Supreme Court directs allotment of flat to appellant in housing dispute: Daulat Singh Rathore vs. Rajasthan Housing Board (2017)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 04 December 2017

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. and Navin Sinha, J.

Can a housing board be directed to allot a flat to an applicant after a long-standing dispute? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving the Rajasthan Housing Board. The Court directed the Board to allot a flat to the appellant, resolving a dispute that had spanned several years. This judgment highlights the Court’s approach to balancing equities and safeguarding the interests of both parties in housing disputes.

Case Background

In 1982, the Rajasthan Housing Board (the Board) invited applications for the sale of houses/flats in Jodhpur. Daulat Singh Rathore (the appellant) applied for a flat under the Middle Income Group “B” category on 27 December 1982. He deposited Rs. 4,600 as registration amount on 30 May 1983, and Rs. 15,000 as the first installment on 18 September 1993. Disputes arose between the appellant and the Board regarding the sale of the flat.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, which was dismissed as infructuous on 04 May 1995. Subsequently, the appellant pursued two remedies: a civil suit in the Court of ADJ(I) at Jodhpur (which is still pending) and a complaint before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTP Commission), New Delhi. The MRTP Commission dismissed the complaint on 20 February 2006, leading the appellant to file a special leave petition in the Supreme Court, which was granted on 17 May 2007.

Legal Framework

The Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970, governs the functioning of the Rajasthan Housing Board. The Act establishes the Board and defines its powers and functions related to housing development in the state. The specific sections of the Act relevant to this case were not mentioned in the judgment.

Arguments

The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments made by both sides. However, it can be inferred that the appellant was aggrieved by the Board’s failure to allot a flat despite his application and initial payments. The Board, on the other hand, likely contended that there were valid reasons for not allotting the flat.

The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had proposed to the Board for reconsideration of his case for allotment of the flat. The Court also observed that the Board had decided to allot one flat to the appellant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame any specific issues for consideration, as it disposed of the appeal based on the directions given to balance the equities between the parties.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The Court did not frame specific issues but instead focused on resolving the long-standing dispute by directing the Board to allot a flat to the appellant.

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific legal authorities (cases or statutes) in this judgment.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily concerned with balancing the equities between the parties and ensuring a fair resolution to the long-standing dispute. The Court’s decision was driven by the need to safeguard the interests of both the appellant and the Board. The Court took into account the appellant’s initial payments and the Board’s eventual decision to allot a flat. The Court’s sentiment was to bring a quietus to the litigation.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the need to provide a just and equitable solution to a long-standing dispute. The Court directed the Board to allot a flat to the appellant, taking into account the initial payments made by the appellant and the current market price of the flat.

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations, as its primary focus was on resolving the dispute amicably.

The decision was reached by directing the Board to allot a flat to the appellant, with specific directions regarding the price and payment terms.

The reasons for the decision include:
✓ To balance the equities between the parties.
✓ To safeguard the interests of both parties.
✓ To resolve the long-standing dispute.
✓ To ensure that the appellant receives a flat after making initial payments.

The judgment does not include any direct quotes from the judgment.

There were no majority or minority opinions in this judgment.

Key Takeaways

✓ Housing boards must address long-pending disputes with applicants.

✓ Courts may direct housing boards to allot flats to applicants to balance equities.

✓ Initial payments made by applicants are considered when resolving disputes.

✓ Courts aim to provide a fair and equitable resolution to long-standing disputes.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

(i) The Board will allot one flat to the appellant in Jodhpur in Board’s Middle Income Group “B” Housing Scheme.

(ii) The appellant will pay the price of the flat selected by him as per the approved Government’s price prevalent and in force as on the date of this judgment.

(iii) The Board will adjust a sum of Rs.19,600/- + interest @12% per annum to be calculated on Rs. 19,600/- from the date of its payment by the appellant to the Board till the date of execution of sale deed by the Board in appellant’s favour from the total price.

(iv) The appellant will pay a total price of the flat to the Board after deducting Rs.19,600/- + interest to be calculated @ 12 % p.a. on Rs.19,600/- from the date the said payment was made by the appellant to the Board till the date of execution of sale deed of the flat.

(v) The Board will accordingly work out the price of the flat, as directed above, and inform the appellant.

(vi) If the appellant deposits the entire sale consideration, as directed above, within the time fixed by the Board in the notice sent to the appellant, the Board will execute the sale deed in favor of the appellant and also in favor of appellant’s first blood relation jointly along with the appellant, in case, the appellant expresses his wish to allow any of his blood relation to join with him as co-owner in execution of the sale deed.

(vii) If the appellant fails to pay the price within the time fixed by the Board then a sum of Rs.19,600/- deposited by the appellant with the Board shall stand forfeited.

(viii) All the formalities, as directed above, must be completed within 6 months from the date of receipt of this judgment by the parties.

Development of Law

The judgment does not lay down any new legal principle. It primarily focuses on resolving a specific dispute by balancing the equities between the parties. The ratio decidendi of the case is that in cases of long-standing disputes between housing boards and applicants, the court may direct the housing board to allot a flat to the applicant, while ensuring that the housing board is also not put to a loss.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Daulat Singh Rathore vs. Rajasthan Housing Board directs the Rajasthan Housing Board to allot a flat to the appellant, resolving a long-standing dispute. The Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of balancing equities and safeguarding the interests of both parties in housing disputes. The Court’s directions ensure that the appellant receives a flat while also protecting the Board’s financial interests.