PREETI AGRAWAL Vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was initially registered for allotment of a house in the year 1989 with the Housing Board and had applied for an independent HIG house at Amer under the scheme floated on 15. 9. 1989. THE scheme was on the basis of Higher Purchase System. An amount of Rs. 10,000/-was also deposited vide Annexure-1. She was allotted Code No. P-Amer-G-GRS-89. However, Amer Scheme was dropped by the Housing Board but the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 27. 12. 1993 that one house of HIG category has been kept reserved by the petitioner. She was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 95,000/-as pre-allotment amount in three instalments. By suo-moto action her category was changed to out-right sale basis, copy of the letter is Annexure-2. THE petitioner protested against such an action of the respondent. Ultimately, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2565/94 which was decided on 2. 12. 1994. THE writ petition was disposed of on the statement made by the respondent Housing Board that the petitioner would be allotted the house in the higher purchase system itself for which she had made the application. A direction was issued to the respondents by the High Court to hand over the possession of the house to the petitioner which stood already been allotted in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months under the higher purchase system.

(2.) DESPITE the direction given by the High Court, the matter is said to have been delayed by the respondents. There was exchange of notice and legal notices. A contempt petition was filed by the petitioner on 8. 5. 1995 being Contempt Petition No. 213/95. On receipt of the notice of the contempt the respondents did allot a flat No. 9/917 at Malviya Nagar, Jaipur to the petitioner on 4th floor. It was stated by the petitioner that she had never opted for a flat and she was entitled for the allotment of an Independent House reserved by the petitioner vide Annexure-2 dated 27. 12. 1993. The Housing Board again came up with an alternative proposal of allotment to the petitioner in Sanganer Scheme during the arguments in the contempt petition. On this assurance the contempt petition is dropped. The non-petitioners were directed to hand over the possession of an Independent House under the higher purchase system within three months from 25. 1. 1997 vide Annexure-6. Still no action was taken. Reminder was sent to the Housing Board by the petitioner. The respondents after lapse of about 5 months from the date of the order did allot a house to the petitioner being House No. 91/54 which was a skeleton house. It was the contention of the petitioner that many independent houses were lying with the Housing Board but still the Housing Board had choosen to allot a skeleton house only. The petitioner apprehended that she is being victimised and harassed because of the reason that she had approached this Court by way of writ petition or contempt petition and, therefore, instead of an Independent House, the petitioner was firstly allotted a flat on 4th floor in Malviya Nagar which was not accepted by the petitioner and then came up with allotment of skeleton house. The petitioner again sent legal notice to the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that not only she had been allotted an Skeleton House, but she had also been charged the rate as prevailing in the year 1997 whereas as per the allotment order Annexure-2, she would have been charged rates as prevailing in 1993.

(3.) THE counsel for the respondents states that this court had time and again held that the price is to be charged at the time when the allotment is made. THEre cannot be any grievance so far as this proposition is concerned, but in the given case if the Housing Board itself commit omission and irregularity and goes on shifting the allottees from one house to another house or allot the house of a category of which the allottee was not entitled to or allot a house of a lower category without the consent of such allottee, in my opinion in such cases if the fault lies on the Housing Board, the responsibility should also be borne by the Housing Board itself.