Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 348 (JHR)

Prematha Nath Paul v. Bihar State Housing Board

2004-04-01

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2004
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Bihar State Housing Board by issue of Annexure 1 dated 22.9.1994 allotted the plot of land No. M/222 measuring an area of 1440 square ft. situated at Dindly, Adityapur, Jamshedpur in favour of the petitioner. 3. As directed by the Housing Board, the petitioner deposited 30% of the total price amounting to Rs. 22,296/- and balance of the amount was to be paid in 60 monthly installments as fixed by the Board. Subsequently, a Hire Purchase Agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Housing Board which was registered on 5.12.1994. It is stated that after registration of the Hire Purchase Agreement on 5.12.1994 a total sum of Rs. 40,000/- was deposited by the petitioner with the Board against the price of the said plot of land allotted to him. It is further stated that 5.3.1996 was the fixed date, for giving delivery of possession of the said plot of land in question which was allotted to the petitioner but the delivery of possession of the said plot of land in question could not be effected as the said land was illegally occupied by some other persons. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation to the Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board stating therein that either he may be delivered a vacant piece of land or the amount deposited by him be refunded with interest, but no action has been taken and ultimately this writ petition has been filed. 4. On behalf of the respondents No. 3 to 5, a counter affidavit has been filed. The learned counsel for the Board submitted that the petitioner should have represented the Managing Director of the Bihar State Housing Board for the relief sought for in this writ petition but that has not been done by him. It is further stated that since there is a provision for arbitration in the agreement executed between the parties, therefore, the matter may be referred to the Arbitrator to resolve the dispute. 5. This "submission made by the respondents is devoid of any merit. In the present case, I find that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/- with the Housing Board against the price of the plot of land in question allotted to him. 5. This "submission made by the respondents is devoid of any merit. In the present case, I find that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/- with the Housing Board against the price of the plot of land in question allotted to him. Since there is no dispute with regard to the facts as stated above therefore, the question of appointment of Arbitrator does not arise. It appears that the petitioner is being harassed at the hands of the Board even after allotment of the plot of the land in question and Housing Board is not able to deliver the vacant possession of the said plot to the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Managing Director Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the last payment made by the petitioner. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.