- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The dispute in all these connected civil appeals is confined to the cost of the land. The appellants in these appeals belonged to the second, third and fourth quarters of allotment of the houses constructed by the Rajasthan Housing Board under the scheme called 'Parijat Scheme' (for short 'scheme') floated in the year 1987. These appeals can be disposed of by this judgment since they arise out of a common judgment dated August 8, 1995 passed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. 2A. The facts which are relevant for disposal of these appeals may be briefly summarised as under:- The Rajasthan Housing Board with a view to make available houses to the eligible persons floated the scheme in the year 1988. The registration under the scheme was opened for the whole year 1988. It was a self-financing scheme. By draw of lots, the names of the applicants in the scheme were finalised and they were grouped into four quarters meaning thereby as and when the construction of the houses would be completed and would be ready for possession, the possession thereof will be released to the successful applicants in accordance with their placement in these four quarters. There is no dispute that the appellants have deposited the initial deposit money according to the terms and conditions of the scheme. It was made clear in the scheme that costing of the houses of each quarter will be made separately taking into account the cost of the land, construction cost etc. The total cost of the house was to be worked out on the basis of costing principles which were finalised by the Rajasthan Housing Board and the copy thereof was made available to the Court during the course of hearing. These costing principles were made applicable from 1st April, 1988 and no dispute was raised by any of the parties at any stage.
(3.) The appellants who were the writ petitioners in the High Court alleged that the houses for the applicants of the first and second quarters were ready by November, 1990 and the letters of allotment were accordingly issued to the applicants of both these quarters on or about January 29, 1991. The grievance of the appellants who were the applicants of the second quarter was that possession of the houses were given to the allottees of the first quarter in March, 1991, but, however, the possession of the houses in respect of the second quarter was given to the appellants about nine months later i.e. in December, 1991. The houses to be allotted to the applicants of the third and fourth quarters were also ready much before March, 1992 and accordingly the allotment letters were issued to them in November, 1991 but the Rajasthan Housing Board sometime in Fabruary, 1992 issued demand- cum-possession letters to them. It was the grievance of the appellants before the Courts below that the Rajasthan Housing Board had discriminated them while determining the cost of the land in respect of all these four quarters. For the first quarter, the cost of the land was determined at Rs. 38,178/- whereas the land cost charged from the allottees of the second, third and fourth quarters was increased to Rs. 72,765/-. They also made a grievance as regards the increase in the construction cost but, however, that issue does not survive in these appeals. The appellants made representations to the Rajasthan Housing Board complaining about the discriminatory treatment meted out to them while determining the cost of lands vis-a-vis the applicants of the first quarter. According to them, land costing should not differ as the chunk of the land was purchased in one lot and, therefore, there was no justification to increase the land cost in respect of the appellants who belonged to second, third and fourth quarters. They further made a grievance that for no fault of theirs, if the development of the land and construction of the houses thereof were delayed by the Rajasthan Housing Board, they should not be made to pay higher land cost. They, therefore, prayed that the land costs should be the same in respect of second, third and fourth quarters of 1988 as fixed for the allottees of the first quarter of 1988. This request of the appellants was turned down by the Rajasthan Housing Board by relying upon the costing principles which they had adopted. The appellants, therefore, filed three separate writ petitions challenging the action of the Rajasthan Housing Board.;