NAWAL KISHORE TOSHNIWAL Vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant applied for registration of a house in Higher Income Group (HIG) in the year 1979. He deposited Rs.7000/- as registration fee alongwith the application on 3.1.1980. The registration certificate was issued to the complainant vide letter dated 20.8.80. In the year 1982 the registration fee was enhanced to Rs.3000/-. The complainant deposited Rs.3000/- on 14.6.82 vide challan No.11283. The complainant has stated that his brother Shri Brij Kishore Toshniwal also applied for registration vide application No.57649 in HIG and deposited Rs.7000/- under the same scheme of 1979. The complainant was not allotted the house. It has been alleged by the complainant that the opposite party (the Rajasthan Housing Board) did not send any letter to the complainant for depositing GRS and Seed money amounting to Rs.30,000/- and as such the complainant did not deposit the amount Rs.30,000/-. Allotment letter was issued to the complainant on 26.4.90 which contains the details of the cost of house and other expenses were also shown. The details were divided into four categories A, B, C and D. The complainant has mentioned the amounts of the categories. A representation was submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties for excessive charging of cost and penalty. He requested for refund of excess charges for cost of construction and to waive the penalty on seed money at item No.2 of category 'd' of the allotment letter dated 26.4.90. The complainant did not receive any reply. He has deposited the amount and took possession of the house on 20.4.90. Accordingly to the complainant the seed money was deposited under protest. The opposite parties replied to the representation on 29.5.90 and rejected it. The complainant has challenged the excess amount at item Nos.1 and 2 in category 'a' item Nos.1, 3 and 5 in category 'b' and item No.2 in category 'd'. Against the letter of the Board dated 29.5.90 the complaint was filed praying that the opposite parties may be directed to provide house No.239.03 sq. metre in HIG in Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur as per the scheme or in the alternative the opposite parties may be directed to refund excess amount to the. complainant which is Rs.1,23,253 and damages amounting to Rs.197600/- for the loss and inconvenience caused to the complainant. The com plainant submitted his affidavit in support of his complaint. Photostat copies and the receipts and the allotment letter dated 26.4.90 and other letters were submitted.

(2.) The opposite parties submitted the version of the case opposing the complaint. Some preliminary objections were also raised. On merit it was submitted that for the year 1980-81 from the registered applicants options were demanded whose registrations were made in 1979. In the option the complainant wanted a first storeyed house and requested that such a house may be allotted to him adjoining his brother's house. The adjoining houses are possible in the ground floor and not possible in the first storey. The complainant was allotted the house after drawing the lottery on the basis of the priority. The persons in whose favour the lotteries were drawn, they were allotted houses. It was submitted that when there is a possibility of the allotment of the house to the registered applicants then and then only the seed money is demanded. In regard to the deposit of the seed money reference was made to the office order in Para 3 of the version of the case. Regulation No.8-A of the Disposal of Property Regulations, 1970 was also referred. Under what circumstances interest would be charged on the seed money that was also mentioned. It was pleaded that the complainant has instituted a case/writ in a Court for the relief. He was allotted a house on 26.4.90. Interest was recovered on the seed money according to the rates. It was stated that there are allottees of 1979 who have not been allotted the houses, but the complainant was allotted the house because of the Court case. It was denied that any penalty on seed money was recovered from the complainant. It was submitted that 10% increase in the cost of the house was only an estimate for the year 1979, that is not applicable in 1990. Increase in the cost of house was sought to be justified. The seed money of Rs.30,000/- was realised in two instalments. It was submitted that the complainant has taken possession of the house after satisfying about its condition. Claim for compensation was denied.

(3.) The complainant filed a rejoinder to the version of the case reiterating the averments made in the complaint and traversing the pleas taken by the opposite parties in the version of the case. In support of the complaint the complainant submitted his affidavit. A copy of the writ petition, affidavit etc. were submitted with the rejoinder. A reply to the rejoinder was submitted on behalf of the opposite parties on 29.4.91. It is recorded in the order sheet dated 29.4.91 that both the learned Counsel are in agreement that the rejoinder and the reply both may be kept on record. The complainant submitted additional affidavit as evidence in support of the complaint. On behalf of the complainant written arguments were submitted on 25.10.91. On 6.12.91 the opposite parties submitted written arguments in reply. No oral arguments were advanced.