N.N. Tiwari, J. - (1.) THE State Housing Board allotted a HIG house to the petitioner, but with a lesser constructed area than what was mentioned in the notice of allotment and with several deficiencies. The house has no proper door planks, necessary fixtures, water connection proper, repairs, flooring and white washing. The petitioner has, thus, sought direction on the respondents to proportionately lower down the price to the extent of the reduced area and to remove all the deficiencies or to compensate the petitioner for not handing over the proper house by the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner's case is that a notice was published for allotment of different categories of house/houses/flats. The constructed area of the house in High Income Group (HIG) was 1571 sq. ft. for an estimated price of Rs. 12,36,622/ - The allotment was to be made by lottery, on 8.11.2004. In the lottery the petitioner get HIG House No. 66. The allotment letter was issued to the petitioner without mentioning the constructed area and showing the enhanced price of Rs. 12,77,700/ -. The petitioner filed his objection before the Managing Director, stating therein that the allotment letter does not indicate the area of construction. The petitioner was, however, made to sign an agreement with annexure of sketch map of the site plan and the house. The respondent, thereafter, issued a letter asking the petitioner to take over possession of House No. 66 to the petitioner. On receipt of the said letter, the petitioner went to take over possession of the house where he found that the constructed area is only 1081 sq, ft. as against the stipulated area of 1571 sq. ft. The, petitioner also found several deficiencies such as absence of door planks, proper water supply lines, damaged plasters inside and outside the house, absence of boundary, absence of sewerage system and several other deficiencies. On the objection of the petitioner, the Executive Engineer directed the Junior Engineer to look into the same, but nothing has been done so far and the petitioner has not been able to enter into possession of the house. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it was a clear stipulation in the notice (Annexure -1) that the constructed area of the house will be 1571 sq. ft. If there was any printing mistake in mentioning the said area, it should have been corrected immediately, thereafter. For the first time, the respondents have taken plea in this case that there was printing mistake in mentioning that area. Learned Counsel submitted that in Clause 8 of allotment letter it was clearly mentioned that the delay in handing over the possession was due to the running work of construction. But, when the petitioner visited, there was no sign of construction/repair in the house. The house is in dilapidated condition. Deficiencies were pointed out in the representation (Annexure -10) dated 10.2.2005, but neither the price has been reduced in proportion to the reduced area nor the deficiencies have been removed so far. Learned Counsel submitted that the respondents are instrumentality of the welfare state and they cannot behave with the petitioner arbitrarily and whimsically. There was an agreement for handing over a proper house, but a house without doors, windows, proper water connection, electricity connection, drainage system and other essential facilities cannot be said to be house. Learned Counsel submitted that in the counter affidavit the deficiencies in the house have not been denied.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand submitted that the house was allotted on 'as is where is' basis and there was no question of removing the deficiencies by the Housing Board. Learned Counsel submitted that the house is in proper condition and the petitioner has agreed to purchase the said house by signing the agreement. No deficiency has been found in the said house as alleged by the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has signed the agreement in which the area of construction was mentioned. He cannot now claim any proportionate reduction in the agreed consideration amount.;