Sachindra Nath Dubey vs Bihar State Housing Board

-THE complainant filed this case against the Bihar State Housing Board with the following reliefs: (i) Allotment of one M.I.G. house at Lohianagar at bargain price of Rs. 27,500/-. (ii) Award of Rs. 19 lacs and fifty thousand by way of compensation for harassment both physical and mental, and economic loss.

THE brief fact of the case is that complainant on the basis of advertisement notified by the Bihar State Housing Board deposited earnest money of Rs. 100/- along with an application for the allotment of a constructed house at Lohianagar, Kankerbagh, Patna on hire purchase basis at a price of Rs. 27,500/-. THE advertisement was published in the year 1967. THE complainant deposited the initial amount of Rs. 100/- on 31.1.1967 as per Annexure 1 receipt. THE Housing Board also advertised on 8.12.1972 and 7.10.1978 for the allotment of houses/flats at Hanumannagar and Bahadurpur and old applicants were asked to renew their applications by depositing Rs. 50/- and also a sum of Rs. 6,500/- vide Annexure 2. THE complainant in response to this advertisement renewed his old application by depositing the above amount of Rs. 50/- and Rs. 6,500/- on 21.12.1972 and 13.1.1979 respectively vide Annexures 4 and 5. THE complainant made several representations before the Housing Board for the allotment of the house for which he has applied but after lapse of several years he has not been allotted a house either at Hanumannagar or at Bahadurpur. It is further case of the complainant that O.P. made illegal and arbitrary allotment of MIG house at Lohianagar, Kankerbagh violating its promise as per advertisement of the year 1967 though some of the applicants were allotted the house as per advertisement of the year 1967. THE MIG house at Lohianagar was allotted to different persons on rental basis for 3 to 6 months only. It is further case of the complainant that O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 for ulterior reason allotted the MIG house illegally and arbitrarily to the persons who have not applied as per advertisement of the years 1967 and 1971 in which the price was specifically advertised. Several persons approached the Hon''ble High Court, Patna in CWJC No. 4187/1982. Serious strictures were passed against the O.Ps. regarding the way in which the MIG houses were allotted to different persons and some directions were given to the O.Ps. to be followed in the allotment of the house as per Annexures 6 and 7. THE complainant was expecting to get MIG house as per advertisement out of 129 houses in Lohianagar but the complainant''s claim was ignored. THE complainant was fully satisfied that if the house is allotted on first come first serve basis he will surely get a house at Lohianagar out of 129 MIG houses. THErefore, he did not opt or apply in any other cooperative society including at police colony. THE result is that till date neither the Housing Board allotted him house nor the complainant could have any house in Patna which has caused him serious mental, physical and economic loss. It is further case of the complainant that in the year 1984 he met the Managing Director of the Housing Board and after hearing his grievances he got the petitioner inducted in MIG 114, Lohianagar on rent which was not finally allotted to any one. He was sure that this house shall be allotted to him but it was not allotted to him till date. On 20.10.1984 vide letter No. 3676 he was offered a flat on third floor on higher price which the petitioner did not accept and requested to allot one MIG house out of 129 MIG houses against which he had made original application. The complainant continued to remain in the rented house No. 114 and also got it prepared as it was in dilapidated condition after taking loan from Bank. When the Housing Board asked to vacate this house he moved before the S.D.M., Patna (Housing Controller) who in its order dated 14.5.1985 ordered that he should not be evicted from the said house and this order was affirmed by the Hon''ble High Court, Patna in Cr. W.J.C. No. 286/1987 (Annexure-8). It is further case that two other persons also started claiming this House No. 114, on the basis of that they were allotted this house by the Housing Board and the complainant was forced to enter into litigation and he was asked as per Annexure-9 to continue his possession in the said house. The complainant has to fight regularly both before the Hon''ble High Court and in the Civil Court to continue his possession in the said MIG house. However, finally the Hon''ble High Court, Patna ordered that complainant has no claim over house No. 114 since the house was under litigation between one Rajendra Sharma and Sardar Mohan Singh prior to his induction as tenant in the said house. Thereafter, the Housing Minister, Govt. of Bihar directed the Housing Board to allot him another house identical to house No. 114 since he is an old applicant but he was not allotted house till date though house Nos. 1 and 74 of MIG, Lohianagar were vacant and being an old applicant he was entitled to get one of these two houses. The complainant has vacated house No. 114 at the order of the Hon''ble High Court. The complainant lost all hopes to get a house from the O.P., and, therefore, was compelled to file the complaint before the State Commission with the above reliefs along with the annexure as referred to above.

In pursuance of the notice of O.Ps. appeared and written statement was filed. The main contention of the Housing Board is that the complainant''s claim is not maintainable. The complainant is harassing the Housing Board after filing one case and another since several years. The complainant has no valid claim for the allotment of any MIG house out of 129 MIG houses situated at Lohianagar, Patna. These houses were constructed at Lohianagar near about 1963-64 under the Middle Income Group Housing Scheme and the land acquired by the Housing Department (Annexure-A). A public notice was issued in the local newspaper on 30.3.1965 inviting applications by Housing Department for settlement of these houses under that scheme for residential purpose either on outright sale or on hire purchase system. The applications were invited with affidavit and treasury challan showing the deposit of Rs. 100/- till 30th April, 1965 (Annexur-B). In the year 1967, the Housing Department allotted these houses by lottery at the prices ranging from 19,000/- to Rs. 27,000/-. After making initial payment of 20% of the price, the maximum monthly instalment was fixed to the allottees @ Rs. 107/- per month. This order was challenged before the Hon''ble High Court, Patna and it was stayed and later on the writ was drawn. As the houses were vacant and unprotected, the Housing Department was suffering loss so the Housing Department took a decision to let out the houses on a monthly rent of Rs. 110/- per month. The people of middle-income group including some lottery allottees were given these houses on monthly rental of Rs. 110/-. By Notification dated 22.9.1972 the Housing Department transferred all assets and liabilities to the Housing Board. The Housing Board in its meeting dated 28.11.1974 took a decision to allot these houses on hire purchase basis to those tenants who were legally inducted by the Housing Department and were in possession of the same provided they pay the arrears of rent till 31st December, 1974 and it was also decided that eligible applicants be allotted the houses in which they are living at present as tenant and the rest eligible applicants be allotted the houses on being constructed. These houses be allotted on the basis of first advertisement. Therefore, these houses were allotted, (i) to the tenants who were in possession; (ii) on the basis of first advertisement and as per rule and provision of the Board; and (iii) to those eligible applicants who got their demands registered (Annexure-C). Thus, the allotment of 129 MIG houses at Lohianagar were made as per rule and decision of the Housing Department and Housing Board.

THE claim of the complainant does not come under any category of the allotment rules as mentioned above. THE Housing Department has invited applications in the prescribed form accompanied with affidavit and a challan showing deposit of Rs. 100/- by 30th August, 1965 for the allotment of MIG house. As contended by the complainant no such advertisement has ever appeared in the year 1967. THE complainant has not produced any document to show that in pursuance of the advertisement in the year 1967 he has deposited Rs. 100/- in the prescribed application form along with affidavit. Annexure-1 along with complaint is only receipt of depositing Rs. 100/-. It does not connect any specific advertisement, therefore, mere deposit of this amount does not entitle the complainant to claim any house out of 129 MIG houses at Lohianagar. Registration of demand is not entitling a person seniority in the applicant list. He has not applied as per terms and conditions of the Housing Department or of the Housing Board. He was not an applicant as per advertisement of the year 1965. THEre is also no trace of any advertisement of the year 1971 about which the complainant has made reference. It is true that as per advertisement dated 8.12.1972 the complainant deposited Rs. 50/- on 21.12.1972. In the year 1978 on 7.10.1978 the Housing Board advertised for registering the demands for filing applications in proper proforma after obtaining prospectus for plots and houses situated in second phase of Kankerbagh and Hanumannagar, Patna. It was for the allotment of 3477 plots/houses in second phase and 250 houses at Hanumannagar. It was mentioned that those who deposited Rs. 100/- in the Housing Department and got their name registered in the Housing Board are eligible for filing application for allotment but they were to renew their registration of demand by depositing Rs. 50/- in the Housing Board. THE complainant''s Application No. 161385 was registered in pursuance of the advertisement of 1978 for the allotment of MIG house at Kankerbagh and Lohianagar. THE complainant on the basis of lottery was allotted MIG Flat No. 6MF-1/6 at Bahadurpur, Patna on the basis of his above application dated 13.7.1979 but he refused to accept the same and insisted for allotment of MIG house No. 114 out of 129 MIG house which was denied to him even by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. THE seniority of MIG house after complying with all the requirement including depositing of earnest money started in favour of the complainant since 13.1.1979 in response to advertisement of 1978. He did not apply in accordance with the advertisement of 1965. Some junior applicants as well as seniors have been allotted houses/flats at Bahadurpur. THE complainant has participated in the lottery and also appears to have got the information about the decision of lottery vide Board''s Letter No. 1414 dated 26.5.1984 but did not raise any objection at that time. THE complainant wrongly refused this allotment of the flat, which was allotted to him as per rule and as per his seniority along with other claimants. THErefore, he cannot claim to get any MIG house out of 129 MIG houses at Lohianagar. THE complainant was claiming house No. 114 along with other two claimants including Rajendra Sharma and Sardar Mohan Singh and allotments were fought upto the Hon''ble High Court, Patna and the Hon''ble Court was pleased to allot that house in favour of Sardar Mohan Singh and the complainant was directed to vacant the house and possession was given to Sardar Mohan Singh. THErefore, all contentions of the complainant in this regard are false and fabricated which is clear from the judgment of the Hon''ble High Court (Annexure-E). THE complainant preferred S.L.P. before the Hon''ble Supreme Court but it was dismissed. Having lost all his hopes in the litigation, he has filed the case before the State Commission with false allegation and to harass the Housing Board. From the above facts, it is clear that allotment of 129 MIG houses at Lohianagar was made on different footing and the complainant did not come in any category of these allottees. He never fulfilled the necessary requisites for the allotment of house No. 114 or any of the MIG house at Lohianagar. His all claims for these houses are false and fabricated which he has lost all the claims till the Hon''ble Supreme Court. THE Board denies that he is entitled for allotment of MIG house No. 114 at Lohianagar. He has already denied to take possession of the flat, which was allotted to him as per rule, therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the Housing Board and the claim of the complainant is fit to be dismissed. The dispute in between the parties is with regard to the fact that whether the complainant got himself registered as an applicant for MIG house in the year 1967 (31.1.1967) vide Annexure-1 or as contended by the O.P.-Housing Board that there was no such advertisement ever appeared in the year 1967 inviting applications for the allotment of MIG houses nor in pursuance of that Rs. 100/- were deposited by the complainant. Such advertisement was made in the year 1965 and Rs. 100/- were deposited by several applicants in pursuance of this advertisement. Annexure-1 does not mention that complainant had deposited Rs. 100/- in pursuance of advertisement alleged to be made by the Board in the year 1967. Mere deposit of copy of the challan (Annexure-1) will not help the complainant in support of his contention. He has not produced the alleged advertisement of the Board of the year 1967 before the State Commission. He has deposited Rs. 50/- for renewal of the application dated 31.1.1967 and subsequently he deposited Rs. 6,500/- as demanded by the O.P. (Annexures-4 and 2 respectively). The complainant claims himself to be the senior applicant for the allotment of MIG house (129 flats) as per advertisement of the year 1967 but it has been denied by the Housing Board that he was never an applicant for these MIG houses. As per the Housing Board, these houses were allotted on the basis of lottery and complainant being not a valid applicant was not put under the scheme of lottery. The O.P. has placed reliance on Annexure-B in support of the above contention.

WE have gone through the papers on record and carefully examined the above annexures. The complainant has produced Annexure-1 to show that the deposited Rs. 100/- with the Housing Board on 31.1.1967 but he has not produced any paper on the record to show that in pursuance of which advertisement he deposited this amount with the Board. The Housing Board has also failed to show that if there was no such advertisement under which scheme this amount was deposited and accepted by the Board. Therefore, on the basis of Annexure-1 we are of the view that complainant has deposited the initial amount of Rs. 100/- in pursuance of the advertisement of the year 1967 though both the parties have failed to produce that advertisement. It is admitted fact that complainant has not been allotted any house uptil now by the Housing Board though he has been fighting several cases with the Board with regard to other houses of Housing Board including MIG House No. 114 at Lohianagar, Patna. We have perused those annexures produced on behalf of the complainant but we are unable to come to the conclusion that all these papers help the complainant to show that either High Court or any other Court has directed the Housing Board to allot MIG house to the complainant on the basis of Annexure-1. The complainant was inducted in MIG-114, Lohianagar on rent is an admitted fact and he made claim over this flat for permanent allotment of this house in his favour but two other claimants including Mr. Singh and Mr. Sharma placed their claim over this house and the matter went upto the Hon''ble High Court and it was decided that this house be allotted in favour of Mr. Singh and the complainant was asked to vacate the premises which he vacated. The Housing Minister, Govt. of Bihar where the complainant has represented his case has directed the Housing Board that he being an old applicant be allotted House No. 1 or 74 of MIG Lohianagar if vacant. The contention of the Housing Board before us is that House Nos. 1 and 74 of MIG Lohianagar have already been allotted and they are not vacant. The Housing Board has not made any clear offer to the complainant with regard to the allotment of any MIG house uptil now. This fact is not in dispute that besides depositing Rs. 100/- the complainant has also deposited Rs. 6,500/- with the Board in pursuance of the advertisement by the Housing Board. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the leading case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, reported in II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC), has laid down principles for the Housing Board/Development Authorities to be applicable in the allotment of the house to the applicants. The Hon''ble Court in the above case has set out some illustration which includes, (i) in some cases even though money had been paid and allotment had been made of flats/plots, the scheme itself got cancelled for some reason or the other. Possession was thus refused of the flats/plots allotted to the allottees; (ii) in some cases, at a much later date possession of some other flat/plots was offered at an increased rate; (iii) in some cases possession was offered but not taken by the party; (iv) in some cases even though the scheme was not cancelled and there was no refusal to deliver possession. The possession was not delivered for a number of years even after the money had been received; (v) in some cases construction was of sub-standard quality or it was incomplete; (vi) in some cases the authorities had demanded extra amount from the party; (vii) in some cases the party had not paid the extra amount while in some of the cases they have paid those amount.

PLACING the cases in the above categories the question arises for determination is whether the party is entitled for refund of the money along with interest @ 18% as awarded by the National Commission and in that case where the party has not been allotted house for quite long period nor any refusal was made to allot the house and in that case the party has asked for refund of the paid amount in that case whether the party is entitled for interest @ 18%. The Hon''ble supreme Court has also held that besides allowing interest at the above rate in some of the cases where deficiency on the part of the Board is apparent in that case the party is entitled for compensation from the Board besides the interest on the amount already deposited. In view of the admitted fact as stated above, the complainant is an old applicant and he has not been allotted any house till date. He was having an MIG rented house (No. 114) but by the order of the Hon''ble Court, he has to vacate the same. In these circumstances and considering all the facts on record for the ends of justice we are of the view that complainant must be allotted a vacant flat (preferably MIG) at Lohianagar if any flat including No. 1 or 74 is still vacant. In the case that out of the 129 MIG house at Lohianagar none of them is vacant and all have been allotted and is under the possession of the allottees the Board shall allot another at Bahadurpur, Kankerbagh with the consent of the complainant on the price which was advertised at the initial stage. However, if there is no suitable MIG house or any other flat vacant for the allotment to the complainant in that case the Housing Board shall refund back the deposited monies to the complainant with interest @ 18% as held in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (supra) and Haryana Development Authority v. Darash Kumar, (supra). After considering the entire fact of the case we are of the view that complainant has suffered mental and physical torture for running from pillar to post for allotment of MIG house in his name for more than thirty-five years. The complainant is a retired Government servant and as stated on his behalf on affidavit, he has no house at Patna to live in, therefore, he is entitled for the compensation from the Housing Board for Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. twenty thousand) only besides the litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The Housing Board must comply the above directions, (i) the Housing Board shall offer an MIG house or any other flat or house to the complainant if he desires to take possession of the same at the price originally advertised; (ii) if no such house is allotted, refund the amount deposited by him with 18% interest from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment; (iii) a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. twenty thousand) and litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. one thousand) within three months from the date of this order. Complaint disposed of.