R D SHARMA Vs. PUNJAB HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed by R. D. Sharma, retired Executive Engineer the complaint is of cancellation of allotment of a dwelling unit in a wholly arbitrary and illegal manner. The cause of the petitioner is sought to be opposed and denied by and large on technical plea that the petitioner should rake by this controversy a Civil Court. Before, however, grounds both of attack and defence in cancelling the order of the dwelling unit of the petitioner are noticed, it shall be usual to give a brief resume of the facts culminating in a filing of the present petition.

(2.) RESPONDENT Punjab Housing Development Board is a statutory authority created under the Punjab Housing Development Board Act, 1972. In the year 1980, this Board advertised a scheme for constructing beautiful developed houses to be constructed at various stations including Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar (Mohali ). According to the scheme the cities were divided into two categories i. e. (a) and (b ). For (a) category of cities earnest money was required to be deposited and for (b) category only nominal registration fee was to be deposited. Mohali was in (a)category and houses were to be allotted the basis of first come first serve. Ambitious, desirous and obviously in need petitioner applied in response to the advertisement referred to above a HIG-II type of house at Mohali and deposited an earnest money of Rs. 4,000/- vide bank draft dated 18th of May, 1980. It was accepted by the Board vide receipt dated 31st of May, 1980. Petitioner was allotted registration No. 325/- Mohali/80. The total cost of the HIG-II house was Rs. 1,00,000/ -. Rupees 25,000/- were to be paid on allotment with a monthly installment of Rs. 1,226. 20 P. The accommodation was to be comprised of two bed rooms, drawing-cum- dining, a kitchen, garage and two toilets. It was clearly mentioned that the type of HIG-I and HIG-Ii houses will be either single storeyed or double storeyed flats or duplex types independent houses. After six years of petitioner's application, in the year 1986, the respondent-Board issued allotment letter to him on 27th of January, 1986, allotting a dwelling unit bearing flat No. 785-c of HIG located on the 3rd floor at Mohali on hire purchase basis. It is the positive case of the petitioner that it was totally in variance of the scheme advertised in 1980 and the cost was also arbitrarily increased from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 1,40,724/ -. The petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 35,818. 35p in lumpsum within thirty days from the date of allotment letter or within 60 days if the payment was to be made in full. The allotment letter dated 27th of January 1986 was placed on record as Annexure P-2. On receipt of above said allotment letter, petitioner sent a registered letter dated 24th of February, 1986 within stipulated time for depositing the installment as mentioned in the allotment letter to respondents 1 and 2 stating therein that the flat allotted to him was not suitable to him due to old age and due to his wife being asthamatic for the last 20 years. He also mentioned that the scheme against which he applied in 1980 was for a single storey house according to his requirements and circumstances and accordingly prayed for allotment of independent single storey house or some ground floor flat. No reply was received by the petitioner for a long time, constraining him to make number of visits in the office of the respondent-Board and making several representations. However in October 1988, to his dismay and total disappointment, he received the information that even the flat allotted to him on 3rd floor, has been cancelled. This was conveyed to him vide letter dated 5. 5. 1986 (R-1/1 ). It is this letter/order which has been called in question in the present writ petition.

(3.) THE cause of the petitioner had been opposed in the written statement filed by the respondents and it has been basically pleaded that the allotment made to the petitioner has been cancelled on his own request as also that this being a case of breach of contract and the terms thereof, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to seek his redressal in Civil Court. In consonance with the pleadings of the respondent-Board Mr. Khosla learned Counsel representing the respondents has raised the same very issues.