BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

FIRST APPEAL NO: 685/2017

Rajasthan Housing Board through Housing Commissioner, Janpath, Near Vidhan Sabha, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

Vs.

Sh.Raghuvihari Lal Mathur (deceased) his Lrs Smt.Uma Mathur r/o House No. 14, Kalyan Nagar 5, Behind New Bungalow, Tonk Road, Jaipur & ors.

Date of Order 11.12.2018

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mr.Kamal Kumar Bagri -Member

Mr.Ratnesh Yadav counsel for the appellant

Mr. Anand Sharma counsel for the respondent

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

2

This appeal is filed against the judgment of the District Forum, Jaipur 4^th dated 9.5.2017 whereby the claim is allowed against the appellant and it has been ordered that independent house be allotted to the complainant respondent on the rates prevailing on 7.10.2011 alongwith compensation and cost of proceedings.

The contention of the appellant is that respondent has applied for house/flat, No independent house is available with the appellant. They have right to change the plan. Priority number was changed as he has changed his registration in outright sale. The respondent himself has deposited the amount for allotment of flat in Malviya Nagar. There was no reason to allot the house on the price of 7.10.2011 and the claim be dismissed.

The contention of the respondent is that he has applied for independent house. Money was deposited under protest hence, the Forum below has rightly allowed the claim.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case. The

3

respondent has submitted the written arguments.

There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent has applied in General Registration Scheme 1979. The contention of the appellant is that as per application form Ex. R 1 the respondent has applied for house/flat. It is true that in Ex. R 1 the registration was for house/flat but it is also not in dispute that registration was under scheme of 1979 wherein the description of the house is mentioned including two bedroom drawing room etc. and salient feature is land for constructing garage and three side open land which conclusively shows that registration was for independent house. As per Ex. 2 money was paid for registration in Jaipur. Ex. 3 receipt also acknowledged the allotment for house. Hence, the Forum below has rightly held that the respondent has applied for independent house and even the scheme was for independent house.

As per Ex. 19 the appellant informed the respondent for the allotment of flat in Mansarovar Scheme The respondent has paid the amount under protest and he again asked for independent house. Inspite of this on

4

7.10.2011 his name was included in the lottery for flats constructed in Mansarovar. The respondent has rightly pointed out that he received the information of lottery since 2002 to 2011 for MIG-B house and in lottery list dated 25.3.2006 his name should have been included as his priority number was then 1115 and priority number 1112 and 1181 houses were allotted in this lottery. Hence his name should be inluded in the lottery prior to number 1181. Thereafter he changed his registration from hire purchase and on 27.8.2008 his name should be included in the lottery after the priority number 1171 and before priority number 1332 as his priority number was 1251.

The priority numbers have not been disputed by the appellant and no reason has been assigned that when priority number of year 1979 were allotted an independent house that time why the respondent has not been allotted the house. Reliance is placed on IV (2004) CPJ 518 (Raj.) Vipul Mathur Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and III (2015) CPJ 376 (NC) Army Welfare Housing Organisation Vs. Rajkumar Dhingra.

The contention of the appellant that respondent has paid

5

the amount is not fruitful as alongwith payment he raised the objection for allotment