JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)

The complainant / respondent got himself registered for allotment of a house under a scheme, namely, ‘Kalptaru’ notified by the petitioner Board by submitting an application dated 18.2.1989. Vide letter dated 21.6.1993, the complainant was assigned a seniority number in the aforesaid scheme. The case of the petitioner Board is that vide letter dated 5.11.1993, they required the complainant to deposit the advance money/seed money of Rs.95,000/- in three installments. It was stipulated in the aforesaid letter that if the aforesaid amount was not paid within the time stipulated in the letter simple interest @ 20% p.a. would be payable. It was further stipulated that the registration would be treated as cancelled if the aforesaid payment was not made. The case of the complainant is that the aforesaid letter was never received by him from the petitioner Board.

2.      Vide letter dated 10.1.2000, the petitioner Board informed the complainant that on account of sufficient land not being available, it was not possible to allot an independent house to him in Mansarovar scheme in which he  was registered and if he so wanted, he could be allotted a flat in Mansarovar scheme or an independent house/flat in Sanganer scheme. The complainant who is present in court claims that the aforesaid letter dated 10.1.2000 was not received by him from the petitioner Board. Be that as it may, the petitioner Board sent a registered letter dated 29.8.2007 to the complainant, referring to its earlier letter dated 10.1.2000 and requiring the complainant to give his consent if he was interested in allotment of a residence in its Pratap Nagar scheme. It was further stated in the aforesaid letter that if such consent was not given, the registration would be cancelled and the registration money would be refunded to the complainant. The aforesaid offer made vide letter dated 29.8.2007 was accepted by the complainant who requested that an independent house may be allotted to him as he had initially applied for the allotment of an independent house and was in a legal profession, in need of an independent house. It appears that simultaneously the complainant also submitted an application to the Dy. Housing Commissioner for allotment of independent house in Mansarover scheme. Vide letter dated 9.6.2008, the petitioner informed the complainant that such an allotment was not possible but if he wanted a flat in Mansarovar scheme he could apply in the self-financing scheme to be notified in near future.

3.      Vide letter dated 10.7.2008, the complainant, referring to the letter of the petitioner Board dated 9.6.2008 sought timely information with respect to the notification of the self-financing scheme referred in the letter of the Board, in order to enable him to do the needful well in time.

4.      Vide letter dated 15.2.2010, the allotment made to the complainant was cancelled on the ground that he had failed to pay the said seed money/advance money in terms of the letter dated 5.11.1993. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid cancellation, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.

5.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Board, which sought to justify the cancellation of the allotment on account of failure of the complainant to deposit the seed money/advance money. The District Forum having allowed the complaint, the petitioner Board approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 3.2.2017, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by  the petitioner  Board. Being still dissatisfied, the petitioner Board is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

6.      Admittedly, after the order of the District Forum but during pendency of the appeal before the State Commission, the name of the complainant was included in a draw of lots held on 20.12.2016 and a house in Mansarovar scheme was allotted to him, though the allotment was made at the rates prevailing in December 2016 when the draw was held. The case of the complainant is that he having got himself registered in the year 1993 and no demand of the seed money/advance money having been conveyed to him, the allotment should have been made at the rates prevailing in the year 1993 when the registration was made by him in Kalptaru scheme.

7.      Though there is no evidence of the letter dated 5.11.1993 having been delivered to the complainant even if I proceed on the assumption that the aforesaid letter was duly received by the complainant, the fact remains that even after expiry of the time stipulated in the letter dated 5.11.1993, the petitioner Board did not treat the registration of the complainant as cancelled, as is evident from the offers made to him from time to time, firstly vide letter dated 10.1.2000, then vide letter dated 29.8.2007 and lastly vide letter dated 9.6.2008. By not cancelling the registration or treating the same as cancelled, the petitioner Board clearly represented to the complainant that his registration was live and therefore, he could obtain any allotment in terms of the offer made in the said letters. Unfortunately, no letter to the complainant was sent at any point of time after sending the letters dated 10.1.2000, 29.8.2007 and 9.6.2008 requiring him to deposit the seed money/advance money in order to keep his registration alive.  Therefore, the petitioner Board, in my opinion, was not justified in cancelling the registration of the complainant.

8.      After the order of the District Forum and during pendency of the appeal before the State Commission, the name of the complainant was included in the draw of lots held on 20.12.2016, and an independent house in Mansarovar scheme was allotted to him at the rates prevailing at the time of draw. The main grievance of the complainant is that the allotment ought to have been made at the rates prevailing in the year 1993. I, however, find no justification for allowing the complainant to have allotment at the rates prevailing in the year 1993.  The scheme in which the complainant was registered envisaged inclusion of the name of the registrants in a draw of lots after the seed money/advance money had been paid by him. Therefore, even if the letter dated 5.11.1993 had been received by the complainant and had he deposited the required seed money/advance money, his name had been included in the draw of lots held from time to time. There is no guarantee that he would have been successful in one of the draws and allotment would have been made to him. He would have got an opportunity to participate in the draw but there is no assurance of a confirmed allotment being made to him in the said draw of lots.

9.      Had the registration of the complainant not been cancelled, even then his name would have been included in the draw of lots held after the said cancellation subject of course to payment of seed money/advance money by him but again he might or might have got an allotment in the draw held from time to time after the aforesaid cancellation. Therefore, he must pay the price prevailing on the date of allotment.

10.    For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i)      The complainant shall pay the lump sum amount of Rs.4921500/-, demanded by the petitioner Board vide letter dated 27.2.2017 within eight weeks from today. The balance amount shall be paid in instalments, in terms of the allotment letter dated 27.2.2017.

(ii)      If the payment as per (i) above is not made within eight weeks,  the petitioner Board shall be entitled to cancel the said allotment.

(iii)     No interest on the aforesaid amount would be payable by the complainant provided the payment made within 8 weeks from today.

(iv)    No order as to costs.