M B L SAXENA Vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by this writ petition, has prayed that the respondents may be restrained from demanding the petitioner an additional amount as communicated by the order dated 30th September, 1980 (Ex. 7) amounting to Rs. 15,888/ -. He has also prayed that respondents should be restrained from cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) THE Rajasthan Government constituted the Rajasthan House Board, Jaipur, under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Act. The Rajasthan Housing Board has framed Regulations in exercise of the power under Section 53 of the Act with the previous sanction of the State Government. The Regulation has been named as 'Rajasthan Housing Board (Disposal of Property) Regulation, 1970'. The Rajasthan Housing Board issued Schemes for the allotment of constructed houses in the various cities of Rajasthan including Jodhpur. The Rajasthan Housing Board published general Registration Scheme, 1978. The petitioner applied for registration under the said Scheme by depositing Rs. 7,000/ - on 31st January, 1979 for the allotment of a house in Higher Income Group, under item No. 2.7 of the Scheme. The Rajasthan Housing Board published Housing Allotment Scheme 1980 after April 1979 for the allotment of the houses to the persous registered under 1979 Registration Scheme at Jodhpur. Petitioner came to know that Board has some houses available for allotment of two Scheme at Jodhpur. namely, Pratapnagar and Chopasani Scheme. But in none of the two Schemes any house of the Higher Income Group was not available for allotment. Since no Higher Income Group houses was mentioned in the scheme for the allotment, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Chairman and the Secretary of the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur, requesting them to allot him M -2 category house at Chopasani Scheme, Jodhpur. Petitioner thereafter, contactedt he Chairman, Raiasthan Housing Board personally and requested him to permit the petitioner to contest the lottery for the allotment of the house of M -2 type house 60' x 60' at Chopasani Scheme. The Chairman acceded to the request of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner filled up the option allotment form for Housing Scheme. Petitioner submits that he was informed by the Housing Board that the house constructed on an area of 40' x 60' on a plot of 60' x 60' House No. 1 ka -9 in Chopasani Scheme, has been allotted to him on cash payment basis. A provisional letter of allotment was issued to the petitioner on 27th March, 1980, which is on record (Ex. 3). A sum of Rs. 47,927/ - was demanded from the petitioner as the price of the house within four months after adjusting Rs. 7,000/ - and the interest thereon was to be paid by the petitioner at the time of registration. A certificate was issued on 27th March, 1980, certifying that the petitioner has been allotted House No. 1 -Ka -9 in Chopasani Scheme at Jodhpur on out -right sale; also certifying that the possession will be given on receiving the disposal price amounting to Rs. 54,683/ -. Petitioner submitted that he entered the possession and applied for water and electric connections. Petitioner, thereafter, requested the Housing Board to send a letter of possession and to complete the sale -deed of the house in his favour. Petitioner was informed by the Housing Board Officer by the communication dated 30th August, 1980 (Ex. 7) calling upon the petitioner to deposit Rs. 15,888/ - more towards the price of the house allotted to him by the allotment order dated 10th December, 1979. Petitioner made a representation to the Chairman requesting him to correct the demand, but without any result. Ultimately, petitioner served a Demand Notice and, thereafter, approached this Court by filing present writ petition and challenging the demand raised by the Housing Board. Thereafter, a reply was was filed by the respondents and so far as the allotment of house in question is concerned, it is not disputed. However, it is submitted that on 27th March, 1980, petitioner made a request before the respondents that a provisional demand notice may be issued so that he may get a loan sanctioned on 31st March, 1980. He made further declaration that petitioner shall be responsible for paying any difference of the amount after final costing of the house in dispute. The request of the petitioner has been placed on record as Annexure -4/1. Petitioner was allotted house provisionally so as to enable him to obtain loan, but it was clearly understood that the final decision about the amount will be communicated to the petitioner later on. It is further submitted that no letter of possession was served to the petitioner but petitioner took the possession on his own and started living in that house, The additional pleas were also taken by the respondent in the reply and it was submitted in the additional pleas that the petitioner is guilty of concealing the material facts, that calculation of the cost of construction is an administrative matter of the Housing Board, so this Court should not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that the method of calculating cost of construction as well as the regulations is not justiciable. That since the petitioner has given clear undertaking that he will pay the differences on the final costing of the house in dispute to the Housing Board, therefore, he should not be allowed to resile back from his own undertaking. After filing reply, the arguments were heard on various occasions by this Court and on the direction of the Court, various documents have been filed on record. On the basis of various documents on the record, Mr. Purohit has challenged the two items before me, namely, the charging of the interest from April to the period of allotment amounting to Rs. 14,516/ - and contingency and equalisation reserve at the rate of 5% on 64,142/ - amounting to Rs. 3,203/ -. The large number of documents have been placed on record in pursuance of the order of the Court and the pleadings have not been strictly adhered to by both the parties. After perusing all the documents, Mr. Purohit has challenged only these two items, which have been charged by the Housing Board and as a result of which, a demand of Rs. 15,888/ - has been raised against the petitioner.

(3.) THIS resolution of the Costing Committee of the Board was placed before the 8th Meeting of the Costing Committee held on 23 -1 -1979 Item No. 1 relates to confirmation of the minutes of 7th meeting of the Costing Committee which reads as under: