SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Raj) 2074

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
P.K.Lohra, J.
Jivi Bai - Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan Housing Board & anr. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13601 of 2015.
Decided On : 14-12-2015

For the Petitioner:Vikas Balia and V.D. Vaishnav, Advocates.

A delay in depositing the requisite amount for allotment of a house/flat under a housing scheme can lead to cancellation of the allotment.

Headnote:

LAND ALLOTMENT - RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD ACT, 1955 - SECTION 10 - ALLOTMENT OF HOUSE/FLAT - CANCELLATION OF ALLOTMENT - DELAY IN DEPOSIT OF REQUISITE AMOUNT - NO BASIC AMENITIES PROVIDED - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - COMPLAINT FILED - ALLOTMENT REVIVED BY CHIEF ESTATE MANAGER - COMPETENT AUTHORITY DECLINED REVIVAL - WRIT PETITION FILED AFTER TWO AND A HALF YEARS - DISMISSED.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner applied for a house/flat under the Pindwara Housing Scheme 2008. She was allotted a house/flat and asked to deposit the requisite amount. She was issued a possession letter and asked to deposit the cost of the house. However, she found that basic amenities like drinking water connection, sewerage line, electricity, and road were not provided. She filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. The Board cancelled her allotment for non-compliance of the demand notice. She submitted a representation for revival of her allotment, which was declined by the competent authority.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner failed to deposit the requisite amount for more than one and a half years despite being served with a notice. The court also found that the petitioner had not provided any plausible explanation for the delay in filing the writ petition.

Issues: 1. Whether the Board was justified in cancelling the petitioner's allotment for non-compliance of the demand notice? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to revival of her allotment?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Board was justified in cancelling the petitioner's allotment for non-compliance of the demand notice. The court also held that the petitioner was not entitled to revival of her allotment as she had not provided any plausible explanation for the delay in filing the writ petition.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition.

JUDGMENT

1. - Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the impugned orders dated 15.03.2013 (Annex.10) and 06.05.2014 (Annex.17) respectively.

2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent-Board floated a new land scheme in Pindwara, District Sirohi regarding development of a colony under Pindwara Housing Scheme 2008 (for short, 'Scheme'). Pursuant to the Scheme, the petitioner applied for a house/flat and thereupon she was communicated by letter dated 12.04.2010 that a house/flat has been reserved in her name under the MIG-A category and the petitioner was asked to deposit the requisite amount mentioned therein. Later on possession letter was also issued in the name of petitioner on 13.12.2011 and she was asked to deposit cost of the house amounting to Rs.6,70,708/- through demand draft/cheque along with the requisite documents. The petitioner was surprised when she went at the site that respondent-Board has not provided basic facilities like drinking water connection, sewerage line, electricity, road etc. for the colony, where the house/flat is located and there was a cause grievance about the quality of construction raised by the Board. It appears that besides petitioner, some other incumbents, who were allotted houses/flats under the Scheme, also ventilated their grievances in this behalf before the Board. For nonavailability of basic amenities necessary for dwelling, complaints were also laid under the Consumer Protection Act.

3. Be that as it may, in want of non-compliance of the demand notice allotment of the petitioner was cancelled by the Board vide order 15.03.2013. Subsequently, petitioner submitted her representation before the higher authority for revival of her allotment and the matter was reexamined by competent authority but the prayer for revival of allotment is declined by letter/communication dated 06.05.2014. Precisely, in the said letter also, Board has reiterated that the petitioner has not deposited the requisite amount and has not made compliance of the demand notice. It is in that background the petitioner has laid this petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

5. At the outset, it may be observed that vide letter dated 13.12.2011 (Annex.3) the petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.6,70,708/- within a period of three months and the said amount has not been deposited by the petitioner for almost fifteen months and that necessitated cancellation of her allotment by the impugned order dated 15.03.2013 (Annex.10). Before passing the cancellation order, the petitioner was also served notice dated 14.03.2012 (Annex.9). The recital contained in Annex. 10 reads as under:-

dzekad %& vk0v0@2012@2287

fnukad 15-03-2013

dk;kZy; vkns'k

(iathdj.k@vkoaVu fujLrhdj.k)

1- dqekjh thoh ckbZ iq=h Hks:yky th us lkekU;@fof'k"V@dYir: ;kstuk ds vUrxZr vkosnu i= dzekad 1498 }kjk o"kZ 13-12-11 esa (vk; oxZ) MIB A ds vUrxZr fi.MokM+k 'kgj gsrq iathdj.k djk;k FkkA ftldh ojh;rk@dksM uEcj SRS/2008/MIG A/G2/ORS/7 ij fu/kkZfjr gSA

2- fnukad 28-09-2010 dks vkoaVu ykVjh esa edku la0 1@71 ;kstuk dk uke fi.MokM+k esa vkoafVr gqvkA

3- vkoUVh dks vkoUVu@dCtk i= tkjh djus ds ckn jkf'k tek ugha djkus ij fMQkYVj uksfVl tkjh mijkUr foKkfIr izdk'ku ckn vkoUVu fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA rFkk fu;ekuqlkj tek jkf'k okil ykSVkus gsrq vyx ls dk;Zokgh dh tk jgh gSA

,lMh@&

vkoklh; vfHk;Urk

jktLFkku vkoklu e.My

[k.M %& ikyh ekjokM+"

6. After cancellation of allotment, the petitioner submitted representation and in pursuance thereof a benevolent gesture is shown by the Chief Estate Manager of the Board by its communication dated 23.09.2013 (Annex.13) for revival of her allotment. However, the competent authority after considering the matter objectively has found that no plausible ground is available for revival of allotment letter which has been cancelled for noncompliance of the allotment/possession letter and that being so, ord



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top