Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 880 (PAT)

Kamta Prasad Mishra v. Bihar State Housing Board

1999-09-07

M.Y.EQBAL

body1999
Judgment M.Y. Eqbal, J. In all these writ applications a common question of law with similar facts and circumstances is involved and, therefore, all these writ applications are disposed of by this common order. 2. In CWJC No. 1102/99 (R) the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 17.11.97 (Annexure 5), by which the respondent- Bihar State Housing Board demanded a further amount of Rs.1,84,536/- from the petitioner against the final settlement of the account. In CWJC No. 1103/99 (R) the petitioner prayed for quashing the order dated 23.9.97 (Annexure 6) by which a further sum of Rs.2,00,607/- has been demanded from the petitioner. Similarly in CWJC No.1285/99(R) and 1270/99(R) the Housing Board by the impugned orders dated 7.8.98 (Annexure 6) and 4.3.99 (Annexure 5) demanded a sum of Rs.2,68,456/- and Rs.2,33,041/- respectively from the petitioners for final settlement of accounts. 3. In CWJC No. 1102/99(R) the petitioner's case is that on application made by the petitioner a middle income group constructed house was allotted to him by the Housing Board being MHI House No. 164 and a letter to that effect was issued on 26.11.83. In the said letter a tentative price of the house was fixed at Rs.78,500/-. According to the petitioner, he deposited Rs.6500/- in terms of the letter of allotment and the rest amount was to be paid in 120 instalments of Rs.865/- per month. Subsequently an agreement was executed on 3.12.87 and possession of the house was given to the petitioner on 12.1.94. The petitioner's further case is that he paid the entire instalments in terms of the letter of allotment and agreement and the rest amount was paid well within time i.e. 3.6.96. It is stated that the Executive Engineer of the Board, vide letter dated 25.10.97, intimated to the respondent no.4 for final settlement of the account in question disclosing that the petitioner had paid the entire amount in terms of the allotment letter. However, the respondent, by impugned order/letter dated 17.11.97 intimated the petitioner that he has to pay further amount of Rs.1,84,536/-. Similar is the case of petitioner in CWJC No. 1103/99 (R). In that case the petitioner was allotted House No. MHI 119 by allotment letter dated 24.9.83 and tentative price was fixed at Rs.78,500. The petitioner deposited the initial amount of Rs.6,500/- and rest of the amount in equal instalments. Similar is the case of petitioner in CWJC No. 1103/99 (R). In that case the petitioner was allotted House No. MHI 119 by allotment letter dated 24.9.83 and tentative price was fixed at Rs.78,500. The petitioner deposited the initial amount of Rs.6,500/- and rest of the amount in equal instalments. In this case the agreement was signed on 4.4.89. According to the petitioner he paid the entire instalments in terms of the letter of agreement well within time i.e. on 22.5.96. The respondent Board, however, by letter dated 23.9.97 intimated the petitioner that he has to pay a further amount of Rs.2,00,607/-. In CWJC No.1270/99(R) the allotment letter by the Housing Board for MHI-129 was issued to the petitioner on 24.9.83 fixing a price of the house at Rs.78,500/- out of which initial amount was paid by the petitioner and rest amount deposited in instalments well within time i.e. 15.10.98. However, by impugned letter dated 4.3.91 the petitioner was intimated that a further sum of Rs.2,33,041/- has to be paid by the petitioner. Similarly, in CWJC No. 1285/99(R) the allotment letter was issued on 26.11.83 for allotment of MHI-217 at a price of Rs.78,500/-. The petitioner's case is that the initial amount was paid in terms of the allotment and the balance amount together with interest was paid well within time but the respondent-Board by issuing impugned letter dated 6.8.98 demanded a further sum of Rs.2,68,456/-. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, assailed the impugned demand made by the Housing Board as being illegal and contrary to the terms and conditions incorporated in the allotment letter as also in the agreement executed by and between the parties. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the allotment letter (Annexure 1) and submitted that in the said allotment letter itself the instalment was fixed after calculating the interest for the entire period and the petitioner paid the entire balance amount together with interest in equal instalments well within time. Learned counsel further submitted that after payment of the entire instalments together with interest possession of the house was handed over to the petitioner in 1996 and therefore, there is no justification for the Board to demand in 1998 the exorbitant amount by the impugned letter which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel further submitted that after payment of the entire instalments together with interest possession of the house was handed over to the petitioner in 1996 and therefore, there is no justification for the Board to demand in 1998 the exorbitant amount by the impugned letter which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent-Board has no authority to calculate compound interest and make a demand from the petitioner particularly when the instalment together with interest is paid well within time. 5. On the other hand, Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board, submitted that in the allotment letter as also in the agreement the tentative cost was fixed by the Board and it was specifically stipulated in the agreement that the allottee will be liable to pay further amount towards the increase in the cost of construction and development or due to increase in the cost of land acquisition, final valuation or calculation or otherwise as per the decision of the Board. Learned counsel then submitted that there is specific clause in the agreement whereby the dispute raised by the petitioner is to be adjudicated through arbitration. 6. I have gone through the writ petitions, counter affidavits and the documents annexed therewith. From perusal of the allotment letter (Annexure 1) and the agreement (Annexure -2), it is evident that, the respondent-Board fixed a tentative price of the house and the instalment was fixed after' calculating and including the interest also. The petitioners have paid the entire instalments together with interest within time. It is stated in the counter affidavit that after the deposit of 20% amount of the tentative cost the petitioners had to move for execution of agreement within 30 days from the date of allotment but petitioners had entered into an agreement with the Board after gap of 3-4 years and thereafter violated the terms and conditions of allotment order. However, it is admitted that the instalments had been fixed on remaining amount of tentative cost together with interest. No justification has been given in the counter affidavit for calculating the compound interest on the amount payable by the petitioners. However, it is admitted that the instalments had been fixed on remaining amount of tentative cost together with interest. No justification has been given in the counter affidavit for calculating the compound interest on the amount payable by the petitioners. It is true that at the time of allotment the Board fixed tentative price of the house and at the time of final settlement of the accounts the Board is entitled to claim the increase in the cost of construction and further interest of that amount but in the instant case it appears that whatever instalment together with interest fixed by the Board has been paid by the petitioners within the stipulated time and possession of the house was handed over to the petitioners some time in the year 1996, what prevented the Board from settling the account in 1996 itself. The demand of compound interest after two years from the date of handing over possession is not justified. However, the amount claimed by the Housing Board needs further revision and calculation which can not be done here by this Court. It appears that in several other cases this Court and the Supreme Court referred the matter to the Committee constituted by the Housing Board for deciding the dispute with regard to the cost/price of the house made by the Board. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, all these writ applications are disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2, Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board to recalculate and resettle the amount, if any, payable by the petitioners either by himself or through the Committee constituted by the Board after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Till the dispute is finally resolved and calculation is finally made, the impugned demand made by the Board shall remain stayed.