Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Rajasthan Housing Board & Anr Vs Ramesh Chand Chaturvedi (NCDRC Delhi)
Appeal Number : Revision Petition No. 1083 of 2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 03/08/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : NCDRC/SCDRC
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Rajasthan Housing Board & Anr Vs Ramesh Chand Chaturvedi (NCDRC Delhi)

Conclusion: In present facts of the case, it was observed that discontinuance of housing scheme would not disentitle the right of the Consumer to make claim on the project which was allotted initially.

Facts: The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 6th August 2020 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No.1, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no.1191 of 2019.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Housing Board launched a housing scheme viz., “Kalpataru” for allotment of various categories of houses in urban areas of Rajasthan on payment of monthly installments. On 29th April 1989 the respondent applied for a residential house after depositing the registration amount, due to which the seniority of the respondent was fixed. On 6th November 1993, the Housing Board issued a reservation letter dated 5529 demanding seed money of Rs.10,000/- in three instalments. The respondent was allotted house in Mansarovar, Jaipur, on 28.04.1994 on out right sale basis on deposit of the sale amount with the petitioners. The Housing Board has stated that as the loan facility was discontinued by the Government on the recommendation of HUDCO for the scheme, letters were issued on out right sale basis. The petitioner has stated that the respondent failed to deposit the sale consideration as per allotment letter no. 1003 dated 28.04.1994 and a final opportunity was given to the respondent by way of a notice no.1387 dated 10.07.1995 to pay the sale consideration and take possession of the said house by 25.07.1995. However, the respondent failed to pay the sale price and thus the allotment as well as the registration of the respondent was cancelled on 16.11.1995 asking the respondent to submit the fourth original copy of the challan to refund the amount deposited.

On 26.02.2002 respondent approached the petitioner with a letter seeking benefits of the special scheme for defaulters. The respondent submitted an application for restoration of his registration. In response the petitioner Housing Board issued letter no.1186 dated 06.09.2003 informing the procedure for refund with request to submit necessary papers including receipt for refund of the amount deposited by the respondent. The respondent wrote letters seeking allotment of same house on out right sale basis. This request was rejected by the Housing Board on 02.03.2006. On 13.10.2006, it amended the provisions for restoration of cancellation and re-considered the application of the respondent and restored the same. The Housing Board states that after restoration, a new seniority was required to be fixed as per the year in which the registration was restored. Accordingly, the petitioner Housing Board informed the respondent of his new priority seeking restoration fees of Rs.10,000/- which was done on 21.11.2006. The Petitioner/Housing Board thereafter issued reservation letter no. 2646 on 23.12.2010 demanding seed money amount of Rs.30,000/- in three instalments of Rs.10,000/- each as per schedule provided in the letter. Respondent deposited the first instalment on 04.01.2011 but failed to deposit the second and the third instalments. Consequently, the respondent was not included in the lottery draw of allotment due to default. On 12.12.2012, the respondent submitted a letter with the Housing Board for physical possession of house no. 37/174 Mansarovar, Jaipur. The Housing Board clarified vide letter no. 2403 dated 29.01.2013 that the house allotted in 1993 stood cancelled and had been allotted to some other applicant and that as the respondent’s registration was restored in 2006, re-allotment would be as per the new priority based on 2006 seniority, subject to availability of houses. The respondent, however, represented on 22.03.2013 for physical possession of house no. 37/174 Mansarovar, Jaipur, which was denied.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Tags:

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031