UP HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARDversusRAMESH CHANDRA AGARWAL

730                       [2019]
               SUPREME COURT     7 S.C.R. 730
                              REPORTS                        [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A               UP HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD
                                         v.
                       RAMESH CHANDRA AGARWAL
                         (Civil Appeal No. 4529 of 2019)
B                                 MAY 01, 2019
               [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                            HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
             U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad-Registration and Allotment
      of Plot and Houses Rules, 1979 – rr.15,30 – Appellant-U.P. Housing
C     and Development Board floated a housing scheme – In 1982,
      respondent deposited an amount necessary for registration – In
      1993, respondent filed a consumer complaint against the appellant
      – District Forum gave liberty to the respondent to seek allotment at
      the current market value under any of the schemes of appellant –
D     Aggrieved, Respondent filed appeal before the State consumer
      Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) which was dismissed –
      National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
      directed appellant to make an allotment to the respondent for a
      total sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in any of the flats available in the Mandola
      Vihar Yojna, Ghaziabad – On appeal, held: Clause 5 of the
E     Registration booklet indicated that mere registration does not confer
      a right for allotment – Further, r.30 of the Rules, 1979 indicated
      that after the Board advertises the availability of a scheme in the
      newspaper, every registered applicant is at liberty to submit a consent
      letter for participation in the draw of lots – Applicant must show
F     readiness and willingness to participate in a draw of lots in retrospect
      of a specified scheme – In view of the clear position in the brochure
      and the Rules of 1979, the respondent had no vested right to seek
      an allotment – As a registered applicant, the respondent was at
      liberty to seek to participate in the draw of lots by indicating his
      consent to the appellant – NCDRC committed error in issuing
G     direction to the appellant to make an allotment to the respondent –
      Thus, the order of NCDRC set aside.
           In 1982, the appellant-Board floated a scheme for
      Economically weaker sections. The respondent deposited an
      amount of Rs.500 for registration. In terms of the Rules, 1979
H
                                        730
  UP HOUSING AND DEV. BOARD v. RAMESH CHANDRA                          731
                   AGARWAL

registered applicants were required to furnish their written           A
consent for being included in the draw of lots. None was provided
by the respondent. The respondent filed a consumer complaint
in 1993. The District Forum directed respondent to secure
allotment at the current value fixed by the appellant. Aggrieved,
the respondent filed an appeal which was dismissed by SCDRC.
                                                                       B
The NCDRC issued a direction to the appellant to make an
allotment to the respondent for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- . Hence
the present Special Leave Petition.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD : 1. The appellant is governed by the terms and             C
conditions advertised in its Registration Booklet and U.P. Awas
Evam Vikas Parishad-Registration and Allotment of Plot and
Houses Rules, 1979. Clause 5 of the Registration Booklet
indicates that mere registration does not confer a right for
allotment. Rule 15 makes a provision to the effect that the Board
is not bound to allot a house or plot to every registered holder.      D
Rule 30 indicates that after the Board advertises the availability
of a scheme in the newspaper, every registered applicant is at
liberty to submit a consent letter for participation in the draw of
lots. Mere registration does not oblige the authority to include
every registered applicant in the draw of lots. The applicant must     E
show readiness and willingness to participate in a draw of lots in
respect of a specified scheme. This is evident from Rule 30(2 ).
A set of priorities is provided in Rule 30 (5). In view of the clear
position in the brochure and the Rules of 1979, the respondent
had no vested right to seek an allotment. As a registered
applicant, the respondent was at liberty to seek to participate in     F
the draw of lots by indicating his consent to the appellant. After
paying an initial sum of Rs 500 in 1982 and a further sum of Rs
500 in 1985, the respondent did not pursue any remedies until
1993 when he moved the District Forum. The order of the District
Forum gave liberty to the respondent to seek allotment at the          G
current market value under any of the schemes of the appellant.
The NCDRC was manifestly in error in issuing a direction to the
appellant to make an allotment to the respondent for a total sum
of Rs 2,50,000 in any of the flats available in the Mandola Vihar
Yojna, Ghaziabad. There is no rationale basis or justification for
the amount of Rs 2,50,000 which has been fixed by the NCDRC.           H
732                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A     This direction proceeds purely on the basis of the Ipse dixit of
      the forum. The appellant, as a public authority, could not have
      been compelled to enter into a contract with the respondent.
      There was no contractual entitlement of the respondent to the
      allotment of a flat much less for an allotment at a specified price.
      In its effort to render justice, the NCDRC has adopted a view
B
      which is contrary to the basic principles of contract governing
      the law on the subject. [Para 15] [736-E-H; 737-A-C]
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4529
      of 2019.
C            From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2018 of the National
      Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision
      Petition No. 2631 of 2016.
               Vishwajit Singh, Ms. Vijaya Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
               Mr. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal, Respondent-in-person .
D
               The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
               DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
               1. Leave granted.
             2. In 1982 the appellant floated a scheme for Economically Weaker
E     Sections. The respondent deposited an amount of Rs 500, initially in
      1982, for registration. Later, in 1985, an additional amount of Rs 500
      was deposited when the registration fee was enhanced to Rs 1000. Clause
      5 of the Registration Booklet provided as follows:
               “ The registration of a person does not in any way confer any
F              right or guarantee that the Board is bound to allot a plot or house
               to him, nor will he be entitled to claim any compensation if he is
               not allotted the property as desired by him.”
            3. The appellant is governed by the UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad-
      Registration and Allotment of Plots and Houses Rules, 1979 1. Rule 15
G     provides as follows:
               “Board is not bound to allot the houses/plots to every registration
               holder. Those who are not allotted the land/house by the Board
               are not entitled to claim the dues/amount spent.”
      1
H         Rules of 1979
UP HOUSING AND DEV. BOARD v. RAMESH CHANDRA                                733
 AGARWAL [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

  4. Rule 30 contains the following stipulations:                          A
  “Sending Application Form, Written Consent is necessary:
  (1) In the event of availability of property in any Scheme, intimation
  to effect shall be published in newspapers through advertisement
  or written intimation shall be sent to the registered persons through
  registered post or both means of communication. Apart from               B
  description of available proper, date of allotment draw, place and
  time shall also be mentioned in the said written intimation.
  (2) Application form in prescribed format shall be available at the
  place mentioned in the aforesaid intimation as well as in the office
  of Estate Management officer of the city. Merely getting his/her         C
  name registered with the parishad, the name of a registered person
  shall not automatically be included in the lottery draw. It would
  be compulsory for the registered person to submit written consent
  letter (in prescribed format) for each and every scheme before
  the date of lottery draw so that his/her name could be included in       D
  the draw.
  (3) Application form can also be sent through registered post so
  as to reach in the concerned office before the last date. The
  Parishad shall not responsible for postal delay.
  (4) The willing buyer must ensure that he is providing true and          E
  correct information in the application form. In complete and
  conditional form shall not be entertained. At any point of time, if
  it is found that the applicant has concealed any vital/relevant fact
  or has provided incorrect information, his application form shall
  be subject to rejection and if a plot or house has already been          F
  allotted to him/her, the Housing Commissioner shall have the power
  to cancel his allotment and to make deduction and to impose fine
  as provided in Rule 45.
  (5) Priority will be given to the willing buyers, whose registration
  was done in first phase over those who were registered in the
                                                                           G
  second phase. Similarly, persons registered in the second phase
  shall get priority over the buyers registered in the third phase, etc.
  Provided that the Parishad shall reserve the right to invite
  application for allotment from registered persons of only one phase
  or more than one phases of any scheme. The Parishad further
                                                                           H
734              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A            reserves the right to grant liberty to a particular class to participate
             in the registration phase. The particular class, so granted liberty,
             shall take benefit of priority in the registration phase, e.g. willing
             buyers of reserved class, who were registered in the first phase
             shall get priority over those reserved class buyers who were
             registered in the second phase.”
B
             5. The first advertisement was published by the appellant in 1992.
      In terms of the above Rules, registered applicants were required to furnish
      their written consent for being included in the draw of lots. None was
      provided by the respondent.
C            6. The respondent filed a consumer complaint on 30 August 1993,
      nearly eleven years after the date of registration. In the meantime, a
      second advertisement was published by the appellant on 15 January
      1995. By an order dated 5 April 1995, the District Consumer Disputes
      Redressal Forum, Ghaziabad2 disposed of the complaint by directing
      that the respondent, at the highest, may secure an allotment, if he so
D     desires at the current value fixed by the appellant.
              7. Against this order of the District Forum, the respondent filed a
      first appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission3.
             8. On 25 September 1995, the appellant published an allotment
      notice indicating the proposed allotment of vacant properties. On 28
E     August 1996, the appellant enhanced the registration amount and all
      existing registered applicants were required to pay the difference in order
      to keep their registration alive for future schemes. On 1 November
      2002, the appellant issued an office order providing that those applicants
      who failed to get an allotment in the draw of lots could be entitled to
F     refund of the registration monies. However, it was made clear that
      unsuccessful applicants would have to apply afresh for any new scheme.
            9. Between 27 October 1998 and 28 April 2015, the appeal filed
      by the respondent was listed before the SCDRC at Lucknow on eight
      dates of hearing. Neither the respondent nor his counsel appeared.
      Eventually, by an order dated 28 April 2015, the appeal was dismissed
G
      by the SCDRC in the absence of any representation by the respondent.
      The respondent then filed a revision before the National Consumer
      Disputes Redressal Commission4 on 18 August 2016. During the course
      2
        District Forum
      3
        SCDRC
H     4
        NCDRC
   UP HOUSING AND DEV. BOARD v. RAMESH CHANDRA                                   735
    AGARWAL [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

of the hearing, the appellant filed an application to place on record relevant   A
documents including the Registration Booklet, the office order dated 1
November 2002 and the Rules of 1979. The appellant also sought to
produce copies of the advertisements which were published from time
to time.
       10. On 26 July 2018 the NCDRC directed the appellant to explore           B
whether any plots/flats were available in any scheme of the appellant
and to place relevant data including the particulars for allotment on
affidavit.
       11. In pursuance of the above direction, the appellant filed an
affidavit on 8 August 2018 indicating the following position.                    C
       “That … the flats which are available today are subject to auction
       wherein the rates are fixed according to the size of the flat, the
       location of the flat i.e. Ground floor, first floor, second floor and
       third floor. A perusal of the auction booklet of the answering
       respondent with regard to the aforesaid scheme of the Parishad            D
       would show the price at which the left over flats under different
       schemes are provided to general public. The allotment is done by
       way of auction and a perusal of the auction rates for Mandola
       Vihar Yojna, Ghaziabad residential flats is Rs.12.61 lakhs for
       ground floor; Rs.11.37 lakhs for first floor; Rs.11.23 lakhs for
       second floor and Rs.11.09 lakhs for third floor.”                         E

       12. The NCDRC decided the revision by its order dated 11
December, 2018 which is impugned in the present appeal. A direction
has been issued to the appellant to allot a flat on the ground floor in the
Mandola Vihar Yojana, Ghaziabad to the respondent subject to his paying
a sum of Rs 2,50,000 towards consideration for the flat within a period          F
of six weeks from the date of the passing of the order.
       13. Assailing the judgment of the NCDRC, it has been urged by
Mr Vishwajit Singh, learned counsel for the appellant that in the present
case the respondent merely got himself registered for allotment. There
was no allotment to the respondent. Moreover, it was submitted that the          G
Rules for allotment which have been adverted to earlier, more specifically
Rules 15 & 30, indicate that mere registration does not confer an
entitlement to the allotment of a flat and every registered applicant is
required to furnish written consent for participating in the draw of lots.
In the present case, it was submitted that the appellant did nothing of the
                                                                                 H
736             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 7 S.C.R.


A     kind and eventually filed a consumer complaint only after eleven years
      after the date of registration. Learned counsel submitted that even before
      the SCDRC, the respondent consistently remained absent. Before the
      NCDRC, the appellant filed a statement indicating the current prices for
      the allotment of residential flats in the Mandola Vihar Yojana. It has
      been urged that the NCDRC by compelling the appellant to allot a flat to
B
      the respondent for a sum of Rs 2,50,000 has acted in a manner contrary
      to law. There was no contract between the appellant and the respondent.
             14. On the other hand, the respondent, who appeared in person,
      has submitted before the Court that after he registered himself with the
      appellant in 1982, he had from time to time made queries with the appellant
C     in regard to the likelihood of his being allotted a flat in any of the schemes
      of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad. The respondent submitted that
      he was never informed of any scheme or of any allotment in his favour.
      The respondent urged that the order which has been passed by the
      NCDRC is just and equitable. Having waited since 1982 for an allotment,
D     he cannot be now compelled to get an allotment at the current market
      value.
             15. The appellant is governed by the terms and conditions
      advertised in its Registration Booklet and by the Rules of 1979. Clause
      5 of the Registration Booklet indicates that mere registration does not
E     confer a right for allotment. Rule 15 makes a provision to the effect that
      the Board is not bound to allot a house or plot to every registered holder.
      Rule 30 indicates that after the Board advertises the availability of a
      scheme in the newspaper, every registered applicant is at liberty to submit
      a consent letter for participation in the draw of lots. Mere registration
      does not oblige the authority to include every registered applicant in the
F     draw of lots. The applicant must show readiness and willingness to
      participate in a draw of lots in respect of a specified scheme. This is
      evident from Rule 30(2 ). A set of priorities is provided in Rule 30 (5).
      In view of the clear position in the brochure and the Rules of 1979, the
      respondent had no vested right to seek an allotment. As a registered
G     applicant, the respondent was at liberty to seek to participate in the draw
      of lots by indicating his consent to the appellant. After paying an initial
      sum of Rs 500 in 1982 and a further sum of Rs 500 in 1985, the respondent
      did not pursue any remedies until 1993 when he moved the District Forum.
      The order of the District Forum gave liberty to the respondent to seek
      allotment at the current market value under any of the schemes of the
H
   UP HOUSING AND DEV. BOARD v. RAMESH CHANDRA                                 737
    AGARWAL [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

appellant. The NCDRC was manifestly in error in issuing a direction to         A
the appellant to make an allotment to the respondent for a total sum of
Rs 2,50,000 in any of the flats available in the Mandola Vihar Yojna,
Ghaziabad. There is no rationale basis or justification for the amount of
Rs 2,50,000 which has been fixed by the NCDRC. This direction
proceeds purely on the basis of the Ipse dixit of the forum. The appellant,
                                                                               B
as a public authority, could not have been compelled to enter into a
contract with the respondent. There was no contractual entitlement of
the respondent to the allotment of a flat much less for an allotment at a
specified price. In its effort to render justice, the NCDRC has adopted
a view which is contrary to the basic principles of contract governing
the law on the subject.                                                        C
       16. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal. The impugned
order of the NCDRC shall stand set aside. There shall be no order as to
costs.

Ankit Gyan                                                   Appeal allowed.
                                                                               D




                                                                               E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H