Allowed

R H B Andanr v. Raj Ram Gaur

Rajasthan HC7 Feb 2024SAW/291/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

D.B. Special Appeal against a Single Judge order allowing a petitioner to be allotted a flat at 1993 rates. This Court quashed the Single Judge's order because the petitioner failed to challenge the cancellation or allotment conditions in the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Single Judge order dated 10.7.2009 quashed and set aside. Respondent directed to forfeit deposited amount. Appeal disposed of.

R H B Andanr Vs Raj Ram Gaur — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:6463-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 291/2011

¶4

Rajasthan Housing Board, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur Through Is Chairman

¶5

Estate Manager-I, Rajasthan Housing Board, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Raja Ram Gaur, Presently Working As Branch Manager, State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur Sbbj, Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.A. Katta Mr. M.K. Dhakad For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Yadav

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order

Reportable

07/02/2024

Appellant-Rajasthan Housing Board has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 10.7.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1624/1998 titled as (Raja Ram Gaur vs. Rajasthan Housing Board & Anr.), whereby, learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by RespondentRaja Ram Gaur.

¶16

Mr. R.A. Katta, learned counsel appearing for Rajasthan Housing Board contended that learned Single Judge has quashed the cancellation order dated 02.05.1995 without there being any prayer in this regard in the writ petition. It is also contended that Housing Board had allotted a Flat bearing No.52/19 on 30.04.1993

[2024:RJ-JP:6463-DB]

[SAW-291/2011]

(2 of 7)

to the respondent. The respondent neither deposited the whole amount, nor took possession of the flat after depositing the partial installment. In the allotment letter itself, option was given to the respondent to obtain loan from the Agencies or any other person as he deems fit, if he wanted to avail Hire-Purchase Scheme. It is also contended that initially after the allotment in April 1993, respondent applied again in the year 1996 and after filing of this appeal also, Housing Board on the directions of this Court offered the respondent to purchase the flat at the prevailing rate and four options were given in this regard to him but the respondent denied all the alternatives and wanted the flat at the price as was available on 30.04.1993.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on various judgments which are as under:-

¶22

(i). Tamil Nadu Housing Board and ors. vs. Sea Shore Apartments Owners’ Welfare Assocation reported in (AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1151 (1) ;

¶23

(ii). Rajasthan Housing Board and Ors. etc. vs. Awasan Mandal Parijat Uncha Aywarg Sangarh Samiti reported in AIR 1996 Rajasthan 47 wherein it has been held as under:-

¶24

“We also hold that since it was pure and simple a non-statutory contract, the parties to the lis are governed by the terms and conditions laid down in the Scheme. The same could not form a subject matter for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also held that no writ of mandamus could be issued to the Board to allot a particular house to an allottee at a given price or to reduce the price that was being asked for.”

¶25

(3 of 7) [SAW-291/2011]

¶26

[2024:RJ-JP:6463-DB]

¶27

(iii) Rajasthan Housing Board vs. Smt. Parvati Devi reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1940 .

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that Hire-Purchase is defined under the Rajasthan Housing Board (Disposal of Property) Regulations, 1970 issued by the Housing Board, which reads as under:-

¶29

“Hire-Purchase or Hire-Purchase system means a system in which a participant take steps to secure rights in a property under a scheme by payment of deposit and also a specified number of monthly installments spread over a specified number of years during which he remains a tenant on the terms and conditions set for the purpose and on the expiry of the said years ceases to be a tenant and becomes owner after payment of all dues.”

¶30

It is argued that there was no condition of deposit of entire amount, hence, the respondent did not deposit the entire amount. It is also contended that the entire proceedings taken by the Housing Board were not challenged in the writ petition.

¶31

We have considered the contentions and have perused the matter.

¶32

The writ petition No. 1624/ 1998 was filed by the respondent with the following relief:-

¶33

“(i) the respondents be directed by writ of mandamus to allot the HIG house to the petitioner in accordance with the application submitted by the petitioner in the year 1982 in the prevailing rates or at the most in accordance with the letter dated 16.3.1992 by issuing writ of mandamus.

¶34

(ii) in alternative the respondents be directed to allot the house of change category MIG (B) as per the rates prevailing earlier either in the year 1982 or in the year 1983, by issuing writ of mandamus.

(4 of 7)

[2024:RJ-JP:6463-DB]

[SAW-291/2011]

(iii) the respondents be further directed to adjust the accrual interest @ 24% per annum on Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of house from the due dates on which they came to be deposited by issuing writ of mandamus.

¶39

(iv) any other order which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

¶40

Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties vide impugned order has quashed the order dated 2.5.1995.Para No.12 of the impugned order reads as under:-

¶41

“12. For the reasons stated above, the

¶42

order dated 2.5.1995 is quashed and set aside. According to the Board, the said flat is still available. Therefore, the Board is directed to allot the said flat on the basis of the price as on 30.4.1993. The petitioner shall be sold the flat on the basis of hire-purchase basis. According to Mr. Vigyan Shah, the petitioner has already deposited Rs.50,000/- with the Board; the Board has not returned the said amount. Therefore, the Board is directed to adjust the amount of Rs.50,000/- with the interest earned thereon with the total price of the flat.”

¶43

It is evident that an allotment letter was issued to the respondent on 30.4.1993, which reads as under :-

¶44

“OFFICE OF THE ESTATE MANAGER/I/II

¶45

RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD, JAIPUR

¶46

Allotment Possession Letter

¶47

(Under Disposal Property Regulation-1970)

¶48

No.1888 Dated 30.4.1993

¶49

Shri Raja Ram Gaur Mode of payment Shri Ganesh Narayan, Hire Purchase (through)

¶50

through S.B.B.J. Secretariat Branch Jaipur The Housing Financial

Institution

Sir/Madam,

(5 of 7)

[2024:RJ-JP:6463-DB]

[SAW-291/2011]

We are pleased to inform you that have been allotted a house/flat as per the following particulars under the HIRE-PURCHASE payment option name of Scheme Pratap Nagar City Sanganer GRS No.28632 Category High Year of allotment 31.3.1993 House/Flat No.52/19 F.F.

¶57

Please note that the Hire-Purchase payment option will be operated though Housing Financial Institutions i.e. HDFC, LIC Housing Finance Ltd., Canfin Homes Ltd., any other financial institutions authorised by the National Housing Bank or any office source.

¶58

DETAILS OF COST OF HOUSE/FLAT OTHER EXPENSES

¶59

(a)	Cost of house/flat	Rs…………………..
1.	Cost of land (Area 84 Sqm) @Rs.425/-per Sqmts	Rs.35,700.00
2.	Cost of extra land	Rs…………………
3.	Cost of construction	Rs.4,34,200.00
4.	Extra charge for DC/SDC	Rs……………….
	Total	Rs.4,69,900.00
(B)	Other charges:
1.	AncillaryService Charges	Rs.19,332.00
2.	Lease money (years)	Rs.892.50
3.	Interest on outstanding seed money	Rs.4,200
	Total	Rs.24,424.50
(C)	Total(A+B)	Rs.4,94,324.50
(d)	Less:
1.	Registration amount	Rs.10,000.00
2.	Interest on Registration amount	Rs.8,617.00
3.	Seed moneyinstallment	Rs.20,000.00
4.	Interest on Seed money/installment	Rs.1,100.00
	Total	Rs.39,717.00
(e)	Total amount to bepaid(C-D)	Rs.4,54,607.50

Sd/-

ESTATE MANAGER

R.H.B………………..

[2024:RJ-JP:6463-DB]

[SAW-291/2011]

(6 of 7)

Note:

Please submit all the documents along with a DD/cheque for Rs.4,54,608/- in favour of the RHB……………...within three months of this letter to this office.

¶68

The allotted house shall stand canceled without any notice if the requisite amount is not deposited within time.

¶69

This house/flat can be mortgaged to the State Government/any State Government under taking/HDFC/canfin homes Ltd./LIC/Housing Financing Ltd./any other financial institution authorized by the National Housing Bank without obtaining permission of Rajasthan Housing Board to do so. However, an intimation regarding creation of the mortgage for the allocate house/flat must be sent to the signatory of this allotment letter. Copy to:

¶70

Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board Div.4

¶71

Recovery Cell, Rajasthan Housing Board.------”

¶72

From the perusal of the allotment letter, it is revealed that it was clearly mentioned in the allotment letter that the HirePurchase payment option will be operated through HDFC, LIC Housing Finance Limited, Canfin Homes Ltd. and any other financial institutions authorized by the National Housing Bank or any other office sources. It was also mentioned in the allotment letter that house can be mortgaged with the State Government/any State Government Undertaking/HDFC/Canfin Homes/LIC/Housing Financing Ltd./any other financial institutions authorized by the National Housing Bank, without obtaining permission of the Rajasthan Housing Board to do so. The allotment letter also clearly specified that the allotted house shall stand cancelled without any notice if the requisite amount is not

(7 of 7)

[2024:RJ-JP:6463-DB]

[SAW-291/2011]

deposited within time and the time provided in the said allotment letter was three months from the date of allotment letter.

¶77

It is an admitted fact that no amount was deposited in pursuance to the allotment letter by the respondent. It is also evident from bare perusal of the writ petition that neither the conditions of allotment letter nor cancellation order dated 2.5.1995 have been challenged. The Housing Board has cancelled the allotment after waiting for 2 years and after issuing notice and paper publication. It is evident that the learned Single Judge in the impugned order has granted relief which was not prayed for in the writ petition. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 10.7.2009 deserves to be and is accordingly, quashed and set aside.

¶78

Since, the respondent who is a Bank employee, instead of complying with the allotment letter has approached this court without challenging the conditions of the allotment letter or the cancellation order, we deem it appropriate to award cost to the Housing Board. The amount deposited by the respondent in the Housing Board shall stand forfeited.

¶79

The appeal is accordingly allowed.

¶80

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶81

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶82

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶83

Brijesh 6.

R H B Andanr v. Raj Ram Gaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R H B Andanr v. Raj Ram Gaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaushalya Devi Wife of Shri Nemi Chand Vs the State of Rajasthan

The State of Rajasthan Vs Ram Singh Jatav S/O Sh. Handali Ram Jatav

Rishikesh Maharishi S/O Dr. Rajendra Prasad Maharishi Vs Roop Singh Bhati S/O Shri Budhsingh Bhati

Mahendra Singh S/O Girraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Sharma S/O Kailash Chand Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt. Nisha Sharma W/O Shri Anshul Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan