HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 75/2018
In
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/2009
1. Rajasthan Housing Board through its Commissioner, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur.
2. The Deputy Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing
Board, Circle-I, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Nand Singh, aged about 59 years,
resident of Block No. 7, Quarter No. 4, Near PWD Chowki,
Rajasthan Police Academy, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. P. C. Sharma Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Sharma Advocate.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA Judgment 24/08/2021 Appellant-Rajasthan Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') has filed the appeal challenging order dated 12.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, writ petition filed by the respondent was disposed of.
Respondent had filed the writ petition claiming following relief:
"It is therefore, respectfully prayed that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and;
i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 17.12.2008 (Annex.7) be (Downloaded on 27/08/2021 at 09:03:02 PM) (2 of 7) [SAW-75/2018] declared as null and void and may kindly be quashed and set aside.
ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to allot the House No. 13/26 at Sanganer Pratap Nagar Scheme, at the rate of year 1997 when one Shri Rampal was allotted the House despite having lower priority number than the petitioner.
iii) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.
iv) Cost may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
Case of the respondent, in brief, was that a scheme had been formulated by the Board in the year 1982 with regard to allotment of houses at Sanganer Pratap Nagar. Respondent also submitted his application for allotment of house and was given Priority No. LIG/GI/HP/P 1306 vide order dated 08.12.1987. Rampal had also applied for a house under the Scheme and was issued Priority No. LIG/GI/HP/P 1757 vide order dated 10.11.1987. Although, the respondent was higher in priority, House No. 114/49 was allotted to Rampal vide allotment letter dated 30.06.1997.
Respondent approached the District Consumer Forum, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Forum') by filing Complaint No. 511/1994 with a prayer that house be allotted to him under the 1982 Scheme. Vide order dated 19.03.1997, complaint filed by the respondent was allowed and the Board was directed to allot house to the respondent. Since, the order passed by the Forum was not complied by the Board, respondent approached the Forum under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 06.08.2007 on the basis of the statement given by counsel for the Board that a (Downloaded on 27/08/2021 at 09:03:02 PM) (3 of 7) [SAW-75/2018] house had been allotted to the respondent vide allotment letter dated 07.12.2007.
Respondent again approached the Forum by moving Complaint No. 1721/2007 as he was being asked to deposit more amount than had been got deposited from Rampal. The Board, however, later cancelled the allotment of House No. 13/26 made in favour of the respondent vide order dated 17.12.2008. Hence, writ petition was filed by the respondent.
In the reply filed by the Board, it was averred that respondent had moved an application for allotment of house and had deposited Rs. 1450/- on 02.02.1988 in terms of the option given to him on 08.03.1988 for allotment of house under the Mansarovar Scheme. Since sufficient number of houses were not available under the Mansarovar Scheme, respondent could not be allotted a house. It was admitted that, although, respondent was having higher priority than Rampal, but Rampal had deposited Rs. 2900/- for allotment of residential house and was allotted House No. 114/49 on 26.03.1997. Respondent was informed vide letter dated 16.11.1993 to deposit Rs. 3500/- within one month, Rs. 3500/- in seven monthly installments and Rs. 3000/- in thirteen monthly installments. However, respondent had failed to deposit any installment and was informed vide letter dated 10.07.1996 to deposit the due installments. Instead of depositing the installments, respondent had approached the Forum. Registration of the respondent was cancelled vide letter No. 354 dated 04.05.2002 as he had failed to deposit the installments.
Learned Single Judge vide impugned order disposed of the writ petition filed by the respondent and quashed impugned order dated 17.12.2008, whereby, allotment of House No. 13/26 (Downloaded on 27/08/2021 at 09:03:02 PM) (4 of 7) [SAW-75/2018] in Sanganer, Pratap Nagar Scheme, Jaipur made in favour of the respondent was cancelled. It was further ordered that the allotment dated 07.12.2007 would stand restored to the respondent subject to the condition that he would pay interest @ 9% per annum on the allotment price as per allotment letter dated 07.12.2007 and the terminal date for levy of interest would be 11.10.2017.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the respondent had failed to deposit the monthly installments in pursuance to letter dated 16.11.1993. Hence, the allotment of house made in favour of the respondent had been rightly cancelled. Moreover, Rampal had deposited Rs. 2900/- for allotment of residential house, whereas, respondent had only deposited Rs. 1450/- on 02.02.1988. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that possession of the house had already been handed over to the respondent. Respondent was liable to pay the prevalent rate of the house on the date he had been given the possession.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the respondent was higher in priority than Rampal, who had been allotted house vide allotment letter dated 30.06.1997. Respondent had also deposited Rs. 2900 as had been allegedly deposited by Rampal. Respondent had deposited Rs. 1450/- on 02.02.1988 and Rs. 1450/- on 22.06.1989, much prior to the allotment letter issued in favour of Rampal. The action of the appellants in allotting house to Rampal prior to the respondent was illegal. (Downloaded on 27/08/2021 at 09:03:02 PM)
(5 of 7) [SAW-75/2018] During the course of arguments, it has transpired that the possession of the house-in-question had already been handed over to the respondent.
The question that arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the respondent is liable to pay the value of the house as it existed on the date he got the possession or he is liable to make payment in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
It is an admitted fact that the respondent was higher in priority than Rampal, who had been allotted a house vide allotment letter dated 30.06.1997. It has been averred by the appellant-Board in its reply to writ petition that respondent had only deposited Rs. 1450/- on 02.02.1988, whereas, Rampal had deposited Rs. 2900/- for allotment of residential house and was allotted the house on 26.03.1997 A perusal of Annexure-8 attached with the rejoinder filed by the respondent reveals that initially respondent had deposited Rs. 1800/- on 24.12.1982 and had thereafter deposited Rs. 1450/- on 02.02.1988 and Rs. 1450/- on 22.06.1989. Thus, at the time when allotment was made in favour of Rampal, respondent had also deposited Rs. 2900/- and he had deposited Rs. 1800/- on 24.12.1982. Thus, a person, who was having lower priority, had been allotted a house in the Scheme-in-question. The Forum had decided in favour of the respondent vide order dated 19.03.1997, whereas, allotment of house was made in favour of the respondent on 07.12.2007 at the prevailing rates. Board had taken more than 10 years in allotting a house to the respondent in pursuance to the order passed by the Forum. In this period value of house had escalated. Respondent could not be (Downloaded on 27/08/2021 at 09:03:02 PM) (6 of 7) [SAW-75/2018] made to suffer on account of delay caused by the Board in allotting the house. Respondent, being aggrieved by the action of the Board in asking him to pay prevalent rate on 07.12.2007, had approached the Forum by way of Complaint No. 178/2011 (1721/2007).
A perusal of order dated 01.09.2011 passed by the Forum (copy available on the record of writ petition, though not marked as annexure) reveals that complaint filed by the respondent was allowed and it was ordered that the respondent should be charged the rate prevailing on 19.03.1997. A perusal of order dated 13.01.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Bench No. 3, Jaipur in First Appeal No. 1851/2011 (copy available on the record of writ petition, though not marked as annexure) filed by the Board challenging order dated 01.09.2011 reveals that the appeal filed by the Board was allowed on the ground that the relief prayed by the respondent in the complaint and Writ Petition No. 333/2009 filed before this Court was identical. To avoid any contradictory order, the appeal was allowed and order dated 01.09.2011 was set aside. Be that as it may, the fact that the respondent had not made payment in terms of letter of allotment dated 07.12.2007 cannot be said to be fatal to respondent's rights as in the present case, the person, who was lower in priority, had been allotted house prior to the respondent. Moreover, respondent had taken recourse to law by approaching the Forum.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that impugned order dated 17.12.2008 was arbitrary and had rightly quashed the said order. Learned Single Judge, while restoring the allotment, (Downloaded on 27/08/2021 at 09:03:02 PM) (7 of 7) [SAW-75/2018] has also ordered that the respondent would be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the allotment price as per allotment letter dated 07.12.2007 and the terminal date for the levy of interest would be 11.10.2017. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is just, fair and equitable and calls for no interference.
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J (SABINA),J
MANOJ NARWANI /25
(Downloaded on 27/08/2021 at 09:03:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)