ACCHU KHAN vs RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

THE complainant applied to the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur ("the Board") for a house. He obtained registration of a house in 1973 in EWS category and the category was changed in 1982 as MIG Group. His registration was at No. 25412, as informed by the Board. THE complainant waited for his turn until 1985. A letter bearing No. H 5/3836/JPR/MS/73/1176 dated 13.3.1985 giving Code No. 150/MA/G.2/84-85 was received in which the Board intimated to the complainant that he has been allotted a constructed house bearing No. 13/106 in M.N.P.P. He was asked to deposit Rs. 5,600/- as seed money in two equal instalments of Rs. 2,800/- each. THE complainant deposited Rs. 2,800/- in two equal instalments each on 10.4.1985 and 27.3.1986. THE complainant was not given possession though he waited upto 1990. Whenever he approached the Board, he was informed that the construction has not been completed and that the cost assessment of the house is incomplete while assessment of the cost was completed in due time and other houses of the same block and same row were allotted to other allottees. A possession letter was issued to the complainant on 5.2.1990 and the complainant got the possession of the house. After getting the possession of the house he came to know that the cost of the construction and instalment amount are higher than that of the previous allottees. He wrote a letter on 1.10.1990. According to him there was difference and irregularities committed by the Board among the allottees of the houses of the same pattern. THEy were detailed in para 4 of the complaint. On the basis of the irregularities the complainant has stated that the Board has committed serious irregularities in rendering service "in giving area of the plot and in charging cost of the plot cost of construction as well as in mode of payment programme like monthly instalment and period of instalment and interest". THE grievances as put in the complaint are that "the Board is charging excess amount from the complainant as cost of plot cost of construction etc; of the same type house as the houses allotted to the other allottees, while the area of the plot is less than the area of the other houses, plots, construction was made at the same time in same block and row, construction was completed in same time and the materials were used of the same quality in same space and facilities are provided of same type". THE complainant has, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 1,27,000/- as detailed in para 5 of the complaint. A direction has been sought against the Board "to make equality in his service among the consumers and to reduce the cost of plot-cost of construction amount and period of instalment, chargeable interest and to issue a fresh account of the house No. 13/106". In addition to this it was also submitted that the Board may be directed to pay costs of the complainant. THE complainant submitted Annexures. 1 to 9 with the complaint.

THE opposite party submitted a detailed version of the case controverting the allegations made in the complaint. It was stated that the complainant in 1973 after depositing a sum of Rs. 100/- got himself registered in EWS ''A'' category. THEreafter a sum of Rs. 400/- was deposited on 17-1979 and got the category changed to ''A'' category in 1982. He again got the category changed into LIC ''A''. THEreafter letter dated 13.3.1985 reserving the house for him was issued to him about the seed money. THE complainant did not submit challan showing deposit of the seed money. As he did not submit the copy of the challan showing that the seed money has been deposited, his name could not included in the lottery. He produced the receipt of the challan on 12.12.1988 and thereafter his name was included in the lottery and the house was allotted in February 1990. A letter was written on 12.12.1988 that he has not given any information about the deposit of seed money by producing the challan. It denied that any reply was given that the house is under construction and its costing has not been prepared. According to the opposite party all this was not done by Acchu Khan but this was done by some other person as he had already sold the house prior to registration. THE claim for compensation was denied. Pointed attention was drawn of the State Commission to the fact that the complainant is illiterate person and signs in his own hand in Urdu which is apparent from the first page of the form. THE affidavits were also signed in Urdu. THEreafter whatever applications/papers were submitted they were thumb-marked. An application was submitted on 20.6.1982 stating that his address may be changed to Ramkishore Kulwal r/o Jasota. That bore the signatures in Hindi and after that whenever application was submitted it was signed by Ramkishore Kulwal for Acchu Khan. Two applications bore the name of Acchu Khan but they were not signed. From these facts an inference was sought to be drawn that the proceedings are being manipulated for the allotment of the house by some other person. On behalf of the complainant, reply to the version of the case was filed denying the averments made in the reply. That reply is duly verified on oath. The complainant submitted his affidavit as evidence in support of the complaint. In rebuttal, affidavit of Rakesh Gupta, Accounts Officer, of the Board was submitted. The house has already been allotted to the complainant.

The grievances raised are with respect to the equality of the treatment with other allottees of the houses. The objections which the complainant has raised in para 4 of the complaint were raised before us in several cases and they were considered in Kanhaiyalal Mathur v. Housing Board (R.L.T. 90 Part III 31) and subsequent decisions. It was observed in Kanhaiyalal''s case (supra) as under: "Before we proceed further, it may be mentioned that in Jyoti Prakash v. The Rajasthan Housing Board (1979 W.L.N. (UC) 101), it has been held that the Registration Schemes and the Allotment Schemes are distinguishable and no right of allotment of house is conferred on any applicants registered under the Registration Scheme and they cannot challenge the scheme. It was held in 1985 W.L.N. (UC) 266, by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court that the Board is competent to increase the price beyond ceiling in certain circumstances and one is, increase in the cost of construction. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1625/86 Deep Chand v. Rajasthan Housing Board, decided on 24.9.1986, the Housing Board Registration Scheme, 1979 was considered. It was held that the reservation is after only allotment and registration and reservations cannot be equated. No right accrued to the complainant for the allotment of the house by Housing Board Scheme, July September 1973."

IT was affirmed in Kanhaiyalal Mathur v R.H.B. (1991 CSMR CAS 118). The National Commission observed: "As has been pointed out by the State Commission the allotment scheme has to be distinguished from the registration scheme and no right of allotment to a house is conferred on any applicant by mere registration under a Registration Scheme. Registration and reservation of allotment cannot be equated and reservation of accommodation follows allotment. Consequently, the State Commission has rightly observed that no right accrued to the complainant for the allotment of a house by the Housing Board on registration of the appellant in 1973 et. seq. in the various draws made under the registration allotment schemes introduced from time to the name of the appellant did not figure in the draws made for allotment. There was no contractual obligation on the part of the Board to allot a house to the Appellant."

The Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 451/1987 decided on 16.7.1987 ruled as under:- "A number of petitions of a similar nature have came up before this Court, and this Court came to the conclusion that mere registration does not entitle the applicant to get the house allotted at a price mentioned in the book-let. The allotment of the house has to be at the price when the house is allotted. It is well known that there is escalation of the prices and the price of the house which would have been in the year 1981 when the registration was held out cannot be the same in the year 1985-86. The petitioner cannot be said to have been given any assurance that the house shall be allotted to him at a price of Rs. 1,11,900/- which was mentioned in the booklet in the year 1981. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is hardly attracted in the present case as no assurance can be said to have been given that the house shall be allotted to him at a price of Rs. 1,11,900/-."

IT was held in A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 738 that the petitioners grievance that the authority was not entitled to give discriminatory treatment by collecting surcharge as component of price in sale, of flats constructed under the MIG Scheme. IT was further held that the State had its agency entering into contractual field then the relations are not governed by the constitutional provision and no question arises of violation of the Constitutional provisions including Art. 14. Reference may be made to'' S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1621/86 decided by the Rajasthan High Court on 24.9.1986. IT was observed :- "Mr. Sharma has submitted before me the Housing Board Registration Scheme, 1979. In that very clause, it has been mentioned that as far as practicable the rates shall not be changed after reservation. The reservation is after only allotment; registration and reservation cannot be equated. This very rule provides that the rates can be revised looking to the increase in the costs. Mr. Sharma submits that it can be raised only upto 10 per cent, it is true that prices have not increased after reservation but after registration. In the registration estimated costs is given and the increasing cost cannot be over looked. There is no case of hostile discrimination and the persons allotted have been treated equally and on the same amount. Even if there is a dispute about the increased rate, it can be agitated before the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction where the disputed question of facts can be determined, such as, what is the increase has rightly been assessed or not and, if assessed, whether it has rightly been applied or not, can only be considered by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction as in such case the disputed questions of facts are involved."

The complainant has not succeeded in establishing that cost of the house charged from him was excessive. He has not established that any financial loss was suffered by him. We do not think that he is entitled to any amount claimed by him. Apart from that it may be mentioned that the complainant has already transferred the house as is clear from para 5 the affidavit of Shri Rakesh Gupta and therefore, he has even no locus standi to maintain the complaint. It may be observed that there is something fishy about the various applications submitted by him from time to time. He is not entitled to any relief under Sec. 14(1) of the Act. The complaint shall stand dismissed without any order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.