HOUSING BOARD HARYANA Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the pricing policy of the Housing Board, Haryana can be amended with retrospective effect to the deteriment of the consumer-allottees of its Middle Income Group and High Income Group Houses? Whether Clause 2 (w) of the hire purchase tenancy agreement between the Board and the allottees gives the former a carte-blanche to revise such prices at the verge of seven years from the date of allotment? These inter-alia are the two crucial issues in this set of 85 connected appeals (First Appeal Nos.51 to 122 and 124 to 136 of 1992) raising identical questions of law and facts. These are all directed against the same common order of the District Forum, Hisar. Learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that this order would govern all of them.

(2.) The representative matrix of facts may be noticed from the main complaint case of 'krishna Kumari V/s. The Haryana Housing Board and Another'. Nearly eleven years ago the Housing Board, Haryana (hereinafter called the Board) had invited applications for registration for the allotment of built houses of different categories in its colony at Hisar and the last date to submit applications, therefor was the 30th of September, 1981 with an extension of three months for scheduled caste and backward classes. These houses were categorised as the Lower Income Group (L. I. G.) Middle Income Group (M. I. G.) Higher Income Group-I (H. I. G-I) and Higher Income Group-II (H. I. G. II ). The tentative price of the ground floor flats of the M. I. G, H. I. G-I and H. I. G-II was fixed at Rs.39,400/-, Rs.77,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-. The specified different amounts were to be paid for the registration for these categories and the price was payable in monthly instalments to be recovered within eight to ten years. The complainant applied successfully for a M. I. G house on the ground floor. But at the time of the allotment the tentative price of Rs.39,400/- was enhanced to Rs.68,755/-. The complainant accepted the allotment and paid the proportionate instalments. But the matter did not rest there and the price was again enhanced in the year 1988 which also was accepted without demur by the complainant. However, in the year 1990 a further enhancement was demanded through demand notices and again acceded to. However, what broke the camel's back was the last demand notice whereby Rs.11,500/- was required to be paid up and the price of the house was escalated to Rs.75,000/- and in addition to pay a compound interest of 15% on the above said amount.

(3.) The complainant alongwith the other allottees made numerous representations to the authorities which fell on deaf car. It ha:; been pointed out that the Board has not issued any demand notices to' the L. I. G category which were constructed simultaneously. It is further averred that the basic principle of allotment of houses by the Board was to give well planned and well designed houses to the people according to their status and income on a no profit and no loss basis. But the Board unmindful of its moto, increased and enhanced the price of the houses by nearly 100% and beyond the reach of the complainant and others like her. It was also the case that the Board had auctioned 81 houses of all categories in the same colony at a much less price and it wanted to cover the gap due to this auction by burdening the complainant and others in the shape of enhancement of land prices and cost of construction. The further averment is that 80 M. I. G type houses have been passed on to the Haryana State Government and 102 M. I. G houses were vacant which were equally liable for the enhanced costs, but leaving them out, the burden has been passed on to the complainant's category. The specific plea was that all this was against the basic principle of no profit and no loss projected by the Board and instead they now wish to make sizeable profit against that avowed policy.