Durgalal Meena S/O Shri Rambha Lal Meena vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was devoid of merit and dismissed it. Regarding the first issue, the Court found that the Special Registration Scheme (SRS) clearly stipulated that the successful applicants were required to pay the allotment price as determined by the Board at the time of issuing the allotment letter, which was based on actual costs incurred. Clause 21 and 22 of the SRS explicitly granted the Housing Board the authority to determine the cost of houses, and such decisions were final. The Court found that the petitioners had failed to substantiate their claim that the delay in construction was solely the Board's fault and that the averments in para 12 of the writ petition were not sufficiently proven. The Court also noted that it was not equipped in writ jurisdiction to assess cost escalation due to construction delays. The Court further held that the contention regarding increased land cost lacked factual foundation in the writ petition. Similarly, the levy of GST due to construction delay was deemed untenable in light of the SRS conditions. The Court emphasized that the matter involved a non-statutory contract, and the petitioners had applied with full knowledge of the terms and conditions, including the possibility of price escalation. The Court relied on the Division Bench judgment in Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors. vs. Awasan Mandal Parijat Uncha Aywarg Sangarsh Samiti and the Apex Court's decision in Bareilly Development Authority & Anr. vs. Ajai Pal Singh & Ors., which held that writ jurisdiction is not appropriate for resolving disputes arising from non-statutory contracts involving disputed questions of fact and accounting, especially when the allottees had accepted the terms and conditions.

Facts

The petitioners, who were successful applicants in the Rajasthan Housing Board's Special Registration Scheme-2007 (SRS) for houses in Nainwa, District Bundi, were issued allotment letters on June 29, 2020, demanding an additional amount towards the cost of the houses. This followed their initial deposit of seed money as per a demand letter dated July 27, 2011. The petitioners challenged this additional demand and the subsequent cancellation of their house allotments (dated August 2, 2021) due to non-payment, arguing that the delay in construction was due to the Board's fault and that they had already paid the entire amount. The Board contended that the initial demand was only for seed money and the final cost was determinable upon completion, based on actual expenses, and that the scheme operated on a 'No Profit No Loss' principle.

Key Issues

1. Whether the additional demand raised by the Rajasthan Housing Board vide allotment letter dated June 29, 2020, is illegal, considering the petitioners had already deposited the entire allotment amount as per the demand letter dated July 27, 2011, and the delay in construction was attributable to the Board? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning contract terms and alleged breach). Petitioner's argument: The petitioners argued that they had deposited the entire allotment amount and that the additional demand arose due to the Board's delay in construction, which was partly due to disputes with contractors. They contended that the Board should not saddle them with additional costs, including enhanced land cost and GST, for its own failures. They relied on averments in para 12 of the writ petition, which they claimed were not specifically rebutted. Respondent's argument: The respondents argued that the demand dated July 27, 2011, was only for seed money, and the petitioners were liable to pay the cost of the house as assessed upon completion. They stated the Board operates on a 'No Profit No Loss' basis and that the additional demand was based on actual costs incurred. They denied that the delay was solely due to disputes with contractors and asserted that other successful applicants had deposited the amounts and received their houses. They relied on the provisions of the SRS.