Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 80 (GUJ)

Bajrang Lal Agarwal v. Rajasthan Housing Board

2006-02-03

SUNIL KUMAR GARG, SUSHMA TANWAR, T.P.GUPTA

body2006
Judgment T.P. Gupta, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 23.09.2002 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur-I, Jaipur whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed. 2. In this case, the complainant-appellant had registered himself for allotment of a house at Sumerpur (District Pali) under General Registration Scheme in 1982 and had deposited the registration amount of Rs. 3,000/-. The appellant applied for transfer of his registration from Sumerpur to Jaipur on 28.04.1989 and later had deposited an amount of Rs. 5,000/- for getting a house at Jaipur under Parijat Yojna. The appellant filed a complaint in the Forum below alleging that he has not been allotted a house at Jaipur whereas other applicants have been given a house and as such a house may be allotted to him and damages amounting to Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony should be paid to him. 3. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved from this order the appellant has filed this appeal. We have heard the arguments and submissions made by the learned Counsels of both the parties, perused the impugned order and considered the materials placed on record. We are in general agreement with the findings of the Forum below. 4. In this case, the appellant had registered himself for allotment of a house at Sumerpur (District Pali). The appellant was asked twice in 1988 to deposit the seed money which was not deposited by him and as such allotment of a house at Sumerpur was not made to him. In these circumstances, there is no deficiency on the part of the respondents. 5. As regards allotment in Parijat Yojna, the appellant was informed by the respondent on 14.05.1998 that he should give his consent for allotment of a house in Sanganer Scheme under SFS so that further action can be taken in the matter. The appellant had failed to give his consent. In such circumstances, the appellant cannot take advantage of his own default and no fault can be found against the respondents. 6. In the present case the appellant has not alleged any discrimination in the matter between similarly placed persons. The appellant is claiming a right only on the basis of registration. The appellant had failed to give his consent. In such circumstances, the appellant cannot take advantage of his own default and no fault can be found against the respondents. 6. In the present case the appellant has not alleged any discrimination in the matter between similarly placed persons. The appellant is claiming a right only on the basis of registration. As stated above, he had himself failed to deposit the money and give the requisite consent and he cannot blame anyone for that. It is also well settled that the allotment scheme has to be distinguished from the registration scheme and no right of allotment to a house is conferred on any applicant by mere registration under the General Registration Scheme. If any authority is need on this well settled position of law, reference be made to the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Sumitra Madhukar Arsekar vs. The Chairman, Goa Housing Board & Anr., 1995 (II) CPJ 194 (NC). 7. In view of the above, in our considered opinion, the discretion exercised by the learned District Forum cannot be termed as arbitrary, perverse or capricious and as such no interference by us is called for. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order is up held. No costs.