Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/685/2017

Rajasthan Housing Board through Housing Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Raghurajvihari Lal Mathur S/o. Shri Mukatvihari Lal Mathur - Opp.Party(s)

Ratnesh Yadav

11 Dec 2018

ORDER

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 of independent house. Change of priority number is also of no consequence as stated earlier. The Housing Board has allotted the independent house to the allottees way back in 2006 to the priority number stands below the respondent.

 

The respondent has relied upon III (2012) CPJ 18 (SC) Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Panchali Cooperative Housing Society wherein meaning of expression 'flat' is explained. There is no dispute about the meaning of word 'flat'.

 

Further reliance has been placed on III (2008) CPJ 48 (SC) Faqir chand Vs. Uppal Agencies, judgment passed by the apex court in Civil Appeal No. 5823/2002 Haryana Urban Development Authorioty Vs. Vijay Agarwal, III (2015) CPJ 629 (NC) Delhi Development Authority Vs. Sudershan Bhareja, II (2006) CPJ 343 (NC) Administrator, HUDA Vs. Banwarilal, I (2004) CPJ 107 (NC) Atul Vihar Kalian Samittee Vs. Dubey Constructions, I (2003)CPJ 234 (NC) Welfare and Service Organization Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, IV (2008) CPJ 176 (NC) Nagar Palika Mandal Vs.

6

 

Sita Devi, II (2008) CPJ 169 (NC) A.P.Housing Board Vs. Srihari Reddy, I (2015) CPJ 573 (NC) Harpreet Singh Vs. Nelu Estate & Movers, II (2017) CPJ 14 (NC) K.C.Bhatia Vs. HUDA, IV (2015) CPJ 136 (NC) Dewan Ashwani Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects, I (2014) CPJ 402 (NC) Classic Kudumbam Vs. S.P.Sundaram , IV (2007) CPJ 20 (NC) Shiksha Vihar Sehakari Avass Samiti Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority , II (2016) CPJ 623 (NC) Atul Maheshwari Vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, III (2016) CPJ 655 (NC) Saraswati Builders Vs. Jagroop & ors., and II (2009) CPJ 23 (Karnataka) Geetha Bhat Vs. Adarsh Developers where on the facts of the case dispute has been decided.

 

Further reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by this Commission in Complaint No. 25/2016 Gaurishankar Vs. Raj.Housing Board and First Appeal No. 892/2015 Raj. Housing Board Vs. Anil Singh where on the facts of the case deficiency was concluded.

 

Further reliance has been placed on IV (2006) CPJ 207 (NC) Sonkar Builders Vs. Kusum Bhairavnath Joshi where area was short which is not the case here.

7

 

Further reliance has been placed on II (2017) CPJ 197 (Raj.) Yatish Chand Goyal Vs. Bimal Chhajer Heart Centre and I (2015) CPJ 567 (NC) New Generation Real Estate Vs. Ramesh Chander Khurana where dispute was in regard to false representation in the advertisement which is not the case here.

 

Even reliance has been placed on I (2017) CPJ 304 (NC) Gurunanak Dev Para Medical Institute Vs. Salim Mohammad where dispute is in relation to admission in veterinary course and same is the facts of II (2011) CPJ 274 (NC) Indian Institute of Hotel Management Vs. Reshmi Dutta where dispute was in regarding to admission in a particular course.

 

Further reliance has been placed on IV (2016) CPJ 493 (NC) Developers Township Property Vs. Jaiprakash Associates where super built area was increased which is not the issue here.

 

Further reliance has been placed on II (2004) CPJ 624 Raj.Housing Board Vs. Bhagwat Vallabh Sharma where seniority number was changed which is not the issue here.

8

 

Further reliance has been placed on IV (2003) CPJ 486 DDA Vs.Maya Devi where complainant's name is not included in the lottery which is not the issue here.

 

Further reliance has been placed on I (2004) CPJ 12 (SC) Kanpur Development Authority Vs. Sheela Devi where issue was in relation to increase of cost which is not the dispute here.

 

Further reliance has been placed on IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC) Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta where land was allotted inspite of the knowledge that it is under litigation which are not the facts here.

 

Further reliance has been placed on III (2015) CPJ 440 (NC) Satish Kumar Vs. Unitech Ltd. where the issue was in relation to delay in construction of apartments which is not the case of the complainant.

 

The contention of the respondent is that in 2006 he should have been allotted independent house. Be that may be the case no appeal has been filed by the respondent. Hence,

9

 

this contention cannot be entertained and name of the respondent is included in the lottery dated 7.10.2011. The Forum below has rightly ordered that on prevailing rate of 7.10.2011 the independent house should be allotted to the respondent.

 

In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and stands dismissed.

 

(K.K.Bagri) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm