As per the terms of the Registration Brochure, Houses were to be allotted in 5 to 7 years according to priority number of the Applicants. In the said Scheme 40% quota was fixed for salaried category (employees of Government and Private Institutions and Public Institutions). On 15.06.1982, the Complainant made an application for changing the category of house from Lower Income Group to Middle Income Group which was accepted by the Housing Board and he was given Priority No. H8/4133/JPR/M2/79. It is the case of the Complainant that since he was a Government Servant he was eligible for reservation. According to the Complainant in compliance of demand notice dated 24.09.2015 issued by the Housing Board, he deposited a sum of ₹2,34,462/- (₹2 lakh towards Seed-Money, ₹7,000/- towards Service Tax and ₹27,642/- towards Interest) with the Housing Board. Despite that after lapse of 34 years of Registration he has not been allotted any independent house by the Housing Board though the Applicants junior to him in priority and Applicants belonging to other Schemes launched by the Housing Board after the year 1979, have been allotted Houses. It is the case of the Complainant that he is residing in a rented property and he has been suffering financial loss due to non-allotment of the House by the Housing Board. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant Housing Board, Complainant filed a Complaint before the State Commission.

3. The Appellant Housing Board contested the Complaint before the State Commission. They submitted that they have issued a letter on 2.11.1993 for depositing the seed-money in 3 instalments but the Complainant failed to deposit the said amount, therefore, he could not be allotted any House. Complainant wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Housing Board in the year 2007. Thereafter Complainant was asked to deposit his KYC documents and after completion of formalities he was reserved for a flat of MIG-B on 14.08.2014 and he was allotted a flat on 11.03.2016. Complainant deposited the seed-money but did not take the possession of the said flat. Complainant contended that he never received the letter dated 2.11.1993. He also contended that he never issued any letter to the Chairman of the Housing Board. Although he admitted before the State Commission that he deposited the KYC documents and seed-money in compliance of the letter dated 14.08.2014. He also submitted that he did not accept the allotted flat as he had applied for an Independent House and not for a flat. It was the case of the Housing Board that since the signatures on the letter were different than his signatures available with them, therefore, his KYC documents were demanded and he was reserved for a flat in the year 2014 and the flat was allotted in the year 2016.

4. After hearing both the Parties and perusal of material on record, the State Commission observed as under:-

"In view of all the facts of this case we feel that the opponents did not take any action to allot the house to complainant for so many years after registration, no information was given regarding the position of seniority, nor any details were given in the reservation letter, thereafter a flat allotment letter is issued in the year 2014 after 34 years, this entire situation in itself amounts to deficiency in services. The Housing Board is not making any efforts or

2

acting seriously to provide the houses to the applicants despite taking registration amount. The demand of affidavit as made by Opponents from Complainant through their letter R-9, is completely unconstitutional which amounts to violation of the right to property of any person. Any of the applicants is not expected that after registration with Housing Board he cannot purchase any property in the name of his wife, his dependants separately. The Housing Board can ask for an affidavit to the effect that the applicant or his wife or dependants has not been allotted any house by the Housing Board. Therefore, the demand of housing board for such an affidavit was contrary to the law.

In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Complaint of the Complainant is liable to be allowed and the Complainant is entitled to independent house. The Complainant prayed for allotment of house at the conditions and costing of the year 1979, spontaneously such a prayer is inappropriate and not possible. The Housing Board assured to provide the house within 5 to 7 years at the time of registration. If this period is extended three times to opponent still the house was to be allotted till the year 2010 therefore, it will be justified to order that the house shall be allotted to Complainant at the cost prevailing in the year 2010 within three months.

The Complainant prayed for rent on the ground of rented house as compensation for the damages, which is not appropriate as the Complainant has approached this Commission in the year 2016 only."

5. Aggrieved by this order, the Appellant Housing Board has filed the present Appeal before this Commission.

6. Mr. N.K. Chauhan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant Housing Board submitted that Respondent/Complainant failed to deposit the seed money despite having received the reservation letters dated 2.11.1993, 13.12.2007 and 21.01.2008, therefore, he was not considered for allotment of House. He deposited the seed-money only on 28.08.2015 in compliance of letter dated 14.08.2014 by which seed-money was directed to be deposited for multi-story flats and thereafter he was allotted a flat in the year 2016 on the rate as applicable on the date of allotment. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part and Respondent/Complainant is not entitled for any compensation. Further, there is no independent house available with the Appellant Housing Board, therefore, impugned order passed by the State Commission cannot be complied with. He further submitted that the Impugned Order passed by the State Commission is not sustainable and it should be set aside.

7. Respondent/Complainant, who is present in person, submitted that that the impugned order passed by the State Commission is right and just and it should be upheld.

8. Vide Order dated 20.12.2019 a direction was issued to the Appellant Housing Board to file an Affidavit stating therein as to whether any independent house is available in the Mansarovar Scheme and, if not, then in any other Scheme and vis-à-vis the details of the independent houses given by Respondent No. 1 to the Learned Counsel for the Appellants. In compliance of the said Order, Deputy Housing Commissioner of Appellant Housing Board has filed Additional Affidavit stating that the list of houses given by Respondent No. 1 is the list of HIG Category Houses, whereas he has applied for Lower Income Group category house, which

3

was upgraded by him in the year 1982 to Middle Income Group-B in which area of MIG-B House was 189.00 sq. m. but presently the area 189.00 sq. mt. is being allotted in HIG Category. It was further stated that no independent house of MIG-B category is available with the Appellant in Mansarovar Scheme and independent houses of MIG-B category were not being constructed by the Appellant Housing Board for the last more than 18 years and only flats are being constructed and allotted to the Applicants as per the availability and priority of the Applicants. It was further stated in the Affidavit an independent house No. 1 / 13, Sector - 1, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, measuring 120 sq. mtr., pointed out by the Respondent/Complainant, was constructed under Out Right Sale Basis scheme, whereas the Respondent/Complainant applied for Hire-Purchase Sale Basis scheme, therefore, the said house could not be allotted to the Respondent/Complainant. The said house was put under auction purchase and was sold to the highest bidder.

9. In response to the Affidavit of Deputy Housing Commissioner, Respondent/Complainant No. 1 also filed additional submissions. He submitted that the dimension and size of the MIG-B Category of Housing Scheme 1979 and the size of independent house of HIG Category House are same and the Housing Board cannot reduce the area of the house in an arbitrary manner and with retrospective effect and also without intimation. He submitted that he should be allotted independent house of HIG Category, which are available with the Appellant Housing Board. Relying upon an Order dated 02.12.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter "Rajasthan Housing Board vs. Keshav Lal Arora", the Respondent/Complainant submitted that the Mr. Keshav Lal Arora was Applicant of Scheme of 1979 under HIG Category House of 252 sq. mtr. When Hon'ble Supreme Court asked the Housing Board to file an affidavit stating the availability of independent houses, Housing Board has allotted an independent house of 189 sq. mt. to him. But Mr. Keshav Lal Arora did not accept the same as the size was different. Ultimately, Housing Board allotted him another independent house of 252 sq. mtr. Accordingly, Respondent/Complainant prayed that being the similar facts, he should also be allotted an independent house under HIG Category of 189 sq. mtr. which was the size of MIG-B category under the Scheme of 1979.

10. I have heard Mr. N.K. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Respondent/Complainant in person, perused the material available on record and have given thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by them.

11. It is not in dispute that the Respondent/Complainant registered himself for LIG independent houses in the General Registration Scheme 1979 floated by the Appellant Housing Board for and subsequently he was upgraded to MIG Category independent House of 189 sq. mtr. The Appellant Housing Board never intimated to the Respondent/Complainant that he will be allotted flat or his reservation or allotment is for a flat. It is the case of the Appellant Housing Board that at present they are not constructing independent houses of 189 sq. mtr. in MIG Category. But independent houses of 189 sq. mtr. are available in HIG Category.

12. In the case of Mr. Keshav Lal Arora, who was Applicant of Scheme of 1979 under HIG Category House of 252 sq. mtr., the Housing Board allotted him an independent house of 189 sq. mtr. on the plea that at present Independent Houses under HIG Category are of 189 sq. mtr. but he did not accept the same as the size was different. Ultimately, Housing Board allotted him another independent house of 252 sq. mtr.

4

13. Similarly, in the instant case, the Respondent / Complainant was registered for 189 sq. mtr. independent house in the Scheme of the year 1979. In the interest of justice it would be fair enough that the Respondent / Complainant be allotted independent house of 189 sq. mtr. whether it be in the MIG-B or HIG Category.

14. After hearing the Parties and appreciation of material available on record, the State Commission had passed the impugned Order by observing as under:-

"We are of the opinion that the registration done earlier in the year 1979 it was for a house. The opponents never intimated the Complainant that he will be allotted with flat or his reservation or allotment is for a flat. It came to light during arguments that the opponents stopped the construction of independent houses for some time but it is the duty of the opponents that it should give personal intimation to each and every applicant and obtain his option that whether he is ready to accept the flat against his registration, therefore, flat cannot be allotted in arbitrary manner to any of the applicants who have applied for independent house without obtaining their option. If the Complainant does not give his option for flat, then he cannot be forced for this whereas the registration was for independent house. He was never intimated that a flat will be allotted to him. Therefore, this amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the Housing Board and covered in the definition of deficiency in services…"

15. I do not find any ground to interfere with the well-reasoned Order dated 20.07.2017 passed by the State Commission and the same is upheld. Consequently, the present Appeal is dismissed being without any merit. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

......................J

R.K. AGRAWAL

PRESIDENT

5