The court affirmed that applicants under a housing scheme are bound by the terms they accepted, including payment obligations, and cannot contest cost escalations due to delays not promised by the Board.

ORDER

1. Although, the matter comes up on an application (1/2022) filed by the respondents seeking vacation of ex-parte interim order dated 23.10.2021; however, on the request of learned counsels for the respective parties, the writ petition was heard on its merit at this stage.

2. Challenge in the writ petition is to the order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board whereby, the allotment of houses made in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled on account of non-deposition of the requisite amount as per the allotment letter.

3. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent-Board introduced a housing scheme in town Nainwa, District Bundi floating Special Registration Scheme-2007 (SRS). The houses were categorised in six classes such as economically weaker group, low income group, middle income group and higher income group amongst others. The petitioners are applicants under different categories. In the lottery drawn by the respondents for allotment of houses, all the petitioners stood successful and in terms of demand letter dated 27.07.2011, they deposited the seed money. The petitioners were issued allotment letters dated 29.06.2020 raising an additional demand towards cost of the house. Contending that the petitioners have already deposited the entire amount and on account of delay on the part of the Board in raising construction of the houses, this additional demand has been created, this writ petition has been filed for quashing the additional demand and the letters cancelling the allotment on their failure to meet the same.

4. In their reply, the respondents, disputing and denying the averments made in the writ petition, submitted that as per the scheme, the successful applicants were required to pay cost of the houses as assessed at the time of issuance of allotment letter and vide letter dated 27.07.2011, the petitioners were required to pay seed money only.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have deposited the entire allotment amount in pursuance of the notice dated 27.07.2011 and had the respondent-Board raised construction of the houses within reasonable time, there would not have been any occasion for demand of additional cost. Referring to the contents of para 12 of the writ petition wherein, it is averred that the respondent-Board informed them that due to its dispute with the contractor, the scheme got delayed resulting into levy of additional charges, the learned counsel submitted that there is no specific rebuttal to these averments by the respondents in their reply and hence, for the fault of the respondents-Board, the petitioners could not have been saddled with the additional demand. Elaborating his submissions, learned counsel submitted that delay also invited application of Goods and Service Tax. He further submitted that the additional demand also reflects enhanced cost of the land, which, in view of the fact that it belonged to the respondents-Board, is illegal. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 02.08.2021 as also the additional demand raised vide allotment letter dated 29.06.2020 be quashed and set aside and the respondent-Board be directed to allot them houses treating the seed money deposited by them in pursuance of demand dated 27.07.2011 as complete payment towards cost of the house.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, drawing attention of this Court towards the provisions of the SRS, submitted that the demand raised vide letter dated 27.07.2011 represented the seed money only and the petitioners were liable to pay the cost of the house determinable on its completion only. He submitted that the respondent-Board allots houses on the principle of 'No Profit No Loss'. He submits that contention of the learned counsel that delay in construction occurred on account of dispute between the Board and the contractor is misplaced. Learned counsel submitted that the demand raised vide letter of allo