- (1.) ALL these petitions have been filed with the similar prayer that the demand notice under the hand of the Resident Engineer Rajasthan Housing Board (herein after `the Board') requiring the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.1,48,954.60 for allotment of a house admeasuring 31.42 sq. meters be set aside and that the Board be directed to allot houses to the petitioners at the indicative rate of Rs.85,000/- as detailed in the brochure circulated by the Board in the year 2005 for allotment of houses built over plot admeasuring 31.42 sq. meters in its Special Residential Scheme Gharonda 2005.
(2.) THE facts in the case of Teena Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2471/2011) are being taken as a leading case for determination of the issues raised by petitioners in their respective writ petitions. The case of the petitioner Teena Jain is that in the year 2005 the Board introduced a residential scheme popularly known as Special Residential Scheme Gharonda 2005 for the purpose of allotment of houses to economically weaker section (EWS) of the society. The said scheme was formulated for backward areas of Rajasthan more particularly in Mangrol, Baran, Aklera, Atru, Ramganj Mandi in Jhalawar and Kota Districts. It is stated that enthused by the Special Residential Scheme Gharonda 2005, the petitioner got herself registered as an applicant for allotment of house and deposited requisite registration fee with the Board in the year 2005. It is submitted that the petitioner was found eligible for registration for the allotment of house under the category of EWS and that in the lottery held for the registered applicants in 2009 she was declared successful and thus became entitled for allotment of a house in Aklera District Jhalawar, whereupon Gharonda No.3/20 was allotted her on 10-6-2009. An allotment cum possession letter dated 15-9-2010 in her favour followed. The case of the petitioner is that as against the indicative price of Rs.85,000/- for the house advertised under the Special Residential Scheme Gharonda 2005 as circulated by the Board in the year 2005, the allotment cum possession letter dated 15-9-2010 demanded payment of the enhanced cost of Rs.148954.60 along with other charges applicable aggregating Rs.161416.33. It is contended that the increase in the price of the house allotted under Special Residential Scheme Gharonda 2005 to petitioner belonging to weaker section of the society is wholly arbitrary, unconscionable and is thus liable to be quashed and set aside. A further allegation has been levelled that the house allotted to petitioner was not constructed as per prescribed norms and was substandard. It is submitted that in this regard a complaint was also made to the Consumer Forum Jhalawar. (It is however not been stated in the petition as to what the details of complaint were, or what steps were taken or what was the outcome of the said complaint). The petitioner has also invoked Article 21 of the Constitution of India to contend that the right to shelter is an ingredient of right to life and that the arbitrary enhancement of price of the house allotted to petitioner in fact would tantamount to denial of petitioner's right to shelter as, belonging to the EWS category, the petitioner would not be in a position to pay up the enhanced price of the house as demanded by the Board. The State Government and the Board have filed separate replies to writ petition. In the reply to writ petition the common defence is that the Special Residential Scheme Gharonda 2005 merely invited applications for registration for allotment of a house amongst the applicants who fulfilled the eligibility criteria. It has been submitted that however no right to an applicant accrued merely on registration entailing a payment of a meager amount Rs.10,000/- as registration fee, whereupon an applicant merely became entitle to participate in the lottery for allotment of house. It is submitted that the lottery for the allotment of the house was to be held on the construction and readiness of the houses and payment of installment towards the cost of the house allotted was to be made only on issue of allotment cum possession letter. It has been further submitted that it is universally known that escalation of prices owing to increase of cost of raw material and labour is routine and it is inconceivable that, even while the Board acts for no profit no loss, it is programmed for making a loss as would necessarily follow from the Board registering applicants in a year and freezing the cost of construction as calculated on the date of registration for allotment of the house without regard to the economics of the actual cost of construction. It is also submitted that Board is dealing with public monies and public monies cannot be expanded for private gain of allottees more so on a perverse and unfair reading of the conditions of the Special Residential Scheme Gharonda 2005. It is submitted that action of the Board in demanding Rs.1,43,800 in the year 2009 as against the indicative cost Rs.85,000/- in the year 2005 cannot be treated to be either arbitrary or a breach of its alleged obligations. It is submitted that cost of house is to be calculated on the basis of cost of land, construction and development charges for the house allotted on the date of the allotment and such costing is absolutely just and reasonable and necessary to safeguard the public exchequer. It has been also submitted that in any event the petitioner did not have any legal or fundamental right to allotment of a house by the Board at a price of his choice on a misreading of the terms and conditions of the Special Residential Scheme Gharonda 2005. It is submitted that consequent to registration of various applicants for consideration for allotment of house by the Board, the Board proceeded to construct 264 houses, in respect of which lottery was held Board on 15-3-2008 in regard to 170 houses and on 10-6-2009 in regard to 94 houses, thereafter allotment letters were issued to 264 allottees. It has been submitted that one Khemraj the allottee of house No.2/32 had deposited entire amount demanded. Similarly Rambabu Lakhara the allottee of house No.3/15 has deposited entire amount as demanded and taken physical possession of the house. It has been contended that there was no unnecessary or unreasonable delay in construction of houses as no express representation had been made with regard to the date of allotment and in fact no advance for the construction of house taken-the payment of the registration fee apart. It is submitted that subsequent to inviting applications from the applicants under the Special Residential Scheme Gharonda 2005, the work of construction and development was started after inviting tender applications. It has been submitted that as a statutory body, the Board has to adhere to detailed processes in carrying out its works and in the context of its obligation as a public authority, unconscionable delay in the construction of the houses in issue by the Board cannot be made out. It is further submitted that the cost of the house was determined on the basis of cost of land, construction and development charges prevalent at the time of allotment of house. There was no assurance in fact or in law from the Board to freeze the cost of construction at Rs.85,000/- only as approximately prevalent in the year 2005-06. The doctrine of estoppel as advocated by the petitioners has been stated not to apply in the facts of the case as no unequivocal representation as to the cost of the house could be attributed to the Board. It is pointed out that on the contrary a holistic reading of the terms and conditions of prospectus of the Special Residential Scheme Gharonda 2005, particularly condition No.16, indicates that allotment of house was to be made at the price determined/ calculated by the Board at the time of allotment of house.
(3.) IT is submitted that the estoppel in the facts of the case operates against the petitioners and writ should be dismissed on this ground. IT is further submitted that invoking of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the present is misdirected, as the Article 21 does not entitle an allottee of a house constructed by the Board to an allotment at a cost lower than the cost incurred by the Board. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner, wherein the case set out in writ petition has been reiterated and it has been submitted that the petitioners are entitled for allotment of house at the price set out of the Special Residential Scheme Gharonda 2005 as the houses were to be built and allotted within one year of the registration i.e. by 2006. It has been submitted that the delay in the construction of houses could not be attributed to petitioners or other similarly placed applicants and was wholly to the account of the Board and the Board having delayed in construction of houses; it could not be allowed to take advantage of its wrong and burden the petitioners with the higher cost of the house than set out in the prospectus of the Special Residential Scheme Gharonda 2005. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record of the writ petitions. ;