1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION

 Civil   Appeal No 4529  of 2019                   (@ SLP (C ) No. 5957 of 2019)

UP Housing and Development Board                  Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

Ramesh Chandra Agarwal                              Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J  

1 Leave granted.

2 In 1982 the appellant floated a scheme for Economically Weaker 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 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, 19791.  Rule 15 provides as

1Rules of 1979

2

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.”

4 Rule 30 contains the following stipulations:

“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 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 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 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 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  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 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

3

Parishad  further  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.”

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.   

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 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 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

2District Forum 3SCDRC

4

could be entitled to 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 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 of  the hearing, the appellant filed an application to place on record

relevant 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 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.

“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 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.”

4NCDRC

5

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 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 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 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 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

6

before the Court that after he registered himself with the appellant in 1982, he had

from time to time made queries with the appellant 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, 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 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  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  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

7

allotment at the 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.

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 which is

contrary to the basic principles of contract governing the law on the subject.   

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.

…………………………….................J.                       (Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud)

.......................................................J.           (Hemant Gupta)

New Delhi; May 01, 2019