Rajasthan Housing Board Through Its ... vs Shivraj Singh Bhandari

On 27th September, 1973, the respondent herein got himself registered with the Board for allotment of a house in the Middle Income Group Category (for short 'the MIG') in the city of Jaipur . In 1979, the respondent requested the Board to alter his category from the Middle Income Group Category to the Higher Income Group Category (for short 'the HIG') and such change was duly allowed by the board. The respondent was informed accordingly by letter dated 25th May, 1979. The respondent was also requested to submit his option for the type of plot which he was interested in and pursuant thereto, the respondent submitted his option for a house measuring 40' x 90'. The claim of the respondent was considered in the lottery held on 18th June, 1979 but he was not amongst the successful candidates. His case was again considered in the lottery held in the year 1980-81 but again he proved to be unsuccessful.

On 17th March, 1982, the Board published a notice in the Rajasthan Patrika for auction of residential plots and shops. The same was challenged by the respondent by way of a Writ Petition, being No.401/1982. The respondent also questioned the policy of reservation made in favour of the employees of the Board, Members of Parliament and State Legislative Assembly by way of another Writ Petition, being No.606/1986. Both the writ petitions were duly contested by the Board and its policy of reservation of a certain percentage of the houses for its employees, apart from the houses available for allotment by lottery, was scrutinized. It was disclosed that under the HIG category, total number of registered applicants were 300 in the year 1973 and 1911 in the year 1979. Of the houses/flats constructed in the said category, 484 houses/flats were available and the same were allotted by holding lottery. It was also disclosed that in 1980- 81, three flats of 30' x 60' size were also made available to the registered applicants of the HIG category. However, there were no applicants in the said category for these flats and, they were therefore, allotted to the MIG category. During the course of the hearing, certain instances were pointed out by which certain other persons registered in other categories were allowed to change over to the HIG category without any change in the year of registration, whereas in the case of the respondent, it was alleged that his registration was altered from 1973, when he had originally registered himself in the MIG category, to 1979, when he was allowed to change over to the HIG category.

From the facts as disclosed, it will be apparent that the High Court was convinced that the respondent had been treated unfairly, inasmuch as, persons who were allegedly ineligible were also included in the draw and were ultimately provided with houses to the exclusion of the respondent who was a legitimate claimant. On the basis of its conclusions, the High Court directed the Board to provide the respondent with a plot of the required specifications within the said Scheme giving rise to these appeals.

As will be seen from the chart of the Board, there is still one house, namely, House No.4-RH-3 of the HIG, which is shown to be vacant. Apart from the above, some other HIG houses appear to have been let out on rental basis, one of which could be made available to the respondent so as not to defeat his claim. Having accepted the application of the respondent, the Board is under an obligation to provide him with a suitable accommodation in keeping with his registration and we see no reason to differ with the directions given by the High Court while disposing of the Special Appeals.

The appeals are accordingly dismissed with a direction upon the appellant-Board to provide the respondent with a completed house of the required specifications within the Jawahar Nagar Scheme and for the said purpose to have one of the houses vacated, if it becomes necessary to do so. Such exercise should be completed expeditiously, but preferably within six months from date. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.