ORDER
Bharati Ray, Member (J)
1. Heard Mr. M. Hara Bhupal, applicant in person and Mr. A. Radhakrishna, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. It is the case of the applicant that he had applied for grant of House Building Advance (HBA) in terms of the Ministry of Works & Housing, Govt. of India O.M. No. I/17011/11/80-H3.III dated 5.3.1983 and he has been sanctioned HBA in terms of the said O.M., vide IB letter No. 15/C-V/84(20)-302 dated 29.1.85. It is contended by the applicant that in the said O.M., it has been categorically mentioned that advance could be granted to the Central Government Employees without the necessity of mortgaging the land or building where such flats are situated subject to the condition that the applicant shall execute a personal bond in Annexure-I and furnish a Surety Bond as in Annexure -II to the said O.M. The applicant had complied with the above stipulation by furnishing the personal bond as well as surety bonds, pursuant to which only the first instalment of his HBA was released to him vide IB letter No. 15/C-V/84(20)-517 dated 14.2.1985. Hence, in his case, the question of executing the Mortgage Deed did not arise. With regard to the execution of Mortgage Deed in Form No. 4 in respect of property under lease-hold, a perusal of Form No. 4 and Form No. 4(B) clearly indicates that there should exist a deed of conveyance/lease in favour of the purchaser i.e. the applicant in this case, from DDA/his Co-operative Society upon which only the execution of the mortgage deed in Form No. 4, Form No. 4(b) can be possible. The applicant vide letter dated 06.2.1992 addressed to the DIB forwarded through the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, with whom the applicant was on deputation then, intimated to the DIB that after completion of construction of the flat he had taken possession of the flat from the Kakateeya Group Housing Society pending formal registration of the flat in his favour. It is the case of the applicant that subsequently, no other documents much less the deed of lease/conveyance had been executed by the cooperative society in his favour in respect of the flat till the free hold conveyance deed was executed and registered on 11.5.01 by the DDA through the Cooperative society. The possession of the flat had been handed over to his cooperative society pursuant to an agreement between the society and himself executed on the first day of July, 1991. Two of the conditions of the said agreement were that the said agreement shall not confer any right, title or interest to the applicant over the said flat and that he should not create any change of any nature whatsoever on the said flat, till execution of deed of apartment/sub-lease.
3. It is therefore the contention of the applicant that in view of the above fact of execution of mortgage deed even in Form No. 4 or Form No. 4(b) was not practicable in his case in the given circumstances at that time till the property was executed and registered in his favour by DDA on 11.5.2001.
4. The applicant immediately after execution of the above said deed on 11.5.2001, had requested the administration vide his note dated 29.6.2001 to get the conveyance deed handed over by the DDA to DCHFC, New Delhi the second mortgagee from the DCHFC, New Delhi so as to enable him to execute the requisite mortgage deed and accordingly IB has also written a letter to DCHFC vide No. 14/C-III/90(01)-II-2810 dated 17.10.01 to forward the original conveyance deed to IB since IB was the first mortgagee and to enable him to mortgage the flat in favour of the President of India which was also followed up by a reminder vide letter dated 21.10.02. Subsequently, vide letter No. 21(48)/2002-03/DCHFC/5694 dated 11/15-11-02, the DCHFC had forwarded the original conveyance deed to Ad/C-III, IB Hqrs, New Delhi. It is contended by the applicant that by that time the applicant had already cleared the dues thereon to IB in full. Hence, IB has sent back the original conveyance deed to DCHFC, New Delhi stating that IB was no more interested in property since the applicant had already cleared all the dues. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the applicant by letter dated 16.3.2005 requested the Asst. Director /C-III, IB Hqrs., New Delhi that his case be taken up with Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), if necessary again, and he be granted the due rebate of 2.5% interest on the HBA and proper orders be passed for refunding the interest paid by him. The applicant has narrated the facts mentioned above in the said representation, which is enclosed as AnnexureA/1 to the O.A.
5. The applicant earlier submitted a representation on 18.11.2002, which is annexed as Annexure-A/7 at pages 26 & 27of the O.A. narrating the circumstances under which the property could not be mortgaged. It is seen from the Annexure-R/1 to the counter reply filed by the respondents that the Assistant Director in his note has mentioned that the possession of the flat was handed over to the applicant i.e. Shri Hara Bhupal by the society in the middle of 1991 in a semi-constructed stage and he completed the construction of the flat in January, 1992. However, after taking possession of the flat, he has been regularly insuring the flat and has submitted the receipts of the same to the Deptt. It is also mentioned that the Kakatiya CGHS, Delhi has been insuring the whole of society flats separately against annual contribution from flat owners. It can be seen from the said note that the entire amount of HBA of Rs. 64,000/- has been repaid in full by the applicant. The interest on HBA has been calculated without allowing 2.5% rebate as he has not mortgaged the flat in the name of the President, Union of India and an amount of Rs. 51,900/- towards interest has been recovered/deposited by him. It is also evident from the said letter that applicant has requested that since he has not violated any HBA rules in not mortgaging the property as the same remained as a leasehold property of the DDA till June, 2001, he may be allowed 2.5% rebate in the interest on HBA. It is therefore mentioned by the Asst. Director in his note that in view of the position explained therein, MHA may convey the approval of the competent authority for allowing rebate of 2.5% in the HBA interest in respect of the Shri M. Hara Bhupal, AD, IB. It is also seen from the Asst. Director letter dated 18th August, 2003 annexed at page -14 of the reply that the applicant has been regularly insuring the flat and has submitted the receipts of the same to the Department., but the same could not mortgage the property as the same remained a leasehold property of the DDA till June, 2001. The Assistant Director vide its letter dated 16.8.2005 has made a mention about the O.M. dated 05.03.983. He has made a mention that Ministry of Works and Housing had issued instructions vide their O.M. No. I-17011/11/80/H.III dated 05.3.1983 stating inter aila that HBA may be granted to Central Government Employees who are members of such societies without the necessity of mortgaging the land and/or building where such flats are situated. The grant of advance in such cases was subject to the following conditions:
The applicant Central Government Servant shall execute a personal bond in Form given at Annexure-I and also furnish a surety bond in form given at Annexure-II to this O.M. The surety bond shall be executed jointly by two sureties who are permanent govt. servants of adequate status having sufficient length of service up to the period of recovery of the advance with interest from the loanee. The surety should not be husband/wife or member of the same joint family, and as far as practicable, should not have stood surety for any body else.
6. In para -4 of the said letter, the Asst. Director categorically mentioned that Shri Hara Bhupal had complied with the above stipulation by furnishing a personal bond as well as surety bonds and only after that the first installment of HBA was released to him and he has also opined that the conditions stipulated therein in the O.M. dated 05.3.2003 had been complied with by the applicant and there was no necessity of mortgaging the flat purchased from Cooperative Group Housing Society. Therefore, he has requested the MHA to take up the case of the applicant with the Ministry of Urban Development for their approval to grant 2.5% rebate on interest on HBA, sanctioned to him. The said letter is annexed at page 17 to the counter reply. At para 4.11, the respondents have stated in their counter reply that they have taken up the matter earnestly with the Ministry of Home Affairs for considering rebate of 2% to the applicant. The respondents have subsequently sent various remainders and followed it up with personal visits with the concerned authorities. It is also seen from the said paragraph that the file on the subject has got lost in transit between its movement from Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Works and Housing. The respondent No. 3 has reconstituted the file and again submitted the same to the Ministry of Home Affairs (i.e. Respondent No. 2) herein. The matter is presently under consideration of Ministry of Home Affairs. The applicant in his representation dated 16.3.2005 has made request to take up his matter with MHA. The matter is before the Ministry of Home Urban as above.
7. I am therefore of the view that justice would be met if the respondents i.e. Respondents No. 1 is directed to consider the matter which is pending before him for a long time, and pass appropriate order as per rule and communicate the same to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in case it is found that the applicant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for by him, the same should be extended to the applicant within the above stipulated period. Respondent No. 1 is directed accordingly.
8. With the above direction, the O.A. is disposed of at the stage of admission. However there shall be no order as to costs.