the nature of mandamus so as to direct the respondent-Board to allot him MIG Ground Floor corner house in Sector 3, Faridabad or in any other Sector in Faridabad in pursuance of draw held on November 3, 1981 at the same rates that were prevalent in the year 1981. In the alternative he prays that the respondent-Board be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,970/- deposited on April 21,1981 and Rs. 4,740/- deposited on September 6, 1983 along with interest at the rate as paid by a Nationalised Bank in accordance with the condition laid down in the application.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case reveal that respondent Board advertised MIG Houses to be sold in Sector 3, Faridabad in the year 1981. Petitioner paid 10% cost of the house for being allotted MIG house on the ground floor. Along with the receipt that was given to him, another letter was also issued to him wherein terms and conditions of the ultimate allotment of the houses were laid down. It is pleaded that as per condition 7 it was stated that no interest would be paid on the amount deposited. However, if the respondent-Board did not give the house within two years, then interest was to be paid at the rate at which the nationalised banks pay. Draw was held on November 3, 1981 in which registration numbers were allotted to all the applicants. Petitioner was allotted provisional registration No. 703 and thereafter he was allotted a final registration number 64s. He received a letter on May 4, 1982 by which he was informed that his chances of getting a house in Sector 29 were not very bright. It was further stated that the respondent-Board was going to acquire land in Sector 3 Faridabad and construction of houses on that land would be started in early 1983. The said houses were to be allotted in accordance with the draw and in case he was interested to keep his registration number intact, he should inform the Board within 15 days and in case he was not so interested, he should apply for refund of earnest money by sending an advance receipt in the proforma enclosed with the letter. Inasmuch as petitioner was interested in keeping his registration number intact, he duly addressed a letter to the Board and did not apply for refund of the earnest money. He received another letter on July 13,1983 wherein respondent Board stated that it had been allotted 40 acres of land in Sector 3 and it was proposing to construct 572 houses besides the 202 houses which were being constructed and allotted in Sector 29. He was also informed that his final registration number was 645 and in case he was interested for allotment of a house in Sector 3 then he should send Rs. 3,940/- to the Housing Board towards 10% of the approximate cost of the house. He was also told that if he wanted to have a corner house then he should send another sum of Rs. 800/ -. In pursuance of the said letter, petitioner duly deposited Rs. 4,740/- vide receipt No. 125115 dated 6. 9. 1983 in addition to Rs. 1,970/- already deposited by him as 10% cost of one comer MIG house on the ground floor. Years after years rolled by thereafter but no information was given to him. Even though he kept on meeting the officials of the respondent-Board from time to time, he was only. informed that the house was being constructed and he will be given allotment as per his turn. Meanwhile, more than 500 houses were constructed in Sector 3, Faridabad and 202 houses were constructed in Sector 29. Contrary to the assurances held out to the petitioner, a letter was received at his end on December 18, 1990 which also contained a cheque for Rs. 7,598/ -. The amount was refunded on the ground that he had been unsuccessful in draw of lots. This constrained the petitioner to send a legal notice to the Board inter-alia pleading that his registration No. being 645 and there being available at least 700 houses, which were constructed in Sectors 3 and 29, Faridabad, reply to this legal notice was received at the end of the petitioner thus constraining him to file the present writ for the relief as indicated in the earlier part of this judgment. On the present writ for the relief as indicated in the earlier part of this judgment. On the pleadings referred to above, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Patwalia contends that the action of the respondent-Board in not allotting the house is arbitrary as more than 500 houses were constructed in Sector 3 and 202 in Sector 29, there being thus 702 houses available, the petitioner whose registration No. was 645 had necessarily to be given a house. Not-allotment of the house, it is contended, is attributable to the policy of the respondent-Board of pick and choose and was actuated on account of extraneous considerations. It is further argued that the petitioner had paid the money as far back as in 1981 and 1983. The cost of construction had increased manifold in the meantime. The petitioner was waiting patiently all this time with the hope that he will be allotted a house on the basis of money deposited by him, However, now the respondent has returned the petitioner's money and this action of the respondent has left him at such cross-roads that he cannot make a homestead now when the prices both of land and of construction have gone sky high.

(3.) ON merits of the case, the stand of the respondent-Board is that 200 MIG ground floor houses were constructed in Sector 29 and 290 MIG ground floor houses in Sector 3. By the time this petition was filed, registration No. 609 covered for the purpose of allotment of house and as such the petitioner and other applicants had a belated chance for the allotment of already constructed houses, referred to above, and as such, their registration money was returned along with interest.