UP HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD versus RAMESH CHANDRA AGARWAL

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 730 · Decided: 01-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
730
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
UP HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
v.
RAMESH CHANDRA AGARWAL
(Civil Appeal No. 4529 of 2019)
MAY 01, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad-Registration and Allotment
of Plot and Houses Rules, 1979 – rr.15,30 – Appellant-U.P. Housing
and Development Board floated a housing scheme – In 1982,
respondent deposited an amount necessary for registration – In
1993, respondent filed a consumer complaint against the appellant
– District Forum gave liberty to the respondent to seek allotment at
the current market value under any of the schemes of appellant –
Aggrieved, Respondent filed appeal before the State consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) which was dismissed –
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
directed appellant to make an allotment to the respondent for a
total sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in any of the flats available in the Mandola
Vihar Yojna, Ghaziabad – On appeal, held: Clause 5 of the
Registration booklet indicated that mere registration does not confer
a right for allotment – Further, r.30 of the Rules, 1979 indicated
that after the Board advertises the availability of a scheme in the
newspaper, every registered applicant is at liberty to submit a consent
letter for participation in the draw of lots – Applicant must show
readiness and willingness to participate in a draw of lots in retrospect
of a specified scheme – In view of the clear position in the brochure
and the Rules of 1979, the respondent had no vested right to seek
an allotment – As a registered applicant, the respondent was at
liberty to seek to participate in the draw of lots by indicating his
consent to the appellant – NCDRC committed error in issuing
direction to the appellant to make an allotment to the respondent –
Thus, the order of NCDRC set aside.
In 1982, the appellant-Board floated a scheme for
Economically weaker sections.  The respondent deposited an
amount of Rs.500 for registration. In terms of the Rules, 1979
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 730
730
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
731
registered applicants were required to furnish their written
consent for being included in the draw of lots.  None was provided
by the respondent. The respondent filed a consumer complaint
in 1993.  The District Forum directed respondent to secure
allotment at the current value fixed by the appellant.  Aggrieved,
the respondent filed an appeal which was dismissed by SCDRC.
The NCDRC issued a direction to the appellant to make an
allotment to the respondent for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- . Hence
the present Special Leave Petition.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The appellant is governed by the terms and
conditions advertised in its Registration Booklet and U.P. Awas
Evam Vikas Parishad-Registration and Allotment of Plot and
Houses Rules, 1979.  Clause 5 of the Registration Booklet
indicates that mere registration does not confer a right for
allotment.  Rule 15 makes a provision to the effect that the Board
is not bound to allot a house or plot to every registered holder.
Rule 30 indicates that after the Board advertises the availability
of a scheme in the newspaper, every registered applicant is at
liberty to submit a consent letter for participation in the draw of
lots.  Mere registration does not oblige the authority to include
every registered applicant in the  draw of lots. The applicant must
show readiness and willingness to participate in a draw of lots in
respect of a specified scheme.  This is evident from Rule 30(2 ).
A set of priorities is provided in Rule 30 (5).  In view of the clear
position in the brochure and the Rules of 1979, the respondent
had no vested right to seek an allotment. As a registered
applicant, the respondent was at liberty to seek to participate in
the draw of lots by indicating his consent to the appellant.  After
paying an initial sum of Rs 500 in 1982 and a further sum of Rs
500 in 1985, the respondent did not pursue any remedies until
1993 when he moved the District Forum.  The order of the District
Forum gave liberty to the respondent to seek allotment at the
current market value under any of the schemes of the appellant.
The NCDRC was manifestly in error in issuing a direction to the
appellant to make an allotment to the respondent for a total sum
of Rs 2,50,000 in any of the flats available in the Mandola Vihar
Yojna, Ghaziabad. There is no rationale basis or justification for
the amount of Rs 2,50,000 which has be

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.