VERMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was initially registered for allotment of a house in the year 1989 with the Housing Board and had applied for an independent HIG house at Amer under the scheme floated on 15. 9. 1989. THE scheme was on the basis of Higher Purchase System. An amount of Rs. 10,000/-was also deposited vide Annexure-1. She was allotted Code No. P-Amer-G-GRS-89. However, Amer Scheme was dropped by the Housing Board but the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 27. 12. 1993 that one house of HIG category has been kept reserved by the petitioner. She was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 95,000/-as pre-allotment amount in three instalments. By suo-moto action her category was changed to out-right sale basis, copy of the letter is Annexure-2. THE petitioner protested against such an action of the respondent. Ultimately, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2565/94 which was decided on 2. 12. 1994. THE writ petition was disposed of on the statement made by the respondent Housing Board that the petitioner would be allotted the house in the higher purchase system itself for which she had made the application. A direction was issued to the respondents by the High Court to hand over the possession of the house to the petitioner which stood already been allotted in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months under the higher purchase system.
(2.) DESPITE the direction given by the High Court, the matter is said to have been delayed by the respondents. There was exchange of notice and legal notices. A contempt petition was filed by the petitioner on 8. 5. 1995 being Contempt Petition No. 213/95. On receipt of the notice of the contempt the respondents did allot a flat No. 9/917 at Malviya Nagar, Jaipur to the petitioner on 4th floor. It was stated by the petitioner that she had never opted for a flat and she was entitled for the allotment of an Independent House reserved by the petitioner vide Annexure-2 dated 27. 12. 1993. The Housing Board again came up with an alternative proposal of allotment to the petitioner in Sanganer Scheme during the arguments in the contempt petition. On this assurance the contempt petition is dropped. The non-petitioners were directed to hand over the possession of an Independent House under the higher purchase system within three months from 25. 1. 1997 vide Annexure-6. Still no action was taken. Reminder was sent to the Housing Board by the petitioner. The respondents after lapse of about 5 months from the date of the order did allot a house to the petitioner being House No. 91/54 which was a skeleton house. It was the contention of the petitioner that many independent houses were lying with the Housing Board but still the Housing Board had choosen to allot a skeleton house only. The petitioner apprehended that she is being victimised and harassed because of the reason that she had approached this Court by way of writ petition or contempt petition and, therefore, instead of an Independent House, the petitioner was firstly allotted a flat on 4th floor in Malviya Nagar which was not accepted by the petitioner and then came up with allotment of skeleton house. The petitioner again sent legal notice to the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that not only she had been allotted an Skeleton House, but she had also been charged the rate as prevailing in the year 1997 whereas as per the allotment order Annexure-2, she would have been charged rates as prevailing in 1993. Letter Annexure-2 dated 27. 12. 1993 reads that as per the priority of the registration, a house stands reserved for the petitioner and she was directed to deposit an amount mentioned in the letter. However, despite the allotment of the house vide Annexure-2 the Housing Board had taken a somar sault vide Annexure-3 to the effect that the house can only be allotted at the out-right payment which had ultimately resulted in the order passed by the High Court in writ petition No. 2565/94. In the written statement filed by the respondent Housing Board, the allegation to the effect that the petitioner is being harassed because of the pendency of the litigation are denied. However, it is admitted that instead of independent house she was allotted a flat in Malviya Nagar at 4th floor and again skeleton house in Sanganer Scheme. It is admitted that number of completed houses were lying vacant. It is stated in the written statement that out of 23 houses available only nine houses were allotted and remaining are still lying vacant. This plea of the respondent is not understandable. If the completed houses are lying vacant in different Schemes and duly registered are applicants available and even those applicants had been informed that the house has been kept reserved for them, it is unimaginable that the Housing Board would instead of allotting the complete house to such applicants would resort to allotment of skeleton or incomplete houses to such applicant and shall leave the complete house vacant and non allotted. It seems that the working of the Housing Board is not upto the mark. Every effort should be made by the Housing Board to satisfy the allottees if the houses in question are available in complete form. Firstly it should be the effort of the Housing Board to dispose of all the complete houses and not the skeleton houses and it unallotted skeleton houses are to be disposed of; the allottee must be told in advance to obtain their consent. During the course of arguments, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner that two houses No. 86/147 and 86/148 which are complete and finished are still lying vacant with the Housing Board in Pratap Nagar Scheme and the petitioner is prepared to take one of the house under the higher purchase system at the rate as prevailing when the allotment of the letter Annexure-2 was communicated to the petitioner i. e. in December 1993. In reply to such application it is admitted that these two houses as available were actually included in 23 houses for allotment but because of the reason that only nine applications were made, these houses were left unallotted. It is further submitted that the letter Annexure-2 dated 27. 3. 1993 is not the allotment order but the reservation of the house. From the above-said discussion it is very clear that atleast two houses Nos. 86/147 and 86/148 at Pratap Nagar are available for allotment. The petitioner had been informed vide Annexure-2 that a house had been kept reserved for him; and he was asked to deposit certain amount as well it amounts to as good as allotment. The petitioner was also informed to deposit the amount. Only action which required to be taken in continuation of Annexure-2 was to allot a particular house to the petitioner. In case the Housing Board, after issuing letter Annexure-2, does not take an immediate action in allotting a particular house after informing the petitioner that a house has been kept reserved for him, no fault can be placed on the petitioner and it is the working of the Housing Board which is to be blamed for; In such a situation because of delay or omission on the part of the Board for allotting a specific house after the reservation of the House made to the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner would have to pay the price of 1997 and not of 1993. Viewing from another angle as well, the petitioner instead of being allotted the independent house was allotted a flat in the year 1994 which was again cancelled and still another house was allotted. Had the respondent Housing Board instead of allotting the flat to the petitioner would have allotted the Independent House to the petitioner under which category the petitioner was registered when this Malviya Nagar house was allotted, the petitioner would have paid the price prevailing at the time. No reason is coming out that even though the houses were available in December 1993, why the first allotment was made in December 1995 in Malviya Nagar.
(3.) THE counsel for the respondents states that this court had time and again held that the price is to be charged at the time when the allotment is made. THEre cannot be any grievance so far as this proposition is concerned, but in the given case if the Housing Board itself commit omission and irregularity and goes on shifting the allottees from one house to another house or allot the house of a category of which the allottee was not entitled to or allot a house of a lower category without the consent of such allottee, in my opinion in such cases if the fault lies on the Housing Board, the responsibility should also be borne by the Housing Board itself. In the present case, vide Annexure-2 the petitioner was informed in December 1993 that independent House of HIG has been reserved for him. Had the house been ear-marked to him within a reasonable time in a few months, it could be said that the Housing Board had worked efficiently and reasonably. Conduct of the Housing Board is not appreciatable and in such situation what-ever the allotment is made in view of the discussion above that would relate back of the letter of allotment of reservation of house as it was on December 1993 vide Annexure-2. For the reasons that the House Nos. 86/147 and 86/148 were available and the petitioner is prepared to take the same and there is hardly any objection on the part of the Housing Board to allot one of the said houses to the petitioner, it is directed that the petitioner shall be allotted one of the aforesaid houses after intimation to the petitioner at the price as was prevailing in December 1993 within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is received. ;