Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioners submitted application for allotment of plot/house/flat/ skeleton house with the Rajasthan Housing Board (for short 'the Board'). They were given registration number and, in few cases, even information about allotment on remaining successful in the lottery. The registration/ allotment of plot/ house/ flat/ skeleton house was, however, cancelled subsequently for want of 'Know Your Customer' (for short 'KYC') or default in deposition of seed money. On furnishing the KYC or the required amount, their registration/ allotment was restored. The Board (25 of 29) [ CW-1494/2015] thereafter passed another order for cancellation of registration/ allotment in few cases and similar order could not be passed in other cases due to interim order of this court.

The cancellation of registration/ allotment is precisely in reference to Cabinet decision. The restoration of registration and allotment of plot etc. prior to six months to the elections held on 1.12.2013 were ordered to be cancelled and, pursuant to the Cabinet decision, Rajasthan Housing Board passed order for cancellation of registration/ allotment in many cases. The similar order could not be passed in other cases due to interim order of this court.

It is submitted that the Cabinet cannot give direction to the Board for cancellation of registration/ allotment so revived in exercise of the powers conferred under the Rajasthan Housing Board Act. It is further submitted that if State Government can give direction, it could have been to re-consider the cases where revival of registration/ allotment of plot/ house/ flat/ skeleton house etc has been made contrary to the policy. In view of above also, impugned order of cancellation of registration/ allotment of the house/ flat/ skeleton/ plot deserves to be set aside so as the decision of the Cabinet. The Cabinet decision could have been taken on political grounds. It is more so when cancellation of registration/ allotment was made on petty issues like; for want of KYC or delay/ default in payment of seed money etc thus Board (26 of 29) [ CW-1494/2015] took proper decision to revive all such registrations/ allotments earlier cancelled. Hence, registration/ allotment of plot/ house/ flat/ skeleton house may be maintained.

Learned Additional Advocate General Mr JM Saxena has opposed the petitions. It is submitted that revival of registration/ allotment of plot/ flat/ house etc was made before Assembly elections and otherwise contrary to the policy framed by the Board on 6.8.2009 and 28.8.2012. As per the policy dated 28.8.2012, revival of registration/ allotment plot/ flat/ house/ skeleton house can be made if covered by paras 1 to 5. In para 6, discretion has been given to the Chairman of the Board but while reviving registration/ allotment of the plot/ house/ flat/ skeleton house, no reason has been recorded by the Chairman thus matter was taken up by the Cabinet. After proper scrutiny, a cautious decision was taken to direct for cancellation. The Board cancelled registration/ allotment of the house/ flat etc. earlier revived for the reasons given above. A detailed chart has been prepared and, after making scrutiny of each case, impugned order was passed for cancellation of registration and allotment of plot/ flat etc. Accordingly, this court may not interfere in the impugned order. It is felt that the Cabinet decision has been applied in all the cases despite covered by the circular dated 28.8.2012 or there are cases where justified reasons for revival exist, then, it may be remanded to the Housing Board. It would make scrutiny again, that too, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. If a (27 of 29) [ CW-1494/2015] case is found covered by the circular dated 28.8.2012 or 6.8.2009 then appropriate order would be passed and, otherwise, Chairman of the Board may also exercise its power in an appropriate case.

In view of above, these writ petitions are disposed of with remand of the case. The matter is sent back to the Rajasthan Housing Board to consider each case. It would be in reference to the circular dated 6.8.2009 and 28.8.2012 and if it is covered by it, then the Board would be expected to maintain registration/ allotment of house/ flat/ plot/ skeleton house unless there are strong reasons to deny it and, accordingly, they would withdraw the order. The other cases would be considered in the light of the power of the Chairman of the Board and, if it is found that cancellation was made only on petty issues, the Board would be expected to take proper decision to avoid discrimination. While considering the cases, period in between earlier cancellation and revival would also be taken note of. The decision aforesaid would be taken after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/s. If deserving case is not found for revival/ restoration of registration/ allotment, then Board would pass a speaking order. The petitioners would then be at liberty to take legal recourse as per law. It is, however, made clear that till fresh order is passed in favour or adverse to the petitioner/s, the house/ flat/ plot/ skeleton house for which allotment has been made or registration was given to the petitioners, would not be alienated, rather, the position, as is obtaining on the date of passing of the (29 of 29) [ CW-1494/2015] interim order and the present status would be maintained by the respondent-Housing Board.