Judgment BARIN GHOSH, J. 1. Heard both the parties. 2. An advertisement was published by the Respondent Board intimating the public that it has acquired a large chunk of land which upon being developed would be allotted amongst others to the members of the public belonging to middle income group. The advertisement invited applications from persons belonging to middle income group for allotment of developed land so acquired. Petitioners belonged to middle income group. They applied for being alloted such a plot of land. By an allotment-letter, the Respondent Board alloted Plot No. V684 to the Writ Petitioners on certain terms and conditions. Petitioners complied with those terms and conditions by making payment of the earnest money, as indicated in the allotment letter and also by entering into a hire purchase agreement. Petitioners also paid all the installments, as were mentioned in the hire purchase agreement, though may not be on the due dates, but with interest, as was provided for in the hire purchase agreement. The Board accepted such payments. According to the Petitioners, they paid whatever was required to be paid in terms of the allotment letter and the hire purchase agreement. However, despite such payment, possession of the allotted plot of land was not made over to the Petitioners on the ground that the same is in possession of encroachers, who could not be removed. 3. At this juncture, Petitioners approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. While the Writ Petition was pending, the Board held out to the Petitioners that in lieu of the original allotment, the Board is proposing to allot yet another plot of land to the Petitioners. At the same time, the Board held out that the terms and conditions of the subsequent allotment will be different from the previous allotment. Petitioners are interested to contend that the allotment made subsequently be given on the terms and conditions of the first allotment. The Board is not agreeing to the same. It is contending that in respect of the subsequent allotment, Petitioners would be required to pay more than what the Petitioners were required to pay in respect of the first allotment. 4. In Order to sort out this dispute, an attempt was made to have the original allotted plot vacated in Order to facilitate making over of possession thereof to the Petitioner. 4. In Order to sort out this dispute, an attempt was made to have the original allotted plot vacated in Order to facilitate making over of possession thereof to the Petitioner. At that juncture the added Respondents appeared and they held out that plot No. V684 is situated on RS Plot No. 940 of village Sadipur Jogi and the said plot had not been acquired by the State Government for or on behalf of the Respondent Board and accordingly, the Respondent Board had no right, title or interest in the said plot. It was stated that the added Respondents are the owners of the said plot of land and the Respondent Board has no interest in the said land. It was also contended that an Appropriate Authority in the presence of the Respondent Board has held that the Respondent Board has no interest in the said plot of land. In spite of such finding, I directed the Respondent Board to bring on record any document which would suggest that the Respondent Board acquired title to the said plot of land. Many adjournments were granted for that purpose and ultimately, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Board very fairly confessed that the Respondent Board has no document in its custody, nor is able to produce any document from the Office of the Land Acquisition Collector to establish that the Respondent Board acquired title to the said plot of land at any point of time. 5. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any dispute that the plot of land, as was originally allotted to the Petitioners, could not be allotted by the Board to the Petitioners. 6. It is claimed and contended by the added Respondents that at the instance of the Respondent Board, their possession in the said plot of land had been interfered with and in the.process a wall constructed by them had been destroyed. They wanted some compensation from this Court on that account. I do not think it would be appropriate to go into that aspect of the matter in this Writ Petition. If in fact any such thing has happened, it shall be open to the added Respondents to take such recourse to law as they may be advised for recovery of damages or for initiating any other action. 7. I do not think it would be appropriate to go into that aspect of the matter in this Writ Petition. If in fact any such thing has happened, it shall be open to the added Respondents to take such recourse to law as they may be advised for recovery of damages or for initiating any other action. 7. On the facts, therefore, it appears to me that the plot of land, which was originally allotted in favour of the Petitioners did not belong to the Board and accordingly, the contract, entered by and between the Petitioners and the Board in relation thereto, is vitiated by reason of misrepresentation made by the Board. 8. Sec.18 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines misrepresentation, as, amongst others, a positive assertion in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true. When the allotment was made, it was believed by the Board that tne subject plot of land belonged to the Board and accordingly, it could allot the same to the Petitioners. However, if the Board before making such allotment had looked into its papers, it could easily ascertain that the assertion made by it in the allotment letter issued to the Petitioners was not true. The first contract inter se the Board and the Petitioners pertaining to the said plot of land is, therefore, vitiated by misrepresentation. When consent to a contract is obtained by misrepresentation. Sec.19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 authorises the party, whose consent was so obtained, to avoid the contract or to call upon the party, who made the representation to perform the contract and to put him in the same position in which he would have been if the representation made had been true. 9. From the tenure of the contentions of the Petitioners, it does not appear that the Petitioners after discovery of the misrepresentation sought to avoid the first contract. They are insisting the Board to perform and discharge its part of the obligations under that contract and to put the Petitioners in the same position in which they would have been if the representation made had been true. Petitioners are contending that the same can be achieved by making the subsequent allotment on the same terms on which the first allotment was made. Petitioners are contending that the same can be achieved by making the subsequent allotment on the same terms on which the first allotment was made. It was contended that the Board is a statutory organization established specially for the purpose of augmenting housing needs of the people. It was stated that a large chunk of land was acquired by the Board and admitedly a part of such acquired land has not been allotted in as much as the Board has agreed to make a second allotment out of the land so acquired. It was also contended that while the second allotment was made in the allotment letter, it was specifically mentioned that the same is in lieu of the first allotment and at that stage it was not indicated that the consideration for the second allotment will be different than the first allotment. It was, thus, submitted that in law, the Petitioner are entitled to have the contract performed by obtaining the second allotment on the basis of the consideration, as mentioned in the first allotment and only then the Petitioners would be put in the position in which they would have been, if the representation made while making the first allotment had been true. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners drew my attention to a Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority V/s. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243 . With due respect to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the said Judgment has no application in relation to the matter dealt with herein. 10. The submissions as made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners seems to be quite attractive, but the same cannot be accepted. In the instant case, the letter of allotment was an offer, which was accepted by the Writ Petitioners by acting on the basis thereof. The contract, thus, entered between the parties was in relation to a land specified. As a result, in enforcement of that contract, the Petitioners were entitled to have that land, which was agreed to be purchased by them. In as much as the land did not belong to the Board, the Petitioners by enforcing that contract can, under no circumstances have that land. As a result, in enforcement of that contract, the Petitioners were entitled to have that land, which was agreed to be purchased by them. In as much as the land did not belong to the Board, the Petitioners by enforcing that contract can, under no circumstances have that land. The right that has been granted to a person, who has suffered by reason of misrepresentation, is to compel the misrepresentor to discharge his part of the obligations under the contract. The right, which has been given, is not to compel the misrepresentor to enter into a different contract. In the event, the land Was available and as such the contract could be enforced, if the land was encumbered, in Order to put the victim of misrepresentation to the position in which he would have been if the representation made had been true, the misrepresentor could be compelled to redeem those encumbrances but when the land itself is not available contract is not enforceable and as a result, the one and the only option that the Petitioners have in the instant case is to avoid the contract and to obtain refund of all moneys that they have paid on account of the first contract. That appears to be the right conferred on the Petitioner in terms of the general law laid down in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 . 11. If the Petitioners have any other right given to them by any special enactment, of course, the matter is different. In the instant case, it appears that the state legislature enacted the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982 and thereby incorporated the Respondent Board. The said Act and the rules made thereunder to the extent thereof my attention has been drawn does not give any further right to the Petitioners. In those circumstances, the Petitioners have only two options either to obtain refund of the moneys they have paid together with interest, as provided for in the hire purchase agreement, from the Board or to accept the second allotment and request the Board to adjust the payments already made by them on account of the first contract and to pay the remaining to have ownership right established in the plot of land which was subsequently alloted in their favour. 12. Petitioners are at liberty to exercise such options within a period of three months from today. 12. Petitioners are at liberty to exercise such options within a period of three months from today. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.