BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Harsimran Singh Saini s/o S. Kulwant Singh, r/o Village Dadu Majra, U.T. Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]     The Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh, through its Chairman.

[2]     The Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

[3]     The Secretary/Incharge, House Allotment Committee, Chandigarh Housing Board, 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

[4]     Accounts Officer-I, Chandigarh Housing Board, 8 Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:     Sh.P.D. GOEL                                             PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                         MEMBER

                        DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA              MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Proxy Counsel for Sh.Palvinder Singh Sarna, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. K.K. Gupta, Counsel for OPs.

PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT

1.                Succinctly put, the complainant, who belonged to OBC, applied for 3BR Category ‘A’ flat in the General Self Financing Housing Scheme, 2008, being floated by the OPs on 31.3.2008. Vide Application No.42440, sum of Rs.3,95,745/- was deposited. It is averred that the name of complainant was at No.3 in the waiting list after the draw of lots. That on subsequent revision of scheme by the OPs, when the number of flats in each category was increased, he became automatically eligible for allotment of flat. However, to his utter dismay, OPs did not allot any flat to him and rather, refunded back the earnest money vide letter dated 8.12.2009, without any rhymes and reasons. When nothing positive could come out, he got served a legal notice dated 28.1.2010 upon the OPs, which also failed to fructify. Hence this complaint.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs, seeking their version of the case.

3.                OPs in their joint reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that there were 320 flats in Category ’A’, out of which 14 flats were meant for discretionary quota, 16 flats  were meant for Oustees. The remaining 290 flats were to be allotted through draw of lots, out of which 5% flats were reserved for OBC, for which, the complainant was also one of the applicant. In the draw of lots, the complainant was at Sr.No.17 of the OBC category and accordingly, was placed at Sr.No.3 at waiting list. Subsequently, when the layout plan was finally approved by the Chief Architect, U.T. Chandigarh, the aforesaid 320 flats were increased to 336 flats, out of which, one flat goes to discretionary quota and another goes to oustees. In this way, the remaining 304 flats remained in the present scheme, out of which 5% quota is for OBC, which comes to 15 flats. Accordingly, one additional flat which comes to the quota of OBC was allotted to the applicant, who was at waiting list no.1, namely Sh. Hari Mohan. As such, on the expiry of the waiting list after 12 months, the applicant was refunded back the earnest money as per the Housing Scheme vide letter dated 8.12.2009. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                We have heard the proxy Counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel for the OPs and have also perused the record.

6.                 The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant belongs to OBC Category. He applied for allotment of the flat under Category A vide application No. 42440 and deposited Rs.3,95,745/- in General Self Financing Housing Scheme, 2008, Sector 63, Chandigarh, floated by the OPs. The total number of flats to be allotted under the Category A was 304. Out of the said flats, 5% flats were reserved for OBC. The complainant was placed at No.3 in the waiting list after the draw of lots – Annexure C-3. However, the OPs revised the said scheme and increased the number of flats in each category. Thus, the number of flats of Category A were raised from 304 to 336. The increased number of flats were to be allotted to the candidates in the waiting list – copy of the letter of revised scheme is Annexure C-4.

7.                It was further argued that 5% of flats were reserved under OBC Category, so after revision of the flats in Category A, the 5% quota came to 17. 14 persons out of OBC Category had already been allotted the flats prior to the revision of flats and at that time, the complainant was at No.3 in the waiting list. Thus, he became automatically eligible for allotment. It was further argued that instead of issuing the allotment letter to the complainant, the OPs refunded back his earnest money vide cheque dated 8.12.2009 along with letter dated 812.2009 without assigning any reason as to why the flat has not been allotted to him (copy of the letter and cheque is Annexures C-5 and C-6 respectively). The complainant approached the OPs with the request to allot a flat to him in Category A but all in vain. Thus, he got served a legal notice dated 28.1.2010 through Regd. Post to the OPs. The reply dated 12.4.2010 to the legal notice was received, qua which, wrong and vague information was supplied. It was further argued that in the reply to the notice, referred to above, some allotments to the oustees and some reservations to the discretionary quota of the Administrator, Chandigarh were made, although no such reservation is shown in the form of allotment.

8.                It was further argued that one Sh.Dharam Singh s/o Sh.Bhag Singh, who was shown in the waiting list of OBC in Category A at No.2 had already withdrawn the money. Thus, the number of the complainant automatically moved to No.16. The reference was also made to the copy of the waiting list dated 11.11.2008 –Annexure C-14.

9.                It was further argued that the OPs have referred to 3 types of reservation i.e. Discretionary Quota, Oustees and OBC (5% each). That in the application form and the brochure, there is no reservation or quota of the oustees or of the Administrator. As such, no reservation can be made under the said quota.             

10.              The learned Counsel for the OPs contended that the Chandigarh Housing Board floated the housing scheme namely ‘Housing Flat Scheme – 2008’ for allotment of flats on leasehold basis in Sector 63, Chandigarh for A,B,C and D categories. The petitioner applied for allotment of Category-A flat under the OBC quota, for which 5% flats were reserved. In the brochure of the scheme, there were 304 flats for Category A, out of which, 5% flats were taken out for outstees of Chandigarh under the National Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Policy, 2007 and 5% were taken out for discretionary quota as provided under Regulation 26 of the Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulation, 1979 and also provided under Clause 6 at page 2 of the brochure of the Housing Flat Scheme, 2008. Thus, 290 flats of Category A were put for draw of lots. The OBC quota under the scheme was provided as 5%  under Clause 1, under the heading of Reservation at page 4 of the brochure of the Housing Scheme-2008, which comes to 14 flats.

11.              It was further argued that in the draw of lots, the complainant was at Sr.No.17 and at No.3 of the waiting list. It was submitted that under Clause 16(i) at page 10 of the brochure of the Housing Flat Scheme-2008, it has been provided that the Chandigarh Housing Board reserves the right to increase or decrease the number of units depending upon the actual feasibility at site. That during the course of actual planning at the time of construction, the total dwelling units were increased of Category A from 320 to 336. After deducting the 5% dwelling units for discretionary quota and 5% of outstees, the remaining 304 units were allotted as per the Housing Flat Scheme-2008. The 5% OBC quota was also accordingly increased from 14 flats to 15 flats in Category A. That the 15^th flat was offered and allotted to the first person in the waiting list i.e. Sh.Hari Mohan. It was lastly argued that since the complainant was at Sr.No.3 of the waiting list and at Sr.No.17 in the OBC list, therefore, his earnest money was returned back after the expiry of the waiting period of 12 months.

12.              The admitted facts may be noticed thus ;

1.                           That the Chandigarh Housing Board floated the housing scheme namely ‘Housing Flat Scheme-2008’ for allotment of flats on lease hold basis in Sector 63, Chandigarh for 4 categories i.e. A,B,C and D.

2.                           The complainant applied for allotment of Category-A flat under OBC Category.

3.                           In the brochure, there were 304 flats for Category-A. That in the draw of lots, the complainant was at Sr.No.3 in the waiting list.

4.                           That total dwelling units of Category A were increased from 320 to 336.

13.              Now, the point for consideration is whether the OPs have rightly reserved 5% flats for the oustees and also for discretionary quota. The answer to this is in the affirmative.

14.              Clause 16(i) of the Housing Flat Scheme-2008,  clearly states that the Chandigarh Housing Board reserves the right to increase or decrease the number of units depending upon the actual feasibility at site during the course of construction. The Chandigarh Housing Board was also under legal obligation to reserve 5% units for the oustees under the Oustees Policy of 1996 of the Chandigarh Administration and also under the National Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Policy, 2007 and 5% flats are given to the Commissioner appointed under the scheme, who allot the said flats at his own level to the oustees, whose land are acquired by the Chandigarh Administration. Thus, it is held that the complainant has no right to challenge the taking out of 5% flats for the oustees. Similarly, 5% discretionary quota have been provided under Regulation 26 of the Chandigarh Housing Board  (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulation, 1979 for allotment of the same to the categories of persons as provided in the present scheme of 2008.

15.              Now, it is established on record that the remaining 304 flats in Category-A were rightly allotted under the Housing Flat Scheme – 2008. The OBC quota comes to 15, so it is held that the earnest money of the complainant was rightly returned back after the expiry of period of 12 months of the waiting list, as provided under the scheme.

16.              As a result of the above discussion, it is held that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service, on the part of OPs. With the result, the complaint is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

17.              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.