Smt. Gomti Sonkar vs Madhya Pradesh Housing Board Bhopal

Sanjay Yadav, J.—Being aggrieved by demand notice dated 19.2.2010; whereby the petitioner, who had booked a residential house under self financing scheme at Satyameva Jayate Complex, Jabalpur, has been called upon to deposit the sum of Rs. 5,14,179/- over and above the amount of Rs. 8,20,000/- paid by the petitioner. On being noticed the respondents have to state that the amount which is being demanded is towards the cost of construction incurred in construction of the residential house which being under self financing scheme has to be borne by the petitioner.

During course of hearing this Court is apprised of two decisions by the different Bench of this Court, viz., Smt. Kamal Kanti Dubey v. State of M.P. and others: W.P. No. 9126/2010, decided on 9.3.2011 with batch of writ petitions: W.P. No. 13841/2009, W.P. No. 8583/2010, W.P. No. 3068/2010 and W.P. No. 500/2010: Surendra Singh Rana and Another Vs. State of M.P. and Another,

In Smt. Kamal Kanti Dubey (supra) it is held

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that since no right is conferred n petitioner and right from very beginning the Housing Board is stating that cost of the flat which is shown only as approximate subject to final allotment, I am of the view that if petitioner agrees to get the flat in question allotted in her name, the demand so made by the Board be paid. However, if petitioner so advised may submit necessary dispute before the Commissioner demonstrating each and every minor details to settle the amount to be paid at a lesser price and same may be adjusted. If such a dispute is submitted by the petitioner, the same may be decided by the Commissioner, M.P. Housing Board, Bhopal sympathetically by paying heed that proposed allottee belongs to middle class society an they have to take loan from financial institutions etc. and further taking into account in the year 2004 (7 years ago) petitioner applied for allotment of house and they also deposited some amount. This Court hopes and trusts that if such a dispute is raised, certainly it would be considered by the authority in order to reduce the cost of the flat so that the petitioner being a member of middle class, may afford it. In that situation, the findings given by this Court may be ignored by the Commissioner.

In Surendra Singh Rana and another (supra), it is held:

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of with a direction to the effect that the petitioners shall file a representation before the respondent/authorities raising all issues before them against the impugned enhancement and on the petitioners'' doing so the respondent/Housing Board shall thereafter examine the matter, hear all concerned and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of T.N. Housing Board (supra) and Prakash Dal Mill (supra) and other decisions of the Supreme Court keeping in view the guidelines given therein.

It is further held that in case the petitioners are unable to pay the enhanced price of the flats or are not willing to do so, the Housing Board would be obliged to return the amount deposited by the petitioners alongwith interest on the same rate they were charging from the petitioners. The aforesaid exercise be completed by the Housing Board as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation which may be filed by the petitioners along with a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition within three weeks of obtaining the same. Till decision of the respondent/authorities in the matter no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondents and status quo, as it exists today in respect of allotment of the flats, shall be maintained by the respondents.

These two decisions pertain to enhancement of cost of residential house in Satyameva Jayate Complex and the case at hand since also relates to residential house at Satyameva Jayate Complex, the parity has to be maintained.

The petition, therefore, is disposed of with a direction that paragraphs 13 and 14 of the decision in Surendra Singh Rana and another (supra) shall mutatis mutandis be applicable in the present case. The petition is finally disposed of in above terms. No costs.