Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. -the present writ application is directed against that part of the order contained in memo No.3748 dated 9-7-93 (annexure 2) passed in Eviction Case No 73/89 by the Competent Authority under Sec.59 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby and whereunder the competent authority has directed for realisation of the price of 2.10 acres of land from the petitioning society on the basis of the present valuation and to consider for transfer of the said land to the petitioner even though be found that the Housing Board failed to prove his case under Sec.59 of the Act, which provides for summary procedure for eviction and recovery of rent and further held that the case against the petitioning society for illegal occupation of the said land has not been proved at all. 2. In short, the case of the petitioner is that in January, 1981 a meeting was held to finalise site for differrent housing schemes at Ranchi, in which the additional Secretary, Department of Housing, Bihar Patna Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, superintending Engineer, Housing Department, Executive engineer Housing Department Honerary Joint Secretary, Ranchi Government employees Co-operative House Construction Society Ltd, and the representatives of Accoutant general Office Employees Co-operative House Construction Society Ltd. Paticipated. The Additional Secretary, Housing Department agreed that the site for different housing Scheme should be selected finally at argors and besides other decisions taken in the said meeting, it was also decided that the site comprising 165 acres on the southern side of Argora road be given to the Ranchi Government Employees Co-operative House construction Society Ltd. Ranchi. It was further decided that the Housing department should acquire the said land and immediately after delivery of possession the site be released to the said Spcfety. On 19-12-1964 the Housing department of Government of Bihar, vide letter No.7434, a ploto copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 4 communicated the decision of the government to the Superintending Engineer, Rural Housing Cell housing department, Patna with a copy to the honorary Joint Secretary of the petitioning Society that an area measuring about 165 acres of land at Argora and Radru, Ranchi be allotted to the petitioning Society for development and construction of houses for its members under certain and conditions. One of the conditions was that the Land would be given to the Society on payment of price along with interest i. e. at Rs, 10.304/- per acre, which will be deposited by the society in five equal annual instalments to be commenced from the first anniversary of the date on which possession of the land is delivered to the society. The rate per acre indicated above was subject to any increase by the order of a competent court and further it was stipulated that in the even of default is the payment of any instalment on due date a further interest of 2% besides the usual interest will be charged on the amount overdue. The land was to be developed by the Society itself in accordance with lay-out plan as approved by the Government subject to other conditions mentioned therein which the purpose of this case are set relevant. 3. The land was to be transferred to the Society on the terms of absolute title which was to take effect only after all the instalments of the price of the land, including interest, have been paid and fully cleared by the society, the price of the land was to be deposited by the Society under the head "t-Deposits and Adyence-Part II-Deposits for work done for Public bodies and for Private Individuals-Deposits under the Land Acquisition and development Scheme. " 4. A lay-out plan of the area allotted to the Society was prepared and approved by the State Government. According to the said lay put plan, the total area allotted to the petitioner was found to be measuring 154.46 acres. As 2.10 acres of land were found to be in dispute raised by the owners of the land, the documentation with the petitioning society was made only in respect of 152.36 acres of land even though the petitioning Society came in possession of the entire land. It is admitted case of the parties that a total sum of Rs.15,69,917-04 being the price of 152.46 acres of land was made over to the society was paid by the Society and accepted by the Government. It is admitted case of the parties that a total sum of Rs.15,69,917-04 being the price of 152.46 acres of land was made over to the society was paid by the Society and accepted by the Government. The State Government in the Housing Department, however, initiated acquisition proceeding against the owners of the land also in respect of the land measuring 2.10 acres which was completed in the year 1972 and, according to the petitioner, formal possession of the same was delivered to the housind Board on 4-4-1972 when the Station Officer of the Housing Department was delivered possession of the said land by the Land Acquisition department. In support of the said statement, the petitioner has annexed a photo copy of the certificate of possession of the land as annexure 12 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 16-2-1995 and contained at page 205-206 of the brief. 5. It may be mentioned here that the Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter referred fo as the Board) (respondent No.2) came into existence in the year 1973 by virtue of Bihar Ordinance No.24 and 82 of the year 1973. After the possession of 2.10 acres of land was formally delivered to the Housing Department, vide annexure 12, the petitioning Society which had already came in possession of the said land and continued to remain in possession, having learnt about the completion of the aforementioned formalities of acquisition, deposited a sum of Rs.21, 638.40 being the price of the said 2-10 acres of land, vide draft PQV 319604 dated 14-4-1980, which was accepted by the Board. It is also claimed by the petitioner that an interest of Rs.92, 664-05 was paid by Bank Draft No. EMW 085162,dated 3-1-1978 but, however, no action was taken by the Board to formally transfer the land in favour of the petitioner. In the meantime, in the year 1982, bihar Housing Board Act being Bihar Act 25 of 1982 (here in after referred to as the Act) was enacted. Under Sec.59 of the Act, the competent authority has been empowered to decide for eviction and recovery of rent from the persons under unauthorised occupation of the Boards premises which includes land by adopting a summary procedure contained therein. 6. Under Sec.59 of the Act, the competent authority has been empowered to decide for eviction and recovery of rent from the persons under unauthorised occupation of the Boards premises which includes land by adopting a summary procedure contained therein. 6. It appears that a proceeding under Sec.59 of the Act was sarted and the petitioning Society was served with a notice (annexure 2) in Case No.73/1989 requiring it to file show cause on 26-6-1989. The petitioning Society challenged the validity of the said notice in this Court in writ petition being c W. J. C. No.1339 of 1992 (R) which was finally disposed of by this Court on 6-5-92 with an observation that the petitioner should first file show cause before the competent authority and take the point of jurisdiction also if they so liked. The petitioner, accordingly, tiled show cause and the competent authority, after caving heard the parties and considering the entire materials, passed the impugned order. According to the petitioner, the competent authority went beyond its authority and acted without jurisdiction beyond the scope of the notice under Sec.59 of the Act by directing that the board should consider to transfer the land in question, namely, 2.10 acres, after payment is made by the petitioner on the basis of the present valuation of the land. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said portion of the order. 7. It is also stated that the Board went in appeal against the order passed by the competent authority and the said appeal has been dismissed on 30-6-94 and the appellate authority has held that the petitioning Society is inslawful possession of the land and, hence, cannot be evicted. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board (respondent no.2) in which it is stated that the aforementioned eviction case was filed against the petitioner on the ground that it was in illegal possession of the land in question and, thus, a prayer was made for payment of damages. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board (respondent no.2) in which it is stated that the aforementioned eviction case was filed against the petitioner on the ground that it was in illegal possession of the land in question and, thus, a prayer was made for payment of damages. The approval of the plan and the deposits made in respect of the entire area is admitted but, however, it is stated that the land in question never belonged to the Board and, thus, the deposit of Rs 21,363/-in the account of the housing Board by the petitioner was not authorised, Further, it is stated that there was no line of demarcation between the area of 2-10 acres and 152 36 acres on the ipot and, therefore, white carving out plots, portion of 152.36 acres and 2.10 acres area were taken as compact area of 154.46 acres. It is admitted that the society is in possession of the entire area minus area allotted to Kumar Suresh Singh and Smt. Asha Mishra and that formal possession over area of 2.10. acres of land was not handed over to the Society due to oversight. It is, however, stated that the Society requested the Chairman, vide letter No, 203 dated 28-10 1973, for delivery of formal possession of the land in question, but no reply was ever sent by the Board to the said request. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, it is, howevers stated that the Board, vide letter No.4919 dated 15-11-1979, intimated the petitioner that the illegal possession of the Society over the land in question has been treated as encroachment. It is also stated that the petitioner has not paid the full amount as per the agreement of the Board besides the development costs amounting to Rs.3.95,000/-till data and, as per the calculation, the said amount has become more than 18 lacs till March, 1995. 9. A reply on behalf of the petitioner to the counter affidavit has also been filed in which it has been contended that the lands which were acquired in the year 1963 and was never allotted to the petitioner, then there was no question of approval of the lay out plan for 154.46 acres of land by the board. 9. A reply on behalf of the petitioner to the counter affidavit has also been filed in which it has been contended that the lands which were acquired in the year 1963 and was never allotted to the petitioner, then there was no question of approval of the lay out plan for 154.46 acres of land by the board. The acceptance of the deposit of Rs.21638 40 towards the price of the land in question, according to the petitioner, by the Board also goes to show that the Board never considered the possession of the petitioner unauthorised. Further, it is stated in the reply affidavit that the said money deposited by the petitioner has been utilised without any protest. It is reiterated that the actual physical possession was given to the petitioner over the entire 155 acres of land but documentation was done only for 152.36 acres of land as untill then the. acquisition proceeding in respect of 2.10 acres of land was sot completed. 10. It appears that the petitioner had moved this Court earlier also for a direction to the Housing Board to decide the issue of development cost and transfer of ownership in their favour, as has been stated in the reply affidavit. C. W. J. C. No.162 of 1993 (R) which was disposed of by order dated 25-1-93 with the direction to the respondents to pass necessary orders within two months but they have not passed the orders in compliance of the said order. Further, it is alleged that the Board and its officers had greedy eyes over the plots in question and in order to grab the same they started disputing the style and possession of the petitioner over the same but at the same time, they also requested the petitioner Society to allot few plots to the persons of their choice but the petitioner did not agree to it as the plots had already been allotted to the genuine members and. as such, the petitioning society informed the Housing Board about the said position and turned down the request of the Board. However, later on a proposal being initiated by the Board for allotment of at least two plots in favour of Mrs. Asha mishra and Dr. Kumar Suresh Singh. The petitioning Society managed to allot two plots to the said persons. However, later on a proposal being initiated by the Board for allotment of at least two plots in favour of Mrs. Asha mishra and Dr. Kumar Suresh Singh. The petitioning Society managed to allot two plots to the said persons. A true copy of the letter issued by the housing Board making aforesaid request has been annexed as Annexure 15 it is contended that if the plots in question never belonged to the petitioning society, then how the Housing Board was making request for allotment of two plots in favour of the persons of their choice. 11. Till the matter was heard in part, for (he first time, on 14-2-95. the Board had not challenged the validity of the impugned order against the part of which it was namely, the finding by the competent authority that the board has failed to prove its case and that the allegation of encroachment against the petitioning Society is not at all proved. However, it is contended that later a writ petition has been filed at Patna on behalf of the Board against the aforementioned part of the impugned order. Although hearing of this writ application was concluded on 24-2-95 but, at the request of Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhary learned Advocated for the Board, the matter was not disposed of in order to enable the learned Advocate to either get that matter disposed of at Patna and/or get it transferred to the Ranchi Bench but it seems that no sincere effort has been made on behalf of the Board in that direction and their attempt is only to keep the matter hanging unnessarily. 12. Mr. Kameshwar Prased, learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia contended that the part of the impugned order whereby the competent authority in purported exercise of the power under Sec.59 of the Act has directed for realisation of the amount, according to the present valuation of the land of the petitioner, besides being wholly without jurisdiction and illegal, is also contrary to his own finding recorded in the earlier part wherein he has held that the Board has completely failed to prove its case and that the allegation regarding illegal encroachment against the petitioner has not at all been proved and, thus, the same is fit to be quashed on this ground alone. 13. On the other hand, Mrs. 13. On the other hand, Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhary, learned counsel for the Board has contended that so long the formal delivery of possession of the land in question is not made to the petitioning Society, they have no right to be in possessing of the land in question such possession is wholly unauthorised. 14. I am unable to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the Board. The matter regarding alleged unauthorised occupation by the petitioning Society over the land in question has already been decided by the competent authority under Sec.59 and also affirmed in appeal. Thus, the said question cannot be gone into in the present case in which the Board is not the petitioner but the respondent. 15. The State Government, vide letter No.7434 dated 19th December, 1964 of the Housing Department, as contained in annexure 4. decided to allot 155 acres of land at Argorar and Kadru (Ranchi) to the petitioning Society for development and construction of houses for its members Under the terms and conditions of the said allotment, the land was required to be given to the petitioning Society on payment of price along with its interest i. e. , at rs.10, 304/-only per acre, which was required to be deposited by the Society in five equated annual instalments which was to commence from the first anniversary of the date on which the possession of the land is delivered to the Society. The rate per acre was, however, made subject to any increase by the order of a competent Court. In the event of default in making the payment of the any of the instalments on the due date, an additional interest at the rate of 2 percent, besides the usual interest, was/is to be charged on the amount over due. 16. The rate per acre was, however, made subject to any increase by the order of a competent Court. In the event of default in making the payment of the any of the instalments on the due date, an additional interest at the rate of 2 percent, besides the usual interest, was/is to be charged on the amount over due. 16. Clause (f) of the said letter of allotment contained that the land would be transferred to the Society on terms of absolude title which was to take effect only after all the instalments of the price of the land, including interest, have been paid and fully cleared by the Society Accordingly, the superintending Engineer, Rural Housing cell Department, Patna to whom the said letter has been addressed, was also requested to deliver possession over the land in question to the Secretary of the petitioning Society under intimation to the department after the latter (petitioning Society) has given an undertaking in writing for complying with, the conditions laid down in the said letter. The petitioning Society was also requested to take delivery of possession of the land in question from the Superintending Engineer, Rural housing Cell, Housing Department. 17. It is not in dispute that rather it is admitted that after the said letter of allotment, the petitioning Society came in possession over the entire area of land, as has also been found from the very impugned order. Further, then appears to be an dispute that the petitioning Society gave undertaking the complying with the conditions laid down in the offer of allotment contained in annexure 4 and the Board also accepted the same, as is evident from the fact that the lay out plan in respect of entire 154 acres was sanctioned by the board: Thus, in my opinion, the parties are bound by the conditions mentioned in the letter of allotment (Annexure 4 ). 18. It is true that due to intervening circumstances, as stated above, the payments of instalments in respect of the land in question were not made within the stipulated time nor did the Board take any action for realisation of the said amount. It is not the case of the Board that there has been any increase in the rate of the land fixed in the aforementioned letter of allotment by the order of a competent Court. It is not the case of the Board that there has been any increase in the rate of the land fixed in the aforementioned letter of allotment by the order of a competent Court. The competent authority under Section 59, in my opinion, has not been vested with any such power to make any increase in the rate of the land in question, as, in my view, it is not a competent Court for such purpose. 19. Section 59 of the Act only vests power in the competent authority for eviction and recovery of rents lawfully due not paid by person in authorised occupation of any Boards premises. Thus, the impugned order to the extent whereby the competent authority has directed for realisation of the price of the rent land in question from the petitioning Society on the basis of the present valuation is wholly without jurisdiction, illegal and arbitrary. However, as there appears to be some default on the part of the petitioning Society also in making deposits of the prior of the land in question although it is admitted that they came in possession long before the payment was made in my opinion, the interest of justice demands that they should also be saddled with some additional interest, beside contemplated in the letter of ellotment contained in annexure 4. 20. Accordingly, I am of the view that the petitioning Society should pay an additional Compound interest at the rate of 15% with aunulative effect over and above the price of the land, to be calculated right from the date since when it claims to have given possession till the final payment is made, whereafter the Board shall trensfer the land in question in favour of the Society on terms of absolute title. 21. In the result, the writ application is allowed and the Board is directed to raise demand on the basis of the above within a month from today and the petitioning Society is directed to pay the same within a fortnight thereafter, immediately whereafter the Board shall take all necessary steps for transfer of the land in question to the Society on terms of absolute title. However, there shall be no order as to costs. petition allowed.