http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  705-706 of 2006

PETITIONER: Rajasthan Housing Board through its Chairman     

RESPONDENT: Shivraj Singh Bhandari                                      

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/04/2006

BENCH: B.P. Singh & Altamas Kabir

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

       These two appeals filed by the Rajasthan Housing Board  (for short ’the Board’) through its Chairman, are directed  against the common judgment dated 31st January, 2005,  passed   by  the  Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court  at Jaipur,  dismissing  the  two  Special  Appeals    preferred  by  the  Board  against  the  order dated 21st April, 1994  passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the two writ  petitions filed by the Board.         On 27th September, 1973, the respondent herein got  himself registered with the Board for allotment of a house in  the Middle Income Group Category (for short ’the MIG’) in the  city of Jaipur .  In 1979, the respondent requested the Board  to alter his category from the Middle Income Group Category  to the Higher Income Group Category (for short ’the HIG’) and  such change was duly allowed by the board.  The respondent  was informed accordingly by  letter dated 25th May, 1979.  The  respondent was also requested to  submit his option  for the  type of plot which he was interested in and pursuant thereto,  the respondent submitted his option for a house measuring   40’ x 90’.  The claim of the respondent was considered in the  lottery held on 18th June, 1979 but he was not  amongst the  successful candidates.   His case was again considered in the  lottery held in the year 1980-81 but again he proved to be  unsuccessful.         On 17th March, 1982, the Board published a notice in   the Rajasthan Patrika for auction of residential plots and  shops.  The same was challenged  by the respondent by way of   a Writ Petition, being  No.401/1982.  The respondent also  questioned the policy of reservation made in favour of the  employees of the Board, Members of Parliament and State  Legislative Assembly by way of another Writ Petition, being  No.606/1986.  Both the writ  petitions were duly contested by  the Board and  its policy of reservation of a certain percentage  of the houses for its employees, apart from the houses  available for allotment by lottery, was scrutinized.  It was  disclosed that under the HIG category, total number of  registered applicants were 300 in the year 1973 and 1911 in  the year 1979.  Of the houses/flats constructed in the said  category, 484 houses/flats were available and the same were  allotted by holding lottery.  It was also disclosed that in 1980- 81,  three flats of 30’ x 60’ size were also made available to the  registered applicants of  the  HIG category.  However, there  were no applicants in the said category for these flats  and,  they were therefore,   allotted to the MIG category.         During the course of the hearing, certain instances were

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

pointed out by which certain other  persons registered in other  categories were allowed to  change over to the HIG category  without any change in the  year of registration, whereas in the  case of the  respondent,  it was  alleged that his registration   was altered from 1973, when he had originally registered  himself in the MIG category, to 1979, when he was allowed to  change over to the HIG category.   On the basis of the materials  available, the learned  Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Board had acted   arbitrarily and had discriminated against the  respondent in  the matter of allotment of  a house to him and accordingly  directed that he be provided with a house measuring  40’ x 60’  in Jawahar Nagar Scheme in Jaipur within  a period of two  months from the date of submission of the certified copy of the  order passed by the court. Aggrieved  by the said order of the learned Single Judge,  the  Board  preferred two Special Appeals, being  Nos.879/1994 and 591/1994.  The Division Bench  concurred   with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the  observations made therein.  In addition, the Division Bench  also took note of the  list filed on behalf of the Board giving the  names of 32 persons who were allotted   32 completed   independent  houses measuring  40’ x 90’ in the secret draw  held on 30th June, 1979.    The Division Bench noticed that in  the said list,  8 persons had been included whose names did  not find place in the eligibility list.  Convinced that  no fault  could  be found  with the conclusions arrived at by the learned  Single Judge in the impugned judgment, the Division Bench  dismissed  the two appeals with costs. The Board is in appeal against the said common  judgment of the Division Bench of the  Rajasthan High Court  at Jaipur, dismissing the two appeals.   On behalf of the appellant, it was  contended that the  entire process of allotment  of the completed houses had been  conducted fairly and in keeping with the rules  where under  some of  the allotments were reserved for certain categories  of  persons.  It was the respondent’s misfortune that in two  successive  lotteries he proved to be unsuccessful which  prompted him to move  a writ  application for a direction upon  the appellant-Board to provide him with a housing plot of his  chosen specification in the Jawahar Nagar Scheme and  upon  a misconstruction of the facts, the High Court came to the   erroneous conclusion that persons who are not eligible  had  also been allowed to participate in the draw held on 30th June,  1979. Mr. Calla, learned  senior counsel,   who appeared for the  Board, emphasized the fact that after the allotments had been  made in 1979, there were no other completed houses available  for allotment  in the Jawahar Nagar Scheme of the   specifications opted for by the respondent.  Some plots were,  however, available in the Mansarover Scheme,  and if the  respondent  was willing, a plot could be allotted to him  forthwith within the said Scheme.  On being confronted with  the admission made on behalf of the  Board,  that some of the  completed houses had been kept apart for allotment  to  the  employees of the Board and that some of them had also been   given on rental basis to the Board’s employees, Mr. Calla  responded  by submitting  that such a decision was in keeping  with the policy decision of the Board.  It was pointed out that  since all the completed houses in Jawahar Nagar Scheme had  already been disposed of,  the order of the High Court would  have to be implemented  by evicting  one of the occupants  and  making over possession of such accommodation to the  respondent.  In the alternative,  a plot  of smaller dimension  was still available in the Jawahar Nagar Scheme if the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

respondent insisted  on being provided a house within the said  Scheme, but the other offer was open to provide the said  respondent with a completed house  according to the  specifications opted for by him in  the Mansarover Scheme. The stand taken on behalf of the appellant-Board was  strongly  opposed on behalf of the respondent,  who insisted  that as he was one of the earliest applicants for a completed  house  in the Jawahar Nagar Scheme, he should be provided  with a completed  house within the said Scheme as he was  unwilling to  go to the Mansarover Scheme.  The claim made  on behalf of the Board  that no completed house of the  required specification  in the Jawahar Nagar Scheme  was  available  was denied on behalf of the respondent on the basis  of   a statement  of the Board showing the position of the  rental houses as on 27th Ferbuary, 2004, made in Annexure R- 8 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent.   From the said statement, it was pointed  out that  one of the  HIG houses which was segregated  for letting out on rental  was vacant and could be allotted to the respondent.  In the  alternative, one of the houses which had been rented out   could be vacated  by the Board  and the displaced  employee   could be accommodated elsewhere. From the facts  as disclosed, it will be apparent that the  High Court was convinced that the respondent had been  treated unfairly, inasmuch as, persons who were  allegedly  ineligible were also included in the draw and were ultimately  provided with houses to  the exclusion  of the respondent who  was a legitimate claimant.     On the basis of its conclusions,   the High Court directed the Board to provide the respondent  with a plot of the required specifications within the said  Scheme giving rise to these appeals. Admittedly, the respondent had applied for a completed  house of the HIG in the Jawahar Nagar Scheme in Jaipur,  though  he was unsuccessful in two consecutive  draws in  which all the completed houses of the required specifications  were said to have been allotted.  The inclusion of 8 persons  from the reserved category in the draw held on 30th June,  1979, cannot also be faulted since the same was in keeping  with the policy of the Board.  At the same time, the  respondent’s application entitles him to a  completed house as  per his   registration. As will be seen from the chart of the Board, there is still  one house, namely,  House No.4-RH-3 of the HIG, which is  shown to be  vacant.  Apart from the above, some other HIG  houses appear to have been let out on  rental basis, one of  which could be made available to the respondent so as not to   defeat his claim.   Having accepted the application of the  respondent, the Board is under an obligation to provide him  with a suitable  accommodation in keeping with his   registration and we see no reason to differ with the directions  given  by the High Court  while disposing of the  Special  Appeals. The appeals are  accordingly dismissed  with a direction  upon the appellant-Board to provide the respondent with a  completed house of the required specifications within the  Jawahar Nagar Scheme and for the said purpose to  have one  of the houses vacated, if it becomes necessary to do so.   Such  exercise should be completed expeditiously, but preferably  within six months from date.   In the facts and circumstances  of the case, we make no order as to costs.