Skip to content


Jyoti Prakash Vs. the Rajasthan Housing Board - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 67 of 1979
Judge
Reported in1979WLN(UC)100
AppellantJyoti Prakash
RespondentThe Rajasthan Housing Board
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....the present case.;(c) rajasthan housing board schemes-- allotment-board confining allotment of m-1 type houses to middle income group only-- held, it does not act arbitrarily;m-1 type of house is a house which really falls under the middle income group category consisting of persons falling in the income group of rs. 7200/- to 18000/-. the board in confining the allotment of m-1 type of houses to middle income group only, cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily or unreasonably;writ dismissed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the..........in the lower income group under the registration scheme, of their right to be allotted m-1 type houses, the board has acted arbitrarily and unreasonably.5. i find myself unable to accept the first contention urged by the teamed counsel for the petitioner. the said contention proceeds on the footing that under the registration scheme every person who had got himself registered in the lower income group has acquired a tight to the allotment of m-1 type of house. the contents of the registration scheme, do not lend support to aforesaid contention. a perusal of paragraph 6 of the registration scheme shows that there is a distinction between a registration scheme which provides for registration of applicants and an allotment scheme which provides for allotment of houses to applicants......
Judgment:

S.C. Agrawal, J.

1. The Rajasthan Housing; Board Act, 1970 was enacted by the Rajasthan State Legislature to provide for measure to be taken to deal with and satisfy the need of housing accommodation in the State of Rajasthan The Rajasthan Homing Board, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') respondent herein, is a Board established under Section 4 of the said Act, In exercise of powers conferred on it, under the aforesaid Act, the Board constructs houses of various types which are allotted to applicants who are divided into various categories on the basis of their annual income. In 1977 the Board issued a scheme (hereinafter referred to as the 'Registration Scheme') whereby it invited applications for registration for allotment of houses. Under the Registration Scheme, the applicants were divided on the basis of income In the following categories and different registration fees were prescribed for registration of applications falling in the various categories:

Income Group Annual Income Registration FeeJanta Upto Rs. 2400/- 100/-Economically WeakerSection 2401/- to 4200/- 500/-Lower Income Group 4201/- to 7200/- 2500/-Middle Income Group 7201/- to 18000/- 5000/-High Income Group Above Rs. 18000/- 10000/-

2. In paragraph 6 of the Registration Scheme, the size and accommodation provided in the various types of houses, that were being constructed at that time were given and the types of houses which were available for allotment to the applicants belonging? to the different categories were mentioned against each category. The types of houses which were mentioned against the Economically Weaker Section, Lower Income Group, Middle Income Group were as under:

Income group Types of housesEconomically Weaker Section Gh-1 (13'x38')J-2 (18'x38') J-3 (20'x38') A-1 (20'x50')Lower Income Group J-2 (18'x38s)J-3(20'x38')A-1 (20'x50')A-2 (25'x50')M-1 (30'x60')Middle Income Group A-2 (25'x50')M-1 (30'x60') M-2 (40'x60') U-1 (40'x90')

3. In paragraph 6 of the Registration Scheme, it was also stated that the particulars with regard to the sizes & places etc. were in respect of the houses which had been constructed at that time & that the same could change for houses available for allotment to the applicants who had got themselves registered under the Registration Scheme and that full particulars about the same would for given in the booklet which will be issued at the time when applications for allotment are invited. In paragraph 7 of the Registration Scheme, it was also laid down that the conditions laid down in the Scheme would ordinarily foe followed but if it became necessary, the Board would be entitled to alter the conditions and after the said alteration, the earlier conditions would cease to be applicable. The Registration Scheme was operative from 15th July, 1977 to 15th October, 1977. Shri Jyoti Prakash, the petitioner herein, got himself registered as an applicant falling in the economically weaker section, being in the income group of Rs. 240l/- to 4200/-, and he deposited a sum of Rs. 500/vide challan No. 2001 dated 7th October, 1977 by way of registration fee It appears that subsequent to his having got himself registered as an applicant, there was increase in the income of the petitioner, as a result of which he became eligible for being registered in the Lower Income Group category (Rs. 4201/-to 7200/-).the petitioner got himself enrolled in the Lower Income Group and on 17th October 1978, he deposited an additional sum of Rs. 2000/ towards the registration fee prescribed for that category. By certificate dated 17th November, 1978, the name of the petitioner was registered in the Lower Income Group. In December, 1978, the Board issued a Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the 'Allotment Scheme') whereby applications for allotment of houses were invited in the prescribed form amongst the applicants, who had got themselves registered under the various registration schemes issued by the Board from 1971 onwards including the Registration Scheme of 1977. In the Allotment Scheme it is provided that persons who had got themselves registered in the Lower Income Group category under the registration schemes of 1973, 1974, 1976 and 1977 would be mantled to apply for allotment of J 3, A-1 and A 2 types of houses and M-I type of house would be available for allotment only for the applicants who had got themselves registered in the middle income group category (i.e. Rs. 7201/to 18 000/-). The petitioner submitted an application, in the prescribed form, for allotment of a M-1 type house in the Chopasani Housing Scheme at Jodhpur but his application was rejected and he was declared as ineligible for the allotment of said type of houses. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Allotment Scheme and the order of the Board declaring him ineligible for allotment of M-1 type of house, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution wherein he has prayed for the issue of an appropriate writ declaring that the petitioner is entitled to the allotment of a house from amongst the type of houses mentioned in the Registration Scheme of 1977 as against the applicants falling in the Lower Income Group. In other words, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to apply for allotment of M-l type house to which he was entitled under the Registration Scheme but which is not longer available to him under the Allotment Scheme.

4. In support of this writ petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:

(1) By getting himself registered under the Registration Scheme, the petitioner had acquired the right to be allotted M-I type of house and that right of the petitioner could not be taken away by the subsequent scheme framed by the Board in as much as under the Act, the Board has no power to frame regulations or scheme with retrospective effect.

(ii) The Board, by inviting applications for registration on the basis of the Registration Scheme, had made a representation to the petitioner that he would be entitled to allotment of M 1 type of house and acting on the basis of that representation, the petitioner had altered his position to detriment by depositing the registration fees, and that in view of the principle of promissory estoppel the board cannot deny the right of the petitioner to be allotted M-l type of house in accordance with the Registration Scheme.

(iii) In the exercise of the powers conferred on it under the Act, the Board must act reasonably and that in depriving the petitioner and other applicants, who had got themselves registered in the lower income group under the Registration Scheme, of their right to be allotted M-1 type houses, the Board has acted arbitrarily and unreasonably.

5. I find myself unable to accept the first contention urged by the teamed counsel for the petitioner. The said contention proceeds on the footing that under the Registration Scheme every person who had got himself registered in the Lower Income Group has acquired a tight to the allotment of M-1 type of house. The contents of the Registration Scheme, do not lend support to aforesaid contention. A perusal of paragraph 6 of the Registration Scheme shows that there is a distinction between a Registration Scheme which provides for registration of applicants and an Allotment Scheme which provides for allotment of houses to applicants. The sizes and the particulars of the type of houses which could be allotted to the applicants registered under the various categories mentioned in paragraph 6 of the Registration Scheme were only the sizes and types of house which had been constructed and were available for allotment on the date of issue of Scheme. But in view of the clear statement in the last part of paragraph 6 of the Registration Scheme that the sizes of the houses available for allotment could change and that particulars of the houses available for allotment would be contained .in the booklet which would be issued along with the form for applications for allotment, it must be held that no right to allotment of the types of houses mentioned against each category was being conferred by the Registration Scheme. The aforesaid statement contained an paragraph 6 of the Registration Scheme shows that the Board had reserved into itself the power to change the type of houses that would be offered for allotment to the various categories of applications. The said power was excised by the Board when it issued the Allotment Scheme in 1978. In my view the Allotment Scheme is not open to challenge on the ground that it seeks to deprive the petitioner and other applicants who had got themselves registered under tie Registration Scheme of their vested rights.

6. Similarly these in no merit in the second contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner based on the principal of promissory estoppel. in view of the interpretation placed by me on the contents of the Registration Scheme it cannot be held that the Registration Scheme contained a representation. to the effect that the applicant who would get themselves registered in the lower income group would be entitled to allotment of M-1 type of home. If no such representation is contained in the Registration Scheme, there is no scope for the applicability of the principle of promissory estoppel to the present case.

7. In support of his third contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Board, in laying down in the Allotment Scheme that the applicants who were registered in the lower income group would be entitled to allotment of J-3, A-l and A-2 types of houses, only and would not be entitled to allotment of M-l types of houses had acted arbitrarily, and that there is no basis what so ever for the Board to have deprived the applicants in the lower intone group of their right to be allotted M-l type of houses,

8. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court in the writ petition, a reply has been filed on behalf of the Board and a copy of the note on item No. 72-5 of the Agenda which was submitted before the Board and the resolution which was adopted at the 72nd meeting of the Board on 23,9 78 have also been filed. In the note on Item No. 72.5 of the Agenda for the 72nd meeting of the Board it is slated that the practice which was being adopted by the Board in the past was to allow an applicant to select a house size either within his own category or nearest size in category one up or one down & that it was found that there was a geater trend of opting for higher category than one' own category, with the result that the allottee later on finds it quite hard to bear the burden of heavy repayment of instalments, if the allottee really belongs to the lower income group and that the applicants, who had cancelled their real income, used to get advantage at the cost of others In the said notice it is also pointed out that the change of category of houses upsets the entire planning of the Housing Scheme and that lower sizes of houses remain unsold for long time. In order to avoid these difficulties, the Board decided not to permit an applicant to go for a house not belonging to the income category of the applicant.

9. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the Registration Scheme, M-1 type of houses was a house belonging to the income category of the applicant and therefore in view of the said resolution of the Board, he is entitled to be allotted M- 1 type of house. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Board, on the other hand, is that M-1. type of house belongs to the middle income group category. I am in agreement with the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the Board. A perusal of the various types of houses mentioned against the applicants falling in the various categories in the Registration Scheme shows that many types of houses were common between two categories. Taking the case of M.1 type of house, we find that it was shown at the end of the types of .houses, available to the lower income group and was also shown at No. 2 in the types of houses available for the middle income group, Schedule 'Ga' to the Allotment Scheme shows that in respect of a M 1 type of house in Jodhpur, the applicant who has deposited Rs. 4000/- as the registration fee has to pay an instalment of Rs. 364.24/-pcr month whereas an applicant who had deposited Rs. 5000/-as registration fee has to pay an instalment of Rs. 352.88/-per month. An applicant falling in the lower income group Rs. 4201/-to Rs. 7200/-has a monthly income tanging from Rs. 350/-to Rs. 600/. It is difficult to conceive how an applicant with the aforesaid income can pay a monthly instalment of Rs. 364 24/-or 352.88/-. It must, therefore, be held that M-1 type of house is a house which really falls under the middle income group category consisting of persons failing in the income group of Rs. 7200/-to 18000/-. The Board in confining the allotment of M-l type of house to middle income group only, cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily or unreasonably.

10. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed summarily. The order passed on 12th January, 1979 is vacated add the Stay petition is also dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //