Judgment S.K. Sharma, J.-These two appeals have been filed by the Rajasthan Housing Board (hereinafter to be referred as the Housing Board) against the common Judgment dated April 21, 1994 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by Shiv Raj Singh Bhandari, who is respondent in both these appeals (hereinafter referred as the allottee). In the common Judgment the learned Single Judge directed the Housing Board to allot a house of the size of 40 x 90 to the allottee in Jawahar Nagar Scheme. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 401/1982 filed on March 18, 1982, the prayer of the allottee was as under:-"(i) The respondent be refrained from auctioning the plots as notified in Rajasthan Patrika dated 17.03.1982 (Annexure-4). (ii) Strike down the provisions, Notifications and circulars under which the employees of the Housing Board and Members of the Parliament and the Members of the Assembly have been given preference in the matter of allotment of houses. (iii) Commanding the Board to the effect that instead of putting these house sites to auction, they should construct the houses thereupon and allot the same to the persons in accordance with the provisions and the schemes framed under the Act." 2. The allottee in the Writ Petition No. 401/1982 averred that he applied for registration and allotment of house after depositing a sum of Rs. 5,000/-on September 27, 1973. The Housing Board issued Registration Certificate to the allottee in accordance with Rule 3(2) of the Disposal of Property Regulation Rules for ordinary registration of Scheme, 1973. The allottee on May 24, 1979 filed an application for change of his Income Group from MIG of HIG after depositing Rs. 2,000/-. The Board vide communication dated May 25, 1979 confirmed the registration of the allottee in HIG Group. In response to the communication dated May 25, 1979, the allottee gave option for allotment of house 40x90 on full payment before possession. The draw of the said completed houses in Jawahar Nagar was notified to be held on June 18, 1979. The allottee averred in the writ petition that he participated in the lottery of High Income Group on June 18, 1979 and next lottery draw No. 3 in the year 1980-81, but failed to get allotment. The draw of the said completed houses in Jawahar Nagar was notified to be held on June 18, 1979. The allottee averred in the writ petition that he participated in the lottery of High Income Group on June 18, 1979 and next lottery draw No. 3 in the year 1980-81, but failed to get allotment. The allottee assailed the action of the Housing Board in publishing the Notice dated March 17, 1882 for auctioning the residential plots and shops on March 21, 1982. 3. The Housing Board issued revised procedure for registration and allotment of houses in May, 1982. According to this revised procedure system of preparing year wise system was introduced for allotment of houses. The Housing Board prepared and published self financing Scheme, 1982 for HIG and MIG hosues/flats in various cities including Jaipur for already registered applicants of general registered scheme of the year 1981 on the same footing as introduced by the Delhi Development Authority, Delhi. On June 17, 1982 the Board issued Notification in the Rajasthan Patrika informing all the persons registered in higher income group to deposit further amount of Rs. 3,000/-. The allottee on June 28, 1982 deposited Rs. 3,000/-vide Challan No. 459 with the Board through Vijaya Bank. Vide letter dated April 8, 1985 the allottee was informed by the Housing Board that he has been successful in the allotment of house for higher income group and demand of Rs. 15,000/-in the first installment and further Rs. 15,000/-for second installment was made. Vide challan dated April 24, 1985, the allottee deposited Rs. 15,000/-of the first installment and second installment was deposited on October 3, 1985. The Housing Board vide allotment dated February 3, 1986 allotted house No. 34/32 in Mansarovar Scheme to the allottee. .4. The allottee filed second writ petition during the pendency of the first writ petition on March 18, 1986. 15,000/-of the first installment and second installment was deposited on October 3, 1985. The Housing Board vide allotment dated February 3, 1986 allotted house No. 34/32 in Mansarovar Scheme to the allottee. .4. The allottee filed second writ petition during the pendency of the first writ petition on March 18, 1986. In the Second Writ Petition bearing No. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 606/1986, the allottee made following prayer: .(i) theallotment-cum-possession letter issued by the non-petitioner board dated 03.02.1986 be quashed; .(ii) the Board be directed to allot a house to the petitioner in Jawahar Nagar Scheme for the area and cost as mentioned in its letter dated 25.05.1979; .(iii) theBoard be retrained from cancelling or treating as automatically cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner of the house No. 34/32 in Mansarovar Scheme or to allot the same to any other person; .(v) the Board be directed to reduce the cost of the house in the size of the plot of land and also due to decrease in the amount of construction over the said plot. .5. The Housing Board in Writ Petition No. 401/82 filed reply on September 7, 1992 admitting that the allottee applied for registration on September 28, 1973 and deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/-in .Middle Income Group. The allottee filed the application for change of category from Middle Income Group to Higher Income Group for the year 1979. Letter dated May 25, 1979 was also admitted. It was averred in the reply that terms and conditions as envisaged under the Disposal of Property and Regulation Act, 1970 and as amended from time to time were followed. The allottee accepted the term of the letter dated May 25, 1979 and gave option for full payment and thereafter participated in the lottery of HIG held in the month of June, 1979 but he was unsuccessful. Again in 1980-81 in Lottery No. 3 the allottee participated but was unsuccessful. The Housing Board submitted that the publication of the scheme gave out a tentative programme in respect of providing the houses and approximate prices, etc. It was mentioned in the letter dated May 25, 1979 that the price of the Houses under construction would be finalized on their completion. The Housing Board submitted that the publication of the scheme gave out a tentative programme in respect of providing the houses and approximate prices, etc. It was mentioned in the letter dated May 25, 1979 that the price of the Houses under construction would be finalized on their completion. The Housing Board averred that the period of giving accommodation to the registered applicants and price of the house which was published by the Housing board was a tentative and approximate and the same was made known to all registered applicants who opted for the allotment of house. In respect of the registration of special category like the Government employees/SC/ST widows of defence personnel etc. the Housing Board averred that the same were notified in the general conditions of scheme. The additions in the said category were done after due process of law and approved in the Board meeting. In respect of averments of the allottee regarding auction of plots for residential houses is concerned, the Housing Board averred that the said auction had not been made and the Board formulated a Parijat Yojna for registered applicants. The Housing Board replied that the schemes for colony were framed by the Housing Board with the approval of the State Government. In so far as the reservation of 2 ½% for the members of Parliament and Legislative Assembly was concerned, the Housing Board averred that the same was in accordance with the general terms and conditions of the self financing scheme under the which the allottee got himself registered in the year 1979. The Housing Board made allotment of house to various members of Legislative Assembly in accordance with Section 60 read with Section 8-A of the Act. The Board lastly averred in the reply that there was no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or any provisions of the Act or Regulations of the Board. 6. In Writ Petition No. 606/1986 in compliance of the order of this Court dated August 9, 1986, the Housing Board submitted reply/explanation. The Housing Board averred that as per the decision of the Board in each lot of the residential houses available for allotment under General Registration Scheme/Schemes, 40 per cent houses were reserved for Salaried persons irrespective of the fact whether they are Government employees or employees of private institutions and this has been maintained by the Housing Board throughout. The Housing Board averred that as per the decision of the Board in each lot of the residential houses available for allotment under General Registration Scheme/Schemes, 40 per cent houses were reserved for Salaried persons irrespective of the fact whether they are Government employees or employees of private institutions and this has been maintained by the Housing Board throughout. It was averred that Self Financing Scheme of the year 1982 was not open to the public, but it was available only to the registered applicants of the years 1971, 1973 and 1979. The scheme was formulated for the benefit of registered applicants only and each applicant was given an opportunity to avail this benefit. The Housing Board averred that if a registered applicant who opted under the self financing scheme could not get a house his position of registration under the General Registration scheme remained unchanged and unaffected and he is entitled to get a house as and when the same available for allotment. The allottee was entitled to take the benefit under the Self Financing Scheme of the year 1982 but he did not chose to get a house/flat under the said scheme. The Housing Board submitted that no deviation was made by it in the schemes of 1973 and 1979 in the matter of allotment of houses/flats to the registered applicants or in the matter of quota fixed under those schemes. The Housing Board submitted that the registration was to be made for the categories, as per the annual income of the applicant, Janta Income Group, Economic Weaker Section Group, Low Income Group, Middle Income Group and Higher Income Group. The allottee was registered under the General Registration Scheme of 1973 under MIG category, but in the year 1979 he got him registered in Higher Income Group category on the ground that his annual income was increased and as per his increased income he was entitled to be registered under to HIG category. He had also deposited the proof of his annual income and the balance amount towards the initial deposit for registration under the HIG category. In the year 1973 under HIG category total registered applicants were 300 and in the year 1979 under HIG category total applicants were 1911. In Jawahar Nagar Scheme in all 484 houses/flats were available for allotment under HIG category and they have been allotted by lottery system. In the year 1973 under HIG category total registered applicants were 300 and in the year 1979 under HIG category total applicants were 1911. In Jawahar Nagar Scheme in all 484 houses/flats were available for allotment under HIG category and they have been allotted by lottery system. The allottee got his category changed in the year 1979 and after the change of category he was allowed to participate in each draw, for which he was entitled. No discrimination has been made qua the allottee in the matter of participation/allotment of houses/flats. The Housing Board also submitted that in Lal Kothi scheme no house of HIG category was constructed. However, in 1980-81 (Part -II draw) 3 flats of smaller size 30x60 were made available to the registered applicants of HIG category, but no person of HIG opted for these 3 smaller flats. .7. The allottee submitted reply to explanation of the Housing Board stating therein that the Housing Board had not given break up of allotment of houses from December, 1973 to 1981. He submitted that the persons registered in the years 1973 and 1979 had been affected adversely on account of introduction of Self Financing Scheme in the year 1982. 8. The Housing Board filed certain documents supporting the contentions raised in the appeals. 9. We have heard the submissions and scanned the materials on record. 10. He submitted that the persons registered in the years 1973 and 1979 had been affected adversely on account of introduction of Self Financing Scheme in the year 1982. 8. The Housing Board filed certain documents supporting the contentions raised in the appeals. 9. We have heard the submissions and scanned the materials on record. 10. Learned Single Judge in writ petition passed an order on March 17, 1993 directing the Housing Board to furnish the following details:- Þ1- lu~ 1973 vkSj lu~ 1975 easvkoklu ;kstukvkassds rgr cuk;s x;s edkuksa dh la[;k bl U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj foks"kdj ,p- vkbZ-th- xqzi ds edkuksa dh la[;k\R;d ckj Mªa esa fdl o"kZ esa fdrus O;fDr;ks 2- izsk dh x;h ykVfj;ksa dks lfEefyr fd;k x;k vkSj fdrus edku vkcafVr fd; sx;] bldk fooj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr fd;k tk,A s 3- U;k;ky; ds le{k ;g Li"V fd;k tk, fd 1973 dh Ldhe esa 40 izfrkr edku osruHkksxh oxZ ds ruHkksxh deZpkfj;ksfVr fd;s fy, vkjf {kr fd;s x;s Fks] mlds vuqlj.k esa fdrus edku osa dks vkcax;s\ 4- jktLFkku ljdkj }kjk jktLFkku vkoklu e.My vf /kfu;e- 1970 dh /kkjk&60 ds vUrxZr vius foosd dk iz;ksx djrs gq, 01 izfrkr edkuksa ds ckjs esas tkjh fd;s x;s vknskksa dh izfrfyfi;k¡ r dh tk, vkSU;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqj ;g Li"V fd;k tk, fd fHkUu&fHkUu oxksZa ds edkuksa ds alanHkZ esa jkT; ljdkj us dqy fdrus edkuksa dk vkcVu djus ds fy, le;≤ ij vkoklu e.My dks funsZk fn;s gSa vkSj jkT; ljdkj ds funsZkkuqlkj fdrus edku vc rd vkjf {kr fd;s x; s gAaS viuh fLFkfr Li"V djsa fd tc fofHkUu iath;dks 5- vkoklu e.My bl lEcU/k esa dks Js.kh cnyus ij muds iath;u ds o"kZ ugha cnys x;s gSa rks izkFkhZ ds ekeys esas fdl vk/kkj ij oxZ@Js.kh cnyus ds dkj.k mlds iath;u dk o"kZ 1973 ls cnydj 1983 ekuk x;k gSaaSSsasÞA 11. The details as required were not furnished but on March 22, 1994 learned Counsel for the Housing Board made a statement that available houses had been kept reserved for being given to the employees of the Housing Board on rent. It also appears that on February 24, 1994 the allottee filed an affidavit to the effect that number of houses constructed by the Housing Board were not made available for allotment instead they have been allotted to the employees of the Housing Board for temporary occupation. It also appears that on February 24, 1994 the allottee filed an affidavit to the effect that number of houses constructed by the Housing Board were not made available for allotment instead they have been allotted to the employees of the Housing Board for temporary occupation. The allottee also stated that four plots were available for construction of the houses but the Housing Board did not make any effort to raise construction. 12. The Housing Board did not counter the facts stated in the affidavit. Under these circumstances learned Single Judge observed that the total failure on the part of the Housing Board in furnishing any explanation was sufficient to draw an inference that the allottee was discriminated in the matter of allotment of house to him. Learned Single Judge was of the view that arbitrariness on the part of respondent Board has been compounded by the fact that the houses which have been constructed by the Housing Board for allotment to the applicants who were waiting in the queue have been let out to the employees of the Housing Board or have been made otherwise available for their residence. Neither the Rajasthan Housing Board Act nor any other Regulation framed there under permit adoption of this course by the Housing Board. 13. We see no illegality in the aforequoted observation of the learned Single Judge. Having scanned the record we notice that the Housing Board, even though did not produce the yearly priority list from 1973 to 1979, filed one Annexure-B giving the names of 32 persons who were allotted 32 completed independent houses of 40x90 in the draw held secretly on June 30, 1979 instead of June 18, 1979. In the said list Annexure-B, eight such persons were allotted independent houses of 40x90 in Jawahar Nagar whose names did not find place in the eligibility list. 14. Learned Counsel for the Housing Board took us to the prayers made in the writ petitions and various documents and made attempt to establish that the Housing Board took a correct decision in not allotting the house at Jawahar Nagar to the allottee but we are not impressed with the submissions. 15. The Housing Board in these intra Court appeals cannot be permitted to fill up the lacunas. 15. The Housing Board in these intra Court appeals cannot be permitted to fill up the lacunas. The scope of intra Court appeal is very limited and we see no good ground to place reliance on the material which was not placed before the learned Single Judge. The arguments advanced on behalf of the Housing Board are rather technical in nature. No reason has been assigned as to why the details required by the learned Single Judge were not furnished. The Housing Board even failed to explain as to why the facts stated in the affidavit by the allottee were not countered. 16. Thus, having regard to the fact found and in view of what is stated above, we cannot find fault with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge in the impugned Judgment . Hence, finding no merit in these appeals, they are dismissed with costs.