Sudha Sharma v. Bihar State Housing Board — 1999 DIGILAW 436 (PAT)

Judgment 1. Heard Mr.V.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner, and Mr.G.C.Jha, Advocate for the respondent, Bihar State Housing Board. 2. By order dated 5.5.99 this Court had expressed its displeasure over the averments made in paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit of the Board and the Managing Director of the Board was directed to swear the affidavit personally explaining the aforesaid statement. The counter affidavit sworn by the Managing Director has been submitted before this Court today, paragraph-3 of which read as follows:- "l have gone through paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Board. I tender uncondi- tional apology to the Hon ble Court since the contents have made the court to understand that the Board is shirking from its essential duties and functions and trying to pass on its responsibility to the Hon ble Court." The aforesaid paragraph-10 occurs in the Boards counter affidavit sworn on 5.2.99 and filed in this Court on the same day. I am informed at the Bar that Deepak Prasad, the present Managing Director, has joined as such in August/September, 1998. This Court puts the entire blame on Deepak Kumar for the averments made in paragraph-10 to the effect that the Board has to take delivery of possession of the lands in question through the instrumentality of this Court. The Managing Director seems to treat this Court as a handle. However, this Court does not pursue the matter against Deepak Kumar any further in view of the apology submitted today vide paragraphs of the counter affidavit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is feeling exhausted on account of the inaction on the part of the respondent Board in delivering possession of the plot of land in question, being a commercial plot. He submits that the petitioner has so far deposited total amount of Rs.1,66,700/- upto 28.8.95, as is manifest from the averments made in paragraph-13 of the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has provided the break-up showing that Rs.1,47,000/- has been deposited towards cost of the land, and the balance amount of Rs. 19,700/- has been deposited towards interest as well as penal interest as per allotment dated 6.3.95 (Annexure-5), Clause-6 of which reads as follows:- Local Languange 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has provided the break-up showing that Rs.1,47,000/- has been deposited towards cost of the land, and the balance amount of Rs. 19,700/- has been deposited towards interest as well as penal interest as per allotment dated 6.3.95 (Annexure-5), Clause-6 of which reads as follows:- Local Languange 4. Learned counsel has further invited my attention to the averments made in paragraphs-16, 17 and 18 of the writ petition read with Annexure-9 that the respondent Board had directed the petitioner to get the plan for construction sanctioned by the Ranchi Regional Development Authority (RRDA, in short), presumably as a condition precedent to delivery of possession of the commercial plot in question. Accordingly, the petitioner got the plan sanctioned, as manifest from the communication contained in memo no.932, dated 30.7.96 (Annexure-9), from the RRDA to the petitioner. The petitioner has further stated in paragraph-18 of the writ petition that she had incurred about Rs.15,000/- in getting the plan sanctioned, Rs.10,000/- (approie) out of which was deposited towards fee with the RRDA. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that though the total cost of land along with penal interest was deposited on 28.8.95, notwithstanding which delivery of possession of the plot of land in question has not so far been effected. Feeling exasperated, she prays that the respondent-Board should be directed to refund the amount with interest and reasonable amount-of compensation, and the cost incurred in getting the plan sanctioned. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Board does not raise any objection as to refund of the money in question, obviously because the Board is in no position to effect delivery of possession of the land in question inspite of such long lapse of time. Petitioners right to get delivery of possession of land is complete with the deposit of the entire sale price and she has acquired an enforceable right. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, this Court hereby directs the respondent Board to refund the aforesaid sum of Rs.1,66,700/- deposited by the petitioner with the Board with interest calculated as per Clause-6 of the letter of allotment as set out hereinabove. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, this Court hereby directs the respondent Board to refund the aforesaid sum of Rs.1,66,700/- deposited by the petitioner with the Board with interest calculated as per Clause-6 of the letter of allotment as set out hereinabove. The respondent Board shall also pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (fifteen thousand) along with interest at the same rate, being the amount incurred in getting the plan sanctioned as stipulated in Clause-6 hereinabove, because, as found hereinabove, the petitioner had to get the same sanctioned at the behest of the respondent Board, in view of the deposit of the entire cost of the land way back on 28.8.95, in view of the direction to the petitioner to get the plan sanctioned for construction by the appropriate authorities, the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in making a genuine and sincere attempt to obtain delivery of possession of the land in question, the long lapse of time since 28.8.95 and the accompanying harassment to the petitioner, this Court further directs the respondent Board to pay a sum of Rs.25,0007- (twenty five thousand) only, by way of compensation to the petitioner. The entire amount shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. It, therefore, goes without saying that with the payments as aforesaid, the petitioners right to allotment of a plot of land will automatically come to an end. 7. This writ petition is accordingly disposed off with the aforesaid directions.