HANUMAN PRASAD MEENA Vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is required to examine the action of a statutory body, i.e., the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur (for short 'the Board') in the matter of allotment/ disposal of houses under 'Parijat' scheme. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to have the conspectus of the facts involved.

(2.) The petitioner had applied for allotment a house in Sawaimadhopur town in the category 'Middle Income Group-B, as back as, in the year 1981 and his seniority was fixed at No. 3 by the Board. He deposited Rs. 12,000.00 in two instalments as earnest money. Before he could be allotted a house, he was transferred to Jaipur. He, therefore, applied to the Board on 22-12-1988 for transfer of his registration from Sawaimadhopur to Jaipur. The Chief Estate Manager of the Board vide his letter dated 14-3-1989 informed the petitioner that his registration could be changed for Jaipur under 'Parijat' scheme. The petitioner agreed for the change and submitted an application in a prescribed manner and also deposited a sum of Rs. 300.00. Subsequently, he was informed by the Chief Estate Manager vide his letter dated 24-1-990 that his request for transfer of registration from Sawaimadhopur to Jaipur (Sanganer) has been accepted. Subsequently, a certificate was issued to the petitioner by the Estate Manager of the Board on 24-11-1990 (Annexure 13) to the effect that a house of MIG, Type 1, in Sanganer was reserved for him in 'Parijat' scheme. It was stated therein that possession of the house shall be given on payment of disposal price amounting to Rs. 1,77,787.00 approximately, which included Rs. 14,600.00 already deposited. It was also made clear in the certificate that the land of the house shall be free from all encumbrances and the next floor could be built by the allottee and not by the Board. Then, by another letter of the same date (Annexure 14) the petitioner was intimated about the registration of a house of Type 1, in category 'B' under 'Parijat' scheme at Sanganer and he was directed to deposit the amount on the dates mentioned in the letter. 25% of the estimated cost was reckoned at Rs. 45,787.00. After deducting Rs. 14,600.00 deposited by the petitioner, he was asked to deposit the price of the house in four instalments as under:- I Instalment - 31,787/- on 30-12-1990 II Instalment - 44,000/- on 28-02-1991 III Instalment - 44,000/- on 30-05-1991 IV Instalment - 44,000/- on 30-07-1991

(3.) There is no dispute that in pursuance to the above, the petitioner deposited all the instalments in time, much prior to 31-3-1992 when a lottery for allotment of houses was drawn. The draw was made on 31-3-1992 but the name of the petitioner was not included in it, though one Smt. Vijay Nagpal, who was at S.No. 103 in the seniority list, was included in the draw. It is noteworthy that the seniority of the petitioner was at S. No. 102. Then, Smt. Nagpal was allotted House No. 61/39, in Sector No. 6, at Mansarovar on a cost of Rs. 1,78,000.00 as assessed by the Board. The petitioner came to know of this fact when Houses No. 86/ 181 was proposed for his allotment on 20-3-1993 at a cost of Rs.3,24,825.00. The petitioner immediately requested the Board to make allotment of a house in Sector No. 6 at the same cost as was charged from Smt. Vijay Nagpal. The request of the petitioner was not accepted and an allotment letter was issued by the Board on 24-4-1993, whereby House No. 86/ 181 was allotted to him under 'Parijat' scheme, and the cost of the house was assessed at Rs. 3,24,825.00 to be deposited in a period of three months of the issue of the letter along with all other necessary documents, failing which the allotment was to stand cancelled, without any notice. The petitioner therefore, while challenging the action of the respondent-Board has prayed to allot him House No. 61 / 31 in Sector No. 6 at Mansarovar, after cancelling the allotment made in favour of Smt. Vijay Nagpal, on the same cost as it was allotted to her or in the alternative, to allot him another house at the same cost of Rs. 1,78,000.00 or to reduce the cost of the House No. 86/ 181 to the tune of Rs. 1,77,787.00 deposited by him.