ORDER N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. The State Housing Board allotted a HIG house to the petitioner, but with a lesser constructed area than what was mentioned in the notice of allotment and with several deficiencies. The house has no proper door planks, necessary fixtures, water connection proper, repairs, flooring and white washing. The petitioner has, thus, sought direction on the respondents to proportionately lower down the price to the extent of the reduced area and to remove all the deficiencies or to compensate the petitioner for not handing over the proper house by the respondents. 2. The petitioner's case is that a notice was published for allotment of different categories of house/houses/flats. The constructed area of the house in High Income Group (HIG) was 1571 sq. ft. for an estimated price of Rs. 12,36,622/- The allotment was to be made by lottery, on 8.11.2004. In the lottery the petitioner get HIG House No. 66. The allotment letter was issued to the petitioner without mentioning the constructed area and showing the enhanced price of Rs. 12,77,700/-. The petitioner filed his objection before the Managing Director, stating therein that the allotment letter does not indicate the area of construction. The petitioner was, however, made to sign an agreement with annexure of sketch map of the site plan and the house. The respondent, thereafter, issued a letter asking the petitioner to take over possession of House No. 66 to the petitioner. On receipt of the said letter, the petitioner went to take over possession of the house where he found that the constructed area is only 1081 sq, ft. as against the stipulated area of 1571 sq. ft. The, petitioner also found several deficiencies such as absence of door planks, proper water supply lines, damaged plasters inside and outside the house, absence of boundary, absence of sewerage system and several other deficiencies. On the objection of the petitioner, the Executive Engineer directed the Junior Engineer to look into the same, but nothing has been done so far and the petitioner has not been able to enter into possession of the house. 3. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it was a clear stipulation in the notice (Annexure-1) that the constructed area of the house will be 1571 sq. ft. 3. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it was a clear stipulation in the notice (Annexure-1) that the constructed area of the house will be 1571 sq. ft. If there was any printing mistake in mentioning the said area, it should have been corrected immediately, thereafter. For the first time, the respondents have taken plea in this case that there was printing mistake in mentioning that area. Learned Counsel submitted that in Clause 8 of allotment letter it was clearly mentioned that the delay in handing over the possession was due to the running work of construction. But, when the petitioner visited, there was no sign of construction/repair in the house. The house is in dilapidated condition. Deficiencies were pointed out in the representation (Annexure-10) dated 10.2.2005, but neither the price has been reduced in proportion to the reduced area nor the deficiencies have been removed so far. Learned Counsel submitted that the respondents are instrumentality of the welfare state and they cannot behave with the petitioner arbitrarily and whimsically. There was an agreement for handing over a proper house, but a house without doors, windows, proper water connection, electricity connection, drainage system and other essential facilities cannot be said to be house. Learned Counsel submitted that in the counter affidavit the deficiencies in the house have not been denied. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand submitted that the house was allotted on 'as is where is' basis and there was no question of removing the deficiencies by the Housing Board. Learned Counsel submitted that the house is in proper condition and the petitioner has agreed to purchase the said house by signing the agreement. No deficiency has been found in the said house as alleged by the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has signed the agreement in which the area of construction was mentioned. He cannot now claim any proportionate reduction in the agreed consideration amount. 5. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records, I find that the petitioner has signed the agreement, which has been enclosed as Annexure-6. In the said agreement a site plan was annexed which has been also signed by the petitioner. In the site plan the area and dimension of the construction were clearly mentioned which admittedly comes to 1080 sq. ft. In the said agreement a site plan was annexed which has been also signed by the petitioner. In the site plan the area and dimension of the construction were clearly mentioned which admittedly comes to 1080 sq. ft. Though I find that in the notice of allotment (Annexure-1) constructed area of the house has been mentioned as 1571 sq. ft. yet the petitioner having signed and accepted the lesser area by signing the agreement and the sketch map attached thereto, he is not thereafter entitled to claim any reduction only on the ground of difference in area of the agreement and in the said notice (Annexure-1). So far as the grievance of the petitioner regarding deficiencies in the house is concerned, there is substance in the petitioner's claim. The respondent Housing Board has agreed to hand over the HIG house to the petitioner. It has been rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the house must be a habitable house with the required and essential appurtenances, fixtures and fittings, such as doors, windows, electrical connection, water connection, sewerage system, proper plaster etc. If the house is not worth living and not in accordance with the Board's specification of a HIG house, the' respondents are bound to correct the same. The agreement no where mentions that the house is in a dilapidated condition and is not habitable. If the condition of the house is not conforming to the terms of the agreement, it is the duty of the respondent-Board to correct the same according to the standard specification and requirement. The Board is bound to hand over a proper HIG house to the petitioner. Since the deficiencies pointed out by the petitioner have not been categorically denied by the respondents, they are duty bound to meet the same. Considering the above, the Executive Engineer of the Housing Board, Dhanbad is directed to visit and inspect the petitioner's HIG house in presence of the petitioner and prepare a report regarding the deficiencies and steps required to remove/correct the same. Considering the above, the Executive Engineer of the Housing Board, Dhanbad is directed to visit and inspect the petitioner's HIG house in presence of the petitioner and prepare a report regarding the deficiencies and steps required to remove/correct the same. The Executive Engineer, Zila Parisad, Dhanbad shall be present at the time of inspection, who shall verify the report and in case of difference on any deficiency between the petitioner and the Executive Engineer of the Board shall record his own observation and the kind of correction/remedy required to bring the house to proper condition, as per the Board's standard specification for an HIG house. The date of inspection shall be fixed by the Executive Engineer, Zila Parishad and the same shall be communicated to the concerned Executive Engineer, Housing Board and the petitioner in writing. Inspection with report must be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The deficiency/deficiencies found/recorded and testified by the Executive Engineer, Zila Parishad shall be removed/corrected by the Board within a period of sixty days thereafter. With the aforesaid observations/directions this writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.