PER MR. JUSTICE V.R. KINGAONKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the State Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur, in appeal No. 402/2007. By that judgment, the appeal preferred by the respondents came to be allowed and the order of the District Forum, dated 23.12.2006 came to be quashed. 2. The dispute lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner registered his name as a prospective purchaser for a house in Scheme 79 in MIG-II and was issued Registration Certificate, dated 01.09.1980 after he initially deposited Rs. 4,600/-. It appears that he initially did not register himself specifically for allotment of an independent house in HIG Scheme but lateron, he deposited another amount of Rs.5,400/- and sought inclusion of his name in the HIG. A Registration Certificate, dated 09.06.1983 was thereafter issued in his name. He submitted written application, dated 25.09.1997 for his registration in respect of HIG to get claim over an independent house. He did not deposit the seed money of Rs. 95,000/- that was demanded by the respondents vide letter dated 30.10.1993. Therefore, he was not included in the list of the persons who were eligible for the purpose of preparing the list of drawees, and was not allotted any house due to his failure to deposit the seed money. It appears that, subsequently, he was called upon to deposit such amount in order to consider his request. By his letter dated 21.11.1997, he communicated his desire to deposit the seed money of Rs. 95,000/- if he was being allotted an independent house. He did not deposit any amount and subsequently was informed cancellation of the registration. Consequently, he filed the complaint. The complaint was allowed by the District Forum. The Appellate forum reversed the findings of the District Forum and held that the petitioner has lost his claim due to his own default. The State Commission further held that there was no deficiency in service. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments of the fora below. We have also considered the relevant material which is useful for the purpose of deciding the present revision petition. 4. There is no dispute about the fact that initially the petitioner had not registered himself for allotment of a separate house in Scheme 79 in MIG – II. His name was not included in the list of persons eligible for purpose of draw to be held at subsequent stage because he had not deposited the seed money. He wanted the registration and allotment by paying the seed money only on condition of allotment of a separate house. The case of the respondents was that the independent houses were allotted to eligible drawees through lottery, in accordance with the availability of the houses, and on priority basis. It is obvious that those who had registered earlier and had complied with the payment schedule were only eligible for the purpose of their consideration in the draw to be held. We are of the opinion that mere registration by itself does not give any right to the petitioner to claim allotment of an independent house, nor it gives him the status as “consumer” vis-à-vis, the respondents. He is not a purchaser of any property but is a prospective purchaser only on fulfillment of certain conditions of eligibility. Under these circumstances, we do not find any flaw in the judgment of the State Commission. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that now the respondents have decided again to consider allotment of independent houses/flats to members of HIG due to availability of such houses/flats. He refers to one such news item. We deem it proper to direct the respondents to consider representation of the petitioner if such allotment is being reconsidered on the basis of old registration if the petitioner is found eligible for such allotment. With these observations, the petition is dismissed, with no order as to cost. |
