1. Registration for housing scheme — Dispute over entitlement to allotment based on mere registration — Application of registration rules and allotment procedures. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 591
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
UP Housing and Development Board – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Chandra Agarwal – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4529 of 2019 (@ SLP (C) No. 5957 of 2019)
Decided On : 01-05-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
NCDRC could not direct allotment for a consideration of Rs.2,50,000.
NCDRC could not direct allotment for a consideration of Rs.2,50,000.
Subject
Consumer Law - Allotment of Flats
Act Referred
UTTAR PRADESH AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD-REGISTRATION AND ALLOTMENT OF PLOTS AND HOUSES RULES: R.15, R.30
Headnote
UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad-Registration and Allotment of Plots and Houses Rules, 1979 - Rules 15 and 30 r/w Clause 5, Registration booklet - Mere registration does not oblige the authority to include every registered applicant in the draw of lots - Respondent, after registration, not showing his readiness and willingness to participate in a draw of lots a specified scheme - District Forum giving liberty to the respondent to seek allotment at current market value under any of the schemes of the appellant - NCDRC directing allotment to respondent for a total sum of Rs.2,50,000 - No justification. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
In 1982 the appellant floated a scheme for Economically Weaker Sections. The respondent deposited an amount of Rs. 500, initially in 1982, for registration. Later, in 1985, an additional amount of Rs. 500 was deposited when the registration fee was enhanced to Rs. 1000.
The first advertisement was published by the appellant in 1992. In terms of the above Rules, registered applicants were required to furnish their written consent for being included in the draw of lots. None was provided by the respondent.
The respondent filed a consumer complaint nearly eleven years after the date of registration. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ghaziabad [District Forum] disposed of the complaint by directing that the respondent, at the highest, may secure an allotment, if he so desires at the current value fixed by the appellant.
Against this order of the District Forum, the respondent filed a first appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [SCDRC] which was dismissed for default.
The NCDRC, in revision, issued a direction to the appellant to allot a flat on the ground floor in the Mandola Vihar Yojana, Ghaziabad to the respondent subject to his paying a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 towards consideration for the flat within a period of six weeks from the date of the passing of the order.
Finding of the Court:
Direction of the NCDRC is unjustified and not sustainable.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Vishwajit Singh, AOR Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv. Ms. Vijaya Singh, Adv. Ms. Veera Kaul Singh, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Vishwajit Singh, AOR Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv. Ms. Vijaya Singh, Adv. Ms. Veera Kaul Singh, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether mere registration confers a right to allotment or if written consent for specific schemes is mandatory for inclusion in the lottery draw. (Para 13 , 14 )
3. Registration does not guarantee allotment; specific rules require active consent for lottery participation; public authorities cannot be compelled to contract without a legal or contractual basis. (Para 15 )
4. Mere registration for a housing scheme does not create a vested right to allotment or a binding contract if rules require separate consent for allotment. (Para 15 )
5. Appeal allowed and the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set aside. (Para 16 )
6. Does mere registration in a housing scheme guarantee the allotment of a plot or house?
No. Registration does not confer a right or guarantee that the authority is bound to allot a property, nor does it entitle the registrant to claim compensation if no allotment is made. (Para 2 , 3 , 15 )
7. What is the legal effect of rules requiring written consent for participation in a lottery draw for housing allotment?
Such rules establish that registration does not automatically include an applicant in the draw; the applicant must demonstrate readiness and willingness by submitting a written consent letter for each specific scheme. (Para 4 , 15 )
8. Can a consumer forum compel a public authority to allot property at a specified price without a contractual entitlement?
No. A public authority cannot be compelled to enter into a contract or provide allotment at a specified price without a rational basis or a pre-existing contractual entitlement. (Para 15 )
JUDGMENT :
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In 1982 the appellant floated a scheme for Economically Weaker Sections. The respondent deposited an amount of Rs. 500, initially in 1982, for registration. Later, in 1985, an additional amount of Rs. 500 was deposited when the registration fee was enhanced to Rs. 1000. Clause 5 of the Registration Booklet provided as follows:
“The registration of a person does not in any way confer any right or guarantee that the Board is bound to allot a plot or house to him, nor will he be entitled to claim any compensation if he is not allotted the property as desired by him.”
3. The appellant is governed by the UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad-Registration and Allotment of Plots and Houses Rules, 1979, [Rules of 1979]. Rule 15 provides as follows:
“Board is not bound to allot the houses/plots to every registration holder. Those who are not allotted the land/house by the Board are not entitled to claim the dues/amount spent.”
4. Rule 30 contains the following stipulations:
“Sending Application Form, Written Consent is necessary:
(1) In the event of availability of property in any Scheme, intimation to effect shall be published in newspapers through advertisement or written intimation shall be sent to the registered persons through registered post or both means of communication. Apart from description of available proper, date of allotment draw, place and time shall also be mentioned in the said written intimation.
(2) Application form in prescribed format shall be available at the place mentioned in the aforesaid intimation as well as in the office of Estate Management officer of the city. Merely getting his/her name registered with the parishad, the name of a registered person shall not automatically be included in the lottery draw. It would be compulsory for the registered person to submit written consent letter (in prescribed format) for each and every scheme before the date of lottery draw so that his/her name could be included in the draw.
(3) Application form can also be sent through registered post so as to reach in the concerned office before the last date. The Parishad shall not responsible for postal delay.
(4) The willing buyer must ensure that he is providing true and correct information in the application form. In complete and conditional form shall not be entertained. At any point of time, if it is found that the applicant has concealed any vital/relevant fact or has provided incorrect information, his application form shall be subject to rejection and if a plot or house has already been allotted to him/her, the Housing Commissioner shall have the power to cancel his allotment and to make deduction and to impose fine as provided in Rule 45.
(5) Priority will be given to the willing buyers, whose registration was done in first phase over those who were registered in the second phase. Similarly, persons registered in the second phase shall get priority over the buyers registered in the third phase, etc.
Provided that the Parishad shall reserve the right to invite application for allotment from registered persons of only one phase or more than one phases of any scheme. The Parishad further reserves the right to grant liberty to a particular class to participate in the registration phase. The particular class, so granted liberty, shall take benefit of priority in the registration phase, e.g. willing buyers of reserved class, who were registered in the first phase shall get priority over those reserved class buyers who were registered in the second phase.”
5. The first advertisement was published by the appellant in 1992. In terms of the above Rules, registered applicants were required to furnish their written consent for being included in the draw of lots. None was provided by the respondent.
6. The respondent filed a consumer complaint on 30 August 1993, nearly eleven years after the date of registration. In the meantime, a second advertisement was published by the appellant on 15
