Ratan Singh vs UTTAR PRADESH Avas Evam Vikas Parishad

THIS is an appeal against the order and judgment dated 9.8.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum II, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 92/1995.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that in the draw held on 9.2.1994 the complainant was successful but on the request of the complainant house No. 10/160 in the Indira Nagar scheme was given to him in lieu of the house which came to his share in the lottery. However, no allotment order was issued in respect of the house No. 10/160. It was revealed to the complainant on 24.3.1994 that house mentioned above has been allotted to one Vijay Bahadur Singh. THE complainant was assured of being provided with another house for which the complainant agreed. No house has been allotted to him and hence the complaint was filed. In the written statement it was alleged that the complainant was successful in the lottery for house No. 14/222, but it has been wrongly over-written as 10/160. House No. 14/222 was therefore allotted to Abhay Kumar Srivastava. House No. 10/222 was allotted to Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh who was successful in the draw.

After perusing the evidence on record, the District Consumer Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant should be alloted House No. 8/936 on prevalent price and the complainant was directed to deposit the amount and thereafter the possession was to be given to the complainant.

AGGRIEVED against this order the complainant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned District Forum. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have perused the evidence on record.

LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has argued that the possession of the house has been delivered. According to learned Counsel the cutting over house No. 14/222 was done by the complainant and another number was written. It has been alleged that the possession of house No. 8/936 as directed by the learned District Forum has been delivered to the complainant. The only grievance of the complainant is that he has been asked to pay the new price of the house by the District Forum which is not proper. Keeping in view the facts of the case we find that the learned District Forum should have directed the Housing Board to deliver and hand over possession of house No. 8/936 at the old rates prevalent at that time when complainant was successful in the draw of lots. We are not prepared to believe the arguments of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the complainant has over-written the figures. Therefore, it is clearly proved on record that somebody in the office of the respondent has manipulated the records in order to deprive the complainant of getting the house. As this part of the grievance has been remedied by the opposite party by allotting house No. 8/936, therefore, we are not concerned with this matter. On the facts of the case it is clear that the opposite party should charge the rate of the allotted house which was prevalent in the year when the complainant was declared successful for allotment, i.e. in the year 1994. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be allowed in part. Order The appeal is partly allowed. It is directed that the price of house No. 8/936 shall be charged by the Housing Board at the same rate at which the complainant became entitled to his house in the year 1994. The judgment and order of the learned District Forum shall stand modified accordingly. The appellant shall get cost of this proceeding at Rs. 1,500/-. Let the compliance of the order be made within six weeks from the date of this order. Let copy be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal partly allowed.