Subject to any rules made by die '[Admin istrator] under this Act, the Board may retain, lease, sell, exchange or otherwise dispose ofany land, building or other property vested in it and situate in the area comprised in any housing scheme sanctioned under this Act.
COMMENTARY Allotment or houses - Escalation of price - It was stipulated in the bro chure that price escalation if any, would not exceed 10% of the original price - Development Authority Is bound by terms of agreement In view of provision of Section 10 of Contract Act 1872 - Authorities raised 4-1/ times in price keeping aside the terms of agreement - Act of Authorities obviously is violative of Article 14 ofthe Constitution as well as provisions of Section 15 of Contract Act- Price cHiiiinL excised l.he prescribed limits - In such case Author!lies are required to satisfy the court that escalation in price Is not done In arbitrary and erratic manner - Prashant Kumar s case (2000)4 S.C.C. 120 distinguished and D.D.A. b case A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1 followed Kanpur Development- Authority v. Suit. Shccla Devi, 2004(1) II,R.R. 1 S.C.
AHulnicnl tifH.T.G. huuses - Discriiiiiuaiiun - The (musing Rt.mrtl allot ted houses in favour of some officers and ignored the petitioner who was similarity situated - Order wholly unjustified - Shri L.R. Roojam v. Shri K. Banarji, Chief Commissioner, 1985 H.R.R. 220.
* Substituted by Chd. Adtnn. Gaz. Notification dated 13-3-1975 ai pugc 34-35 Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 (as extended to Chandigarh) 501 Al lo tmen t - Revised policy of industrial sites forth© establishmentof print ing presses called into question in writ petition - Revised Policy does not suffer form any act of arbitariness - Appellants formed a separate class - All persons who have applied for industrial sites For establishing printing presses were grouped together- N o descrimination -Appeal dismissed- Constitution of India, Article 14 - Paradtsh Printers v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 1938 H.R.R. 409 S.C.
— T h e petitioner was allotted a flat way back in 1987 when she was regis tered at Sr. N o . 536 in the category of HIG (L) I houses but she was refused possession thereof on one pretext or another - The Board is debarred by its own conduct from raising baseless objection at such a belated stage when prices have gone sky rocketing - She cannot possibly apply for a plot of the same area for the prices prevalent in the year 1987 - Respondent directed to hand over the posses sion of the flat to the petitioner - Inder Bir Kattr v. The Chairman Chandigarh Housing Boald, 1 993 HRR 578.
Al lo tmen t - Incomple te const ruct ion - Respondent allottee had been informing the appellant Board, time and again, for making the flat residcntiable by putting up fittings and fixtures without which the flat remains only in a skelton form - It was being used for storing cement by the Board - Respondent without completion of construction of flat cannot be compelled to execute the agreement to pay the revised rate of the Hat with interest- Dismissing the appeal of Board it is directed to comply with the directions of the High Court issued vide its order dated 2.2.1993 - Bihar State Housing Board v. Lai it Ram, 1997 H.R.R. 243 S.C.
-—-The petitioner applied for theal lotmentofa Flat under a Scheme "foronc and al l" - She depositee! a sum of Rs. 4,000/- and later on Rs. 50,000/- for allot ment of House in Sector 45-A - She wrongly stated in her application that no member of her family was owning any residential house or plot in Chandigarh/ Panchkuta or Mohali while her husband had already been allotted a house - She realizing her mistake, wrote to the Board to cancel her husband's house to enable her to have the second house in Sector 45-A allotted to her but no reply was given by the Board -After having been directed by the Hon'blo High Court to hear her in this respect, the Board cancelled her allotment of Sector 45-A and ordered Rs.
54,000/- to be forfeited under Regulation No . 6 (2) of Regulation 1979 - Held the order of the Board cannot be sustained - The petitioner had acknowledged her in istake - She was not given any opportunity to explain her position by the authori ties - Forfeiture of the entire amount of Rs. 54,000/- of a Class III employee is a heavy loss - However, forfeiture of Rs. 4,000/- deposited with the application would meet the ends of justice - The respondent is directed to refund Rs. 50,000 to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 12% per annum - Smt. Ram Dulari v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh, \994 HRR 67.
_ Al lo tment of flat -Appellants were allotted plots and were delivered pos session of the same in the year 1988 by the respondent-Total payment was made .
by them as agreed - Demand made by Development Authority for additional pay ment from the appellants is not justified as they had paid the entire co3t of the Hat as agreed between the parties - Order of the High Court on, the ground of limita tion cannot be sustained as the objections in this regard were still pending before the Authority for consideration - Sanjay Place Group Housing Association v.
Agra Development Authority, 1994 HRR 154 S.C.
Al lo tmen t of G o v e r n m e n t houses - Cancel la t ion - On an inquiry it was found that the petitioners who were allotted government houses, had sublet the same and In-consequence thereof their allotment was cancelled - Held, the mere fact that a cyclostyled order was passed, does not prove that there was no appli- 502 Haryana Housing Board Ad't, 1971 (as extended to Chandigarh) nation urmiud by the authorities concerned - Balwupt Sin^jh v. Chief Secretary Government Punjab 1989 H.R.R. 620 D.B.
Allotment of house - The petitioner, an applicant for the allotment of a houso, was at the 1st serial number in the woiting list fo< ihc allotment-Allegedly his seniority was ignored and respondent No, 4 was allotted the house as the later had an influence in the corridore of the Housing Board - [t wa3 found that respon dent No. 4 had a preferential right whose claim was inadvertently ignored by the Housing Board - It would not be proper to nullify the allotment of numerous people who are not even party in the case - However, the respondent Board was d irected lu consider the petitioner's ease sympathetically fur allotment of another house - Mritanjay Dosaj v. Haryana Housing Board and others 1994 H.R.R. 265.
-—Discretion - Petitioner deposited Rs. 1,000/- with an application invited by Housing Board for allotment of houses - Petitioner was unsuccessful for allot ment in draw of lots - No objection was filed against the allotment through draw of lots All the allottees were not impleaded - No reply about the letter giving option of choice of plots was given by petitioner - Moreover, writ petition was filed after a delay of more than one year - There i3 no illegality in the allotment - Shamir Singh v Chandigarh Housing Hoard, 1995 H.K.K. 499.
Allotment Rules - Violation - Respondent had applied for allotment of a plot in Patna under the Scheme of Allotment -An undertaking was given that in case there was any allotment in the name of any member of the family including himself he would inform the Allotment Authority in this respect- First allotment was made in his name within the Municipal limit of Patna with delivery of posses sion Second allotment in the name of respondent was also made in the same vicinity No information was given to Authorities about first allotment violating terms of affidavit- Cancellation of second allotment by Autliuulics is legally valid - No citizen can be allowed to have second allotment within the same municipal area under the Allotment Rules- Order of High Court sustaining (ho allotment on equitable grounds quashed - Rules 2, 9 and 14 of the Rules for Settlement of Land Acquired and Developed by the State Govt, of Patna - Bihar State Housing Board w Satya Narayan Prasad, 1998 H.R.R. 153 S.C.
Application of mind - Illiterate Chairman • Petitioners were allotted houses by respondent with a tentative price of Rs. 35,000/- which was deposited by petitioners in the year 1977 - Subsequently, it was in 1981 that fresh cost of construction was computed to the tune of Rs. 62,8007- - It w,as alleged that Chair man of the Board being an Illiterate person had disposed of their ease without applying his mind as he could not understand either Hindi or English - There Is force in this contention -A quasi judicial Authority should apply its own mind and should not depend on the assistance of his staff- This kind of practice can neither he appreciated nor meefc the ends of justice - Haryana Housing Doard was di rected to keep in mind what is being observed herein for future - Parmanand v.
Chairman, Housing Hoard tTaiyanuh 1996 H.K.K. 559.
Arbitrary act - Increase in price - Chandigarh Administration increasing the price uf the allotted plots in any arbitrary and unreasonable manner- Interferr enCe In the arbitrary act of the Administration under Article 226 of the Constitu tion is amplyjustified - Major General Ram Singh (RetdJ v. Chandigarh Housing Board, 1991 HRR375.
—Allotment - The petitioner deposited 10% cost of the house to be allotted to him under a Scheme of the Housing Board, Haryana in Sector 29. Faridabad - He was allotted registration No. 645 - Having remained unsuccessful In the allotiiienl he was assured that his registration number would remain intact for allot- Haiyana Housing Board Act, 1971 (aa extended to Chandigarh) 503 merit in Sector 3 for the allotment of house He deposited the additional price of the house as demanded by the Board - Again he .was not allotted any house though there ware 774 houses available while his registration No. was 645 - Peti tioner was obviously entitled to allotment of a house in Sector 3 where the Board was allotted 40 acres of land for the construction of houses - Respondent- Board W M directed to accept the demand of the petitioner and allot nim a house in Sector 29 or 3 at the rate prevalent at the date of original application - Svrj'tt Singh's case AIR 1980 P & H 65 distinguished - Anil Kumar Chawla v. Hous ing Board tiaryana 1994 H,R,R. 267.
Cancellation of allotment — An LIG flat was allotted to petitioner on the basis of income category— Monthly income shown as Rs. 4712/- whereas he was drawing gross salary of R$. 5715 - Maximum limit for allotment of LIO flat was fixed at Rs. 5500 - Show cause notice about cancellation of flat is not illegal as petitioner was not eligible for the allotment Petition dismissed - Pawan Kumar v State of Haryana, 2009(2) Haryana Law Reporter 213 D.B.
Cancellation of plot - Automatic cancellation - Where the allottee nei ther conveyed acceptance nor paid the amount asked for within 30 days of the receipt of allotment letter, it was held, that allotment stands automatically can celled under Regulation 5 (5) of the Regulation 1978 - Smt, ArimaLuthra v. State of Haryana, 1987 (2) PLR 124 = 1986 Rev. L.R. 324.
Cancellation of plots - Opportunity - In S.K Oass v, Slate of Haryana, 198S PLJ 123 D.B. where-the allotments of plots were made to various persons out of the discretionary quota of the Government made by successive ministries and at the instance of Lok Dal ministry orders of cancellation of allotments of residential plots were made. These orders of cancellation were challenged before the Hon'ble Pb. & Hr, High Court - Whereupon the Division Bench made the following observations: That blanket order of cancellation is liable to be struck down (i) Where the Government did not apply its mind or acted arbitrarily or where no guide lines were laid for allotting plots carved out of green belts or areas reserved for public purposes (ii) Where allotee started construction after getting plans sanctioned (iii) where HUD \ did not apply its mind at all before issuing letter of cancellation, (iv) Where no show cause notice was given for cancellation as po_<rt decisional hearing would not meet ends of justice (v) Where the bona fide purchaser lor consideration from the original allottee was protected by Section 41 Of Transfer of Property Act.
Held, further that Courts always have control over arbitrary acts of Execu tive authority, The executive authority is required to discharge its function in good faith and farely and not in arbitrary way. Unchecked power is alien to rule of law W&iJt.Dass v. State of Haryana 1988 PLJ 123 =- 1988 (1) PLR 430 - 1988 RlRi.IL 370.
.Compound i n t e r e s t - A s per terms of allotment letter respondent Housing Board was al lowed to charge fair price of plot within 7 years of date of allotment - Ft included expenditure on construction of tenements and payment made towards enhanced compensation of land acquired alongwith 15% interest compounded quarterly on enhanced amount of compensation - It was never challenged by original allottee who went on depositing installments as per schedule hi the facts of the case, petitioners are not entitled to raise objection against charging of compound Interest - Petition dismissed - Hartley Singh v. Housing Board Haryana, 2009(2) Haryana Law Reporter 627 Discrimination - A press corrspondent, subsidised in house rent by State Government - Chandigarh Administration cancelled the allotment, taking the view http://RlRi.IL 504 Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 (as extended to Chandigarh) that allottee was a mere licensee as the subsidy in rent was withdrawn by the State government - Held, such a stand on the publ ic authority is not in consonance with the constitutional ohligation of the Government and its functionaries - Order of the Chandigarh Administration held to be illigal - Rajinder Kumar v. U.T Chandigarh, 1983 H.R.R 410.
Enhancement of price - Petitioners were allotted houses at the rate of Rs.
1,20,700/- for ground floor and Rs. 1,15,700/- for the 1st floor-Additional price of Rs. 20,500/- and 19,600/- was demanded for Increased cost of construction and Rs. 626V- and Rs. 2906A respectively on account of compensation of land - No justification was given for the enhancement of price and only justification was given that the work of construction by earlier contractor was not completed within time - The action of the Board enhancing the price cannot be sustained and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Krishan Lai v. Housing Board Haryana, 1994 HRR 207.
—Petitioners were allotted multi-storoyed flats at Manimajra by the respon dent Board - In category I tentative price of the flat was Rs. 4 Lacs and in category II it was Rs. 3 lacs - Subsequently the price was enhanced to Rs. 6-25 lacs and 4.75 lacs respectively, to be deposited by the petitioners - No reply was given to the representation made to the Board - Held, there is no justification for increasing the price arbitrarily - Notice of enhancement of prlee field liable to be quashed - However, it will be open to the Board to take fbrther action in accor dance with the terms and conditions of the contract in question - Dalbir Singh Bhagat v. Chandigarh Administration, 1993 H.R.R. 514 D.B.
—'The Chandigarh Administration decided toatlotsome land forconsrructionn often shops to Chandigarh Housing Board at the rate of lis. 500/- per sq, yard - The Board, thereafter invited application for allotment of these shops in the year 1983 and again in 1986 -The allottees were issued demand cum allocation letters demanding Rs. 3.5 lakh each plus balance amount of Rs. 1,5 lakh to be paid after the delivery of possession of the shop - It was in the year 1989 that the Board fixed and demanded Rs. 12,05,514/- against the tentative price of Rs. 5,00,000/- as advertised earlier - Held, the price as demanded by the Chandigarh Adminis tration vide its letter dated 31.10.1989 is hereby quashed with the direction that the allottees may be given possession of the shops at the rate of land as advertised earl ier - Major General Ram Singh (Retd,) v. Chandigarh Housing Board, I991HRR375. - * Escalation of price - In the instant case an LIG house was allotted at the cost was Rs. 45,000/- - Subsequently allottee was informed that escalation cost was raised to Rs. 2,08,000/- as final cost i.e. 4-7, times of original cost - As per terms of brochure price could be raised upto 10% only - Allotment authorities acted in an arbitrary manner not only in enhancing the price but also in delaying the possession - Order of High Court yetting aside the escalation of price upheld - Kanpur Development Authority v. Smt. Sheela Devi, 2004(1) H.R.R. 1 S.C.
Instalment - Reduction in period - Petitioners were allotted houses by the respondent -Total amount was to be paid in instalments spread upto 10 years - Period of payment reduced from 10 years to 8 years - The action of respondent redacting the period is illegal and not binding on the petitioner - The order of reducing the period cannot be sustained - Krishan Lai v. Housing Board Haryana, 1994 H.R.R. 207.
Interest on deposit - Respondent, Housing Board Haryana agreed to com plete the construction of allotted house within 2 years from the date of allotment - Haryfltia Housing Board Act, 1971 (as extended to Chandigarh) 505 i Petitioners deposite'd the amount in the year 1980 and 1982 - Houses were allot ted in the year iy«y - Petitioners held entitled to interest on their deposits at the rate which is paid by the Nationalized banks in Saving Hank Account - Ki'lshan Lai v. Housing Board Haryana. 1994 HRR 207 Misuse of premises - Misuse of premises by allottee who laiscd unauthorised construction on allotted land-Though allottee hecamft absolute owner ofallottcd plot still local authority has jurisdiction to regulatethe violations or misuse of property by the allottee - Commissioner or any other officer authorized by Corporation has discretionary power to compound any offence u/s 383 of Maryann Municipal Corporation Act - But such power should be exercised with abundant caution by authority concerned - Sut-esh Kumar v. Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, 2006(2) HRR 306 D.B.
Power of resumption - Constitutional power - No constitutional invalid ity can be imputed to power of resumption under the Act, The very concept of a planned urban development is now a well recognised social norm of a welfaie State challenge to constitutionality ufpruvisions uFAel on the basis ofprinclples enunciated on Otga Iblls case AIR 198(3 S.C 180 cannot be sustained - Sural Shlgh v. State of Haryana, 1990 PLJ 126 D.B.
—Weapon of hist resort - Where construction ofbuilding was to be started within two years as per condition of allotment letter The allottee could not stmt construction within the stipulated period as the actual possession of the plot was not delivered to him by the authorities. Held, order of resumption on the ground of failure to construct the building within the said period is wholly arbitrary. Power of resumption must be used as a weapon of last resort with ^reat caution by the authority under the Act - D.N. Kajriwal w State of Haryana. 1987 PLJ 532.
Pricing - Petitioners were allotted houses at the tentative price oFRs. 15,000/ - per house - Subsequent price was revised to Rs. 62,H007- due to rise fn aost of building material,,, labour charges and other reasons - Petitioners had given their consent for such increase from time to time.- There is no illegality in the demand of enhanced price by the Board - Moreover, Courts cannot go into the question of ijricingofhoustjs- Petition dismissed -Parmanand'v. Chairman. Housing Board laryana, 1996 H.R.R. 559.
Resumption and Natural justice - Where no notice was issued to guard ian of the petitioner who was a minor, the resumption order was quashed - Sural Singh v. Stale ofllarya/ia, 1990 PLJ 126 D.B.
Resumption and opportunity - Where the order of resumption was in respect ofbuilding in occupation uftenants along with the owner it was held that both owner as well as tenant are entitled to be heard before an order of resump- Lion is passed. In the absence of any material to show the issuance of such notice, the order of resumption was qtKished - Surat Singh v, State of Haryana, 1990 PLJ 126 D.B.
Transfer of plot - One Smt. Prem Lata was allotted an MIG House on hire purchase basis - Price of the dwelling unit was fully paid and all formalities were completed within the stipulated period - The provisional permission for the trans fer of allotted plot in favour of Ihe petitioner was granted by the Board - Transfer fee was deposited after the stipulated period with in wh teh the affidavit and indem nity hond was to be furnished - Delay in deposit of fee and other document not to stand in the way of transfer of the plot - The Board is directed to intimate the amount of conveyance du«d charges to be deposited by the petitioner within 15 days and then to transfer the dwelling unit rn the name of thg pctif ioncr Mis. M.
Bali v. Hoi/sing Board Haryana, Chandigarh, 1994 1IRR 88, 506 1 Tar/ana Housing. Board Act, 1971 (as extended to Chandigarh) UnnutlioiUed Construction - A dwelling unit was allotted to petitioner under the c a l o r y of "Economically weaker scclion" at Maloya eu cniy at Chandigarh who raised unauthorized construction on Government land -Allplineiit c l S w for violation of term, of allotment letter^ Pttitiom* *toP{£>« ". J " g for long period - No relief granted to him - Petition dismissed - Suraj u Union Territory Chandigarh, 2008{2) l iRR6'34 L>.B.
v3id/invftlid order of allotment - Mere reminding through * l*«*fr to take possession of a house which already is allotted to another person, cannot be termed Ss a"order of allotment - Sumer Chand Bhalt v. Tfie Housing Board, Haryana, l 9 W Violations of conditions - Cancellation - Peliuui.ei was allotted an HtG House under Self Financing Scheme- The main cond.t .on of allotment was that no family member of Allottee should be owning any house within the h mfc of Tricity i o Chand igarh. Mohall and Panchkula - But in the present case husband X i was owning house in Panchkula ancI this fact was not disclosed by petitioner She had suhmTtted a false affidavit in this regard - Pet.tfoner can ^ c k no relief from the Ouurt in this regard or. allotment was »8h«y ^ l l c d by auftorifr below - Petition dismissed - Shasta Bala v. Chandigarh Housing Board, 2014(2} Harvana Law Reportei 52G D.B.
Violation of legal provision - Encroachment - Show cause nofcu - nrlevancc of the petitioner is against a show cause not.ee by respondent tor encroachment on government land and issuance of notice w .^^'T' authority - The plea that issuance of notice under Punjab Capital Act and also under Housing Hoard Act is against law - Held the objection is without any men in view of decision rendered by this Court in Paramjeet Singly case deeded on A T ?n I ? (CWP No 10970 of 2007) when it was held that i apital of Punjab ACtt 1952 is applicable to urban as well as rural area of UT, Chandigarh as envisaged by section 4 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, L966 The objection is repelled - But as no opportunity of hearing after issuance of notice and passing of an order was given to the petitioner, the impugned outer is not legally susUnnable- Impugned Older quashed - Case remanded to pass an order after hearing the petitioner - Petition allowed - RS. Sawhneyv. Chandigarh HousmgBoard, 2012(1) Haryana Law Reporter 499 D.B, CASES UNDER CONSUMER P R O T E C T I O N ACT, 1986 The Housing activities carried on by the Statutory Authoritiesi or P»vafe builders come within die purview of the Consumer Protection Act WW - as held in Luchurw Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta's case 1994 (1) CPC I 3.C.
. It has been observed in this case by the apex Court that when any statutory authority develops land or allots a site or construct a house for the benefit o t common man, it is as much service as hy the builder oi a contractor -The caseu dealing with the subject of plots, flats or houses decided under the Consumer Protection Act are being discussed below > . _ Allotment - Allotment made by Housing Board to 235 members ot the respondent/society - Society introduced6 new memhers which delayed the allot ment of additional land- Housing Buard not liable foi delay in allotment which was caused by Society itself- Chandigarh Housing Board v. Krishan Kvmar C W , 2009(2) CPC 390 N.C.
http://not.ee Haryana Housing Board Act, 19/1 (as extended to Chandigarh) 507 t Allo tment t h r o u g h lot tery - Demand of extra charges for allotment of corner plot as per rules is not illegal even if it is a draw of allotment by lottery - Estate Manager, M,K Housing Board v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, 2010(1) CPC 376 S . C Convers ion in freehold N.O.C. - Pctitioncr/OP refused to issue NOC 3ua allotted house fbr conversion it in freehold on vague grounds — Kora below irected OF to issue NOC - Impugned order held to bo justified - 2012(2) CPC 362 N .C .
Demand of inflated pr ice - All the authorities below d ismissed the plea of the pel it inner who raised false demand against the allottees —Continuity of frivolous litigation should be discouraged Petition dismissed with penal cost of Rs. 1 l a c - 2013(1) CPC 630 S,C.
Ex t r a charges for c o r n e r plot - Demand of extra charges For allotment of corner plot as per rules Is not illegal even if it is a draw of allotment by lottery.
lottery- Estate Manager. M.P. Housing Board v. Rqjssh Kumar Gupta, 2010(1) CPC 376 S C - Hous ing a l lo tment - Allotment under Hire Purchase Agreement - Mous ing Board demanding enhanced price illegally — Complainant not liable to pay .
enhanced price Deficiency in seiviee proved - Housing Board Haiyana v Lekh Raj, 2009(3) CPC 686 Hr.
H o u s i n g Board - Allottee transferring plot to another person against terms nf allotment - N o t entitled to relief for delay in delivery ofpossess ionby Houaing Board - Chandigarh Housing Board v. Kapur Singh Qrewal, 2000(1) CPC 112 Chd.
—Allottees not entitled to raise the question ofpricing of flats or plot under the Consumer Protection Act - Punjab Housing Development Board v. All India Defence Personnel Welfare Association (Regd.), 1995(1) CPC 310 N.C.
-—Application for allotment of house in violation of Rules - Cancellation of allotment by Housing Board justified - Preeti Ahluwalla v. Chandigarh Hous ing Board, T 999(1) CPC 6S Chd.
—Authority of Housing Board in fixation oFprice of plot/flat is not open to challenge under Consumer Protection Act - National Consumer Awareness Group (Regd.) Chandigarh v. The Hovstng Commissioner, Punjab Housing Development Board, 1997(2) CPC 60P N.C.
—Board not bound Lo pay repair expenses unless proved by cogent evidonoe by allottee complainant - Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Hoard v N Sivasailam, 1996(2) CPC 337 N.C.
_ Cancellation of allotment of house due to violation of Regulation - Board m liahle tn refund after deducting 10% of deposited amount • Chandigarh Hous ing Board V. Surindcr Pall Sons, 2004( 1) CPC 413 N.C.
—Complainant taking possession of house without any protest - Claim for amount allegedly spent on house, cannot be accepted - Sushi! Kumar Gupta v.
Housing Board Haryana and Anothert 1996(H) CPC 35 Chd.
—Complainant who had deposited Rs. 1,10,000/- for house allotment was not allotted the house for three years - Housing Board held liuble to compensate the complainant - U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Partshad (Housing and Development Board) n C.P. Sharma and Others, 1991 CPC 327 N.C.
—Complainant 's house was reallotted to another person as ha had failed to comply with the necessary condition - Housing Board not liable fnr definient ser vice - Ramrsh Chand v. Chandigarh Housing Board, ,1996(2) CPC 25 Chd, 503 Harynna Housing Board Act, 1971 (as extended to Chandigarh) —Complaint against charging of escalated price by Housing Board - Order of State Commission awarding escalation cost upto 20% and direction toremove the defects upheld - Harendra v. M.P Qrih Nirman Mandal, 2002(2) CPC 131 N C.
Complaint regarding allotment of defective house is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act - Dilbagh Rai v. Housing BoardJTaryana, 1994(2) CPC 435 N.C.
Cracks appeared in the walls of flat allotted to complainant - Housing Board held liable to pay Rs. 25,000/- to complainant - Prof. R. Shanmugasundaram v. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 1997(2) CPC 384 N.C.
Delay in allotment of house without sound reasons - Housing Board is guilty of deficiency in service - Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur v. Dr. Veer Singh Mehta, 1997(1) CPC 412 N.C.
Del?y in delivery of possession of flat due to non- supply of water and electricity- Housing Board not liable for delay-/1 . Oopala Subramaniam v. Vice Chairman, A,P.H.H., Hyderabad, 1995(2) CPC 223 N-Q Delay of 7 years in delivery of possession of allotted house - HUDA is liable to pay 18% on deposit starting from two years afterdate of deposit- H. U. D.A.
v. Deviea Jaswal, 2003(1) CPC 111 N.C. - , u —Demand of balance amount from allottee was made in 1992 by Housing Board - Payment was made in 199* - Allottee directed to pay 12% interest for delayed period - M.P. Housing Board v. Jagat Kishore Khare, 2002(1) CPC 186 N.C „ . „ J j r , c , c . - Directions can be issued to the Housing Board for removal ot detect in the houses - Directions concerning schools or roads facilities cannot be issued - Secretary, Orissa State Housing Board v. The Chandra Sekfiarpur Housing Board Colony Unnayan Samiti, 1994(1) CPC 376 N.C.
—Housing Board cannot be burdened with a disproportionate compensation by consumer Fora - Bihar Stale Housing Board v. Frio Ranjan Roy, 1997(2) CPC 430 S.C.
—Housing Board charging higher price than 10% of the indicated price of plot and delaying the possession - Allottee entitled to refund of excessive price with 18% interest - M.P. Housing Board K Ashok Chandra Varshmy, 2003(2) CPC 7 N C —Housing Board delayed possession of flat for three years after receiving payment - Directed to pay Rs. 22,000 as compensation - Chandigarh Housing Board y. Daljit Singh 2001(2) CPC 133 Chd.
Housing Board failed to complete construction of house within stipulated period - Hetd guilty of deficiency in service - Rajasthan Housing Board v R.C.
Bhandari, 1997(1) CPC 465 N.C.
—Housing Board failed to construct house in agreed time after payment - Directed to refund entire amount with interest after deducting 20% of initial de posits - Bihar State Housing Board v. Gauri Shankar Singh, 2003(2) CPC 262 N C "' —Housing Board failed to construct the houses in time due to paucity of funds - Deficiency in service not proved - Prem Lata (Mrs,) V The Punjab Housing Development Board. 1994(1) CPC 25 Pb.
—Housing Board misleading complainant about grant of loan from his em ployer cancelled allotment despite payment of initial price - Housing Rnard di rected to refund the amount with 18% interest - Allam Aslam v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu-Housing Board, 2003(2) CPC 505 N.C.
i.
I Haryana Housing 3oard Act, 1971 (as extended to Chandigarh) 509 — I lousing Board though is statutory Body is not exempted from the provi sions of the Consumer Act - Directed to make its Rules "fair and jus t" to the public - Punjah Housing Development Board v. Shri Anil Shanna, 1991 CPC 601 Chd.
—Hous ing board, respondent not receiving the cheque though due to mis take of another statutory body - Respondent is not at fault - Dr. Sunii Kumar Wad/jwa v. U. P. Avas Evam Vihas Parishad, 1991 CPC 523 N.C.
— M I G flat constructed by the Housing Board found in dilapidated condition - Board directed to refund enf ire price with 12% p.a. interest and costs - Housing Board, Haryana through its Chief Administrator v. Shri Ramesh Kumar Cioel, 2002(2) CPC 362 Chd.
— N o Objection Certificate denied to allottee who failed to raise construc tion - Order uf cancellation of plot is unjustified - Chairman, Tamil Nadu Hous ing Board v Pitchaimuthammal, 1996(2) CPC 339 N.C.
— N o n delivery of possession of house despite payment of full amount - Housing Board directed to pay Rs. 5U,00U/- as costs - Rajasthan Housing Board v. Prakash Chand Jain, 2001(2) CPC 661 N.C.
—Pricing policy of Housing Board cannot be challenged under the Con sumer Protection Act - Housing Board Haryana v, Kartar Singh etc. etc., 1995(1) CPC I N.C.
— T h e MRTP Commission based it is finding on unfair trade practice against Housing Board on no evidence - Order of Commission set aside - Rajasthan Housing Board v. Smt. Parvati Devi ate, 20UU(2) Cl'C i y y S ,C -—Total price of flat paid - Delay of 7 months in possession - Housing Board directed to pay 12% interest on deposited amount - Chandigarh Housing Board u Shri Harjinder Singh, 2002(2) CPC 316 Chd- .
— U n d u e delay in sanction of zoning plan resulting in delayed pnssussiuw uf plot - Housing Board directed to pay 9 % p.a. interest on deposited amount - Krishan Kumar Goei, Advocate v. Chandigarh Housing Board, 2003(1) CPC 396 Chd.
—Wife allotted a house - Hushand rightly declined allotment by Chandigarh Housing Board - P.S. Sawhney v. Chandigarh Housing Board, 1999(2) CPC 229 N .C .
H o u s i n g complex - No provision for providing lift in agreement - Com plaint regarding lack of facilities of lift dismissed - / . Parthasrthy v, M/s, Homejiyiders Housing Promoters Ltd., 2002(7.) CPC 94 N.C.
H o u s i n g cons t ruc t ion - Delay in construction of house by Development Authority within time due to factors beyond its control - Deficiency in service not proved - SomimurtUura v. The Mysore Urban Development Authority, 1994(2) CPC 414 N . C .
• —Delay of seven years In delivery of possession of allotted house - Com plainant held entitled to compensation - HarbanS Singh V. Lvcknow Develop ment Authority, 1994(1) CPC 3K1 N.C.
Hous ing loan - Provisions of Bihar Coop. Society Act no bar ty complaint against charging of higher interest on housing loan - Ram Deo Singh (a). Ram Dev Prasad Singh v. Bihar State Housing Coop. Federation Ltd., 2003(2) CPC 564 N.C.
Housing scheme - Complainant deposited Rs. 3000A in 1989 as registra tion amount lor allotment - Scheme abandoned in 1996 without reason - Com plainant entitled to 18% interest nn deposits - Punjah l/rhan Development Atf thority v, Shri Jnder Pal Singh, 2002(1) CPC 389 N.C.
5 10 Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 (as extended to Chandigarh) —House not allotted even after receipt of 55% price - Authorities directed to refund deposits with 18% interest - George Thomas it Ght&iabad Develop ment A uthority, 1999( 1) C PC 183 N.C.
Housing service - Delay in delivery of possession by six years - Opposite parties liable to pay 18% interest on deposited amount - S.K. Jain v. H,U,D,A., 20040) CrC 33 K C - —Extra amount as alleged wa$ not charged from complainant - OP not liable For deficiency in service - Jugal Kishore Mahasfavari v. BhQpal Devel opment Authority, 2002(1) CPC 19TN.C.
—Housing Board accepted request 61 ullotee to accept the instalment as in cn-?c of hire purchase Board can not resile from its undertaking - Petition dis missed - Raj. Housing Board v Murali Lai Jaiman, 2003(1) CPC 110 N.C.
—PUDA failed to deliver physical possessionof allotted house - Directed to pay Rs. 500/- p.m. till date of delivery of possession along with Its. 20,000/- - Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority v. Ram Murti, 2002(1) CPC 559 N.C.
—Undue delay in delivery of possession of hOUSO - Award of interest @ 18% after two years upheld - GD.A. v. R-G. Swcena, 2002(2) CPC 82 N.C.
—Undue.delay in delivery of possession of house r OP Greeted to pay 16,5,% interest on deposited amount-? 'Leptmah Kumar Harwani v. M,P, State Co-op.
Homing Complex. 2003(1) GPC-229 N.C.
Judgement iu rem — Judgement iu.rem is binding not only to parties but upon all the world^-2009(1) CPC 443'RC; • .-" •.':„. j ~ ' Limitation - Cause uFaeliuii arose in-1998 when possession was delivered - Complaint Filed in 2002 without explaining delay is barred by limitation - Chandigarh Housing Board v. Krishan Kumar Gael. 2009(2) CPC 390 N.C.
Price of Hal— Price re-determined in LPA whose complainant was not a party - T,PAjudgement norbinding upon ailottec complainant—2009(1) CPC 443 N . C . • • - ' ' " . - . ' • • • • ' . .
Rate of interest - District Forum-allowing complaint directed OP to pay compensation and cost with 16% interest - Interest being On higher side reduced from 16°/a to 12% r Rest of the order left undisturbed - Madhya Pradesh Hom ing Tiaard v. CIS. Ddkeria,. 2009(3) CPC 678N.C . .
Review —An orderpassed by the pora. cannot be reviewed in the name of correction of typographical error - M.P.,Housing Board v.Jagdish Prasad Maheshwari, 2010(2) CPC 451 R C ; >^^ ' , - ; . , ; . './' ••:;..;< .
Typographical error1- An order passed by die Fora.eannot be. reviewed in the name of correction of typographical error - M.P. Homing Board v. Jagdish Prasad Maheshvfari, 20,10(2) CPC 451 N.C.
45, Disputes.regarding rc-constittttion of plots. - ( i ) Where by the mok- " ing of a housing scheme, any plots compHsed-injhca^aineludcd In.the scheme are reconstituted or any person is dispossessed, the Board shall after making such inquiry as it thinks FIE award to. the person affected by such re-constitutipn or .
dispossession such compensation as Udccrris reasonable. If the person J3 dissatis fied with the decision of the Board inihe motter,;hc,may informthe.Doard'accbrdingly. The Board shall there up oirrefcr the matter to tup Tribunal, \, '"•''•'••:
(2) The Tribunal shall then after making an inquiry dcteimhie the amount of' •;'
compensation and direel the Board lu pay the same (o the.person euncemed.
Harytuiii Housing Board Act, 1971 (as extended to Chandigarh) 5 11 CHAPTERV Tribunal drf. Trthunat. - TheTrihunal shall he the District Judge having jurisdiction In the area concerned.