RAJA RAM GAUR Vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Like the proverbial "vanvas of the Pandavas" the petitioner has been hoping that he would have a roof over his head. Despite his hopes, being deprived of a flat by the Rajasthan Housing Board ("the Board" for short), the petitioner has come knocking at the doors of this Court.

(2.) In short, the petitioner's pitiable story is that in 1982 the Board had advertised a General Registration Scheme for houses/flats for various categories i.e. HIG/MIG(A)/ MIG(B)/ and LIG on higher-purchase basis. Since the petitioner was financially constrained, he could not afford to purchase a flat outrightly. Therefore, taking advantage of the scheme, which was based on higher-purchase basis, the petitioner applied for a flat under the HIG category. The petitioner was not only found eligible, but was also given priority No.228 under the Sanganer Scheme by the Board. He was directed to deposit a total amount of Rs.50,000/- in three instalments. Consequently on 13-4-1992, the petitioner deposited the first instalment of Rs.20,000/-, and on 21-5-1992, the second instalment of Rs.20,000/-. He was required to deposit the third instalment within thirteen months from 21-5-1992. However, even before the said instalment became due, vide order dated 30-4-1993, the Board informed the petitioner that he is required to pay Rs.4,54,608/- as the final amount in one lump sum. Since the petitioner could not generate and pay such a huge amount,he submitted a representation to the Board on 30-4-1993 itself. Instead of paying any heed to the representation, on 2-5-1995, the Board cancelled the petitioner's allotment for a flat.

(3.) In January, 1996, the Board again issued an advertisement for allotment of independent houses in Sanganer Scheme. According to the said advertisement, a lottery was to be conducted on 12-1-1996. Since the petitioner was still eager to have a house, he applied in the said scheme for a house under HIG category, or under the MIG(B) category. Even under this scheme, the house was to be allotted on higher-purchase basis. Although the petitioner kept on sending reminders to the Board, the Board turned a deaf ear to the petitioner's pleas. Hence, this petition before this Court.