Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1916 (RAJ)

Nisha Ariya v. The Housing Board

2005-07-27

V.K.BALI

body2005
Judgment V. K. Bali, J.-Smt. Nisha Ariya the petitioner herein takes exception to allotment of bigger residential plots to respondents M.L. Chauhan and Dr. Sangeeta Gupta and, therefore, prays that this Court may issue an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the allotment orders of the said respondents or in alternative the petitioner should also be allotted a proportionate plot. The prayer made at page 24 of the writ petition reads as follows:- “It is, therefore prayed that any appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued against the respondents for quashing the allotment orders of Sangeeta Gupta dated 10.12.1993 and M.L. Chauhan dated 04.03.1994, may kindly be quashed and respondents may further be directed in case this land in dispute is necessarily to be also allotted to petitioner proportionally after giving him notice to the petitioner and after fixing the reasonable criteria in the alternatively this land in dispute should be kept open for use of all near houses. Respondents may further be directed to keep the open space (wood land) as per scheme and MAP and pass any appropriate order which Honble Court fit in the interest of Justice.” 2. Bare minimum facts that need a necessary mention reveal that the Rajasthan Housing Board in a scheme known as Parijat Yojna made allotment of houses. It was a self financing scheme. The scheme prescribed 5 categories of houses, distinguished on the basis of income groups. The persons enrolled for allotment of a house under the scheme were required to deposit total cost of the house in five installments. The petitioner and some other however, got enrolled themselves for allotment of house in Chopasni Housing Board Scheme, Jodhpur, in the category of higher income group. 3. The only point that has been raised in the present petition emanates from the pleading made in paragraph 5. It is the case of the petitioner that he had applied for allotment of HIG House. The petitioner visited the site and found that the land in dispute was kept open. Then an inquiry was made from the engineer as to what would be the fate of this open area. He informed the petitioner that the open site cannot be allotted to any person since the area in land is just double the prescribed land for allotment to individual. Then an inquiry was made from the engineer as to what would be the fate of this open area. He informed the petitioner that the open site cannot be allotted to any person since the area in land is just double the prescribed land for allotment to individual. This open area it is the case of the petitioner, has been allotted to respondents Nos. 4 and 5 without giving an opportunity to the petitioner also to purchase the same. 4. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, respondents have filed a reply. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been pleaded that in Sector 17-E Plot No. 288 of the Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur was alloted to the petitioner and the possession was handed over as per final scheme. It is denied that the land in dispute was kept open on the day on which lottery was opened. It is also denied that the petitioner asked the site engineer as to what will be the fate of this open land. The site plan with regard to the disputed site was prepared in the year 1989. The dispute site i.e., plots Nos. 288, 305 and 304 were located on curve of road. It is averred that on curve of a building line, the plot situated at that site would not be equal in any manner and there would definitely be surplus land. It is denied that the land between plots Nos. 305 and 304 was kept open. In fact, plots Nos. 305 and 304 were situated on a curve and, therefore, they had some surplus land. 5. During the course of arguments, it could not be disputed that the respondents were allotted plots on curve. As to whether the said area was not a part of the scheme or did not form part of a plotted area as per the scheme is a hotly disputed question of fact. The positive case of the respondents is that the so called open area was part of plots Nos. 305 and 304 as per the plan of the plots. It was indeed, some how longer in size and it is for this reason that the plots were located on a curve. The positive case of the respondents is that the so called open area was part of plots Nos. 305 and 304 as per the plan of the plots. It was indeed, some how longer in size and it is for this reason that the plots were located on a curve. It the so called open space was a part of a plot and as is the case of the respondent Board, the petitioner, at the most have not been as lucky in allotment of said plots as respondents have been. It is well known that in any housing scheme, some plots would be better located, whereas some would be preferential plots, others would be located on curve. In a draw of lots, it is a luck of a person as to whether he gets a preferential or a better located plot. If , some one has been more lucky to the petitioner in the draw of lots, the petitioner on that count alone cannot crave for allotment of an area commensurate to preferential or better located plots. 6. The Court finds no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.