Failure to implement a housing scheme entitles applicants only to refund with interest, not allotment as of right.

The petitioners applied to the Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board for allotment of LIG houses under the relevant housing scheme.

The Board informed them that tenders had been invited for implementation of the scheme, but no bidder came forward; consequently, the scheme could not be implemented and the Board decided to refund the petitioners’ initial deposits with interest.

The Board issued cheques for Rs.75,081/- to Sharad Kumar Yadav and Rs.76,908/- to Smt. Anupama Rawat, but the petitioners refused to accept them and the cheques were returned to the Board.

The petitioners challenged the subsequent advertisement/action of the Board and sought allotment of alternative LIG houses at the earlier rate, or compensation of Rs.5 lakhs.

Whether the petitioners acquired an enforceable right to allotment of LIG houses merely by registering/applying under the original housing scheme.

Whether the Board’s decision to cancel/non-implement the scheme and refund the registration amounts with interest was contrary to the applicable guidelines.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to allotment of alternative houses or compensation of Rs.5 lakhs.

The Court applied the note contained in the Board’s housing-scheme guidelines, which provided that registration/allotment constituted only an initial approval and did not create any right or interest in favour of the applicant; where the Board altered the scheme or its implementation became impossible, the applicant was entitled only to refund of the registration amount without deduction, together with interest according to the Board’s rules.

Accordingly, registration under the scheme did not confer a vested or enforceable right to allotment, and the Board was entitled to refund the deposited amount with applicable interest where the scheme was not implemented.

No separate statutory provision or judicial precedent was relied upon in the order.

The Court found that the tender process had failed because no bidder participated, making implementation of the original scheme impossible.

The guideline expressly contemplated this contingency and limited the applicant’s entitlement to refund of the registration amount with interest, rather than allotment of a house.

Since the Board acted in accordance with that stipulation and had issued the refund cheques, the petitioners could not claim allotment of an alternative house as a matter of right.

Their refusal to accept the cheques did not enlarge their contractual or legal entitlement.

The Court further held that a later or subsequent housing advertisement could be independently applied for, but it did not create any right to allotment under the earlier scheme or justify compensation.

It held that the petitioners had no enforceable right to allotment of the houses or to compensation, because the scheme was not implemented and the Board had properly offered refund with interest.

However, the petitioners were permitted to receive the offered refunds of Rs.75,081/- and Rs.76,908/- respectively.

If they approached the MP Housing Board, Sagar, within seven days of the order, the Board was directed to refund the respective amounts within a further fifteen days.