MANGAT RAM TANEJA Vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions common question of law and fact is involved, therefore, all these petitions are heard together and disposed of by a common order.

(2.) For convenience, the facts as narrated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11366 of 2011 are mentioned hereinafter.

(3.) The petitioner, in response to the Special Registration Scheme 2008, which was a housing scheme for Hanumangarh and Suratgarh towns floated by the Rajasthan Housing Board (for short, 'the Board'), submitted his application for allotment of a Higher Income Group house measuring 236.25 sq.mtrs. As per SRS Scheme, applications were invited for various income groups on hire-purchase basis with a clear stipulation that allotment of houses shall be made on "No Profit, No Loss" basis and the sale price of the house shall be determined by the Board. For allotment of houses, it was clarified that same shall be made on priority basis. In the month of 2010, a Registration Letter was issued to the petitioner and he was asked to deposit three instalments of Rs.1,00,000/- each, which the petitioner deposited in stipulated period. As per draw, which was held on 26th of August 2010, House No.8/09 situated at Rajasthan Housing Board, Hanumangarh colony was allotted to him. The contractor completed the house in the month of June 2011 but allotment-cum-demand letter was not issued to him. On 13th of October 2011, a letter was issued by the Board, whereby the land price was determined as Rs.3,760/- per sq.mtr. and the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs.8,88,300/- for 236.25 sq.mtrs. land, and for extra land measuring 21 sq.mtrs. a sum of Rs.5,640/- per sq.mtr. was charged from him. The petitioner was asked to deposit the requisite amount before taking possession of the house. The cost of construction was also demanded from the petitioner to the tune of Rs.12,51,600/. Precisely, in the writ petition the petitioner has assailed the escalated land price by categorizing the same as arbitrary and unreasonable in clear violation of Article 14.