Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 722 (JHR)

Bihar State Housing Board v. Phul Chandra Ram

2007-09-10

DABBIRU GANESHRAO PATNAIK, M.Y.EQBAL

body2007
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 4th March, 1994 passed in CWJC No. 1984 of 1998R whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioners (respondents herein). 2. The petitioner-respondents herein, filed the aforementioned writ petition seeking a writ for quashing that portion of the allotment letter (annexure 5) whereby the appellants-Bihar State Housing Board (shortly the Board) fixed the price of the flats as on 30.6.1992 and directed the respondents (appellants herein) to reduce the price of the flats of the weaker section income group (i.e., Janta flats built at Harmoo, Ranchi). The writ petitioners also sought a direction upon the Board to make necessary repairs of the said flats and to execute agreement pursuant to the allotment letters as contained in annexure-5 to the writ petition. 3. Petitioners-respondents case, inter alia, was that in 1974, 360 Janta flats were constructed by the respondent-Board. In 1980 the Board made allotment of some of the said flats to different persons at a price of Rs. 11,000/-. However, as some of the Janta flats remained unallotted, the Board issued fresh notice inviting applications for allotment of 275 Janta flats vide notice published in the newspaper dated 28.8.1988. In response to the said notice, the writ petitioners-respondents applied in September, 1988 for allotment of the said flats along with a deposit of Rs. 2500/- as earnest money. Further case of the respondents-writ petitioners is that even after the said notice, in the year, 1991 some allotment of Janta flats was made and Rs. 37,640.80 was fixed as disposal price. In May, 1992 Rs. 61,120/0 was fixed as price of the said flats and the petitioners-(respondents herein) were directed to deposit Rs. 9,924/- within 30 days and, thereafter to execute agreement. As per the terms and conditions of the said allotment, the writ petitioners were required to deposit Rs. 518/- and 595/- per month with the respondent-Board by way of monthly installments. Petitioners case was that they belong to economically weaker section of the society and those flats were constructed for the weaker section. It was stated that for such flats which are not worth living, the petitioners have been asked to deposit Rs. 518/- and 595/- per month. Petitioners, therefore, prayed for reducing the price fixed by the-Board. 4. Petitioners case was that they belong to economically weaker section of the society and those flats were constructed for the weaker section. It was stated that for such flats which are not worth living, the petitioners have been asked to deposit Rs. 518/- and 595/- per month. Petitioners, therefore, prayed for reducing the price fixed by the-Board. 4. The respondents-Board contested the case by filing counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that in 1980 price of the said flats was fixed at Rs. 11,000/- which was the tentative one and in August, 1987 the price on re- calculation was fixed at Rs. 37,640.80. Respondents further case was that the price of the flats was fixed in the light of the observation of this Court made in CWJC No. 1779/89R. It was stated by the Board that those flats were constructed by the Board after taking loan with high interest from various financial institutions and, as such, final costing of the houses/flats depends on the interest to be paid by the Board to such financial institutions. 5. The learned single Judge, in the impugned judgment, has observed that when applications were invited in 1988, there was no justification for the Board to hold lottery in 1992. The learned Single Judge further held that the Board has not reasonably explained as to why it took four years in making allotment. Learned Single Judge finally came to the conclusion that the disposal price of the flats should be re-fixed by excluding the interest for the period i.e., from the date of notice in August, 1988 to the date of allotment Le. 31.5.1992. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed with certain directions. 6. We have heard Mrs. Sen Choud-hary, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Board and Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-writ petitioners. 7. Admittedly applications were invited in 1988 for allotment of the flats in question which were ready at that time. Some allotments were made in the year, 1991. Thereafter, in 1992 lottery was held and allotment of some more flats was made to the writ petitioners and the price of those flats were fixed at Rs. 61,120/-. Petitioners were asked to deposit Rs. 9,924/- and the rest of the amount was payable in easy 180 installments of Rs. 518/- per month. 8. Thereafter, in 1992 lottery was held and allotment of some more flats was made to the writ petitioners and the price of those flats were fixed at Rs. 61,120/-. Petitioners were asked to deposit Rs. 9,924/- and the rest of the amount was payable in easy 180 installments of Rs. 518/- per month. 8. Now the only question that falls for consideration is as to whether the Board was justified in fixing the price when lottery was held in 1992. Admittedly the petitioners submitted their applications in 1988. After completion of the flats lottery was held in 1991 whereby some of the flats were allotted to different applicants. For the rest of the flats lottery was held in 1992. The petitioners participated in the said lottery and allotment letters were issued in their favour fixing the price of the flats. Petitioners were directed to enter into an agreement with the respondent-Board. 9. In course of argument learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Board submitted that out of 20 writ petitioners all, except one i.e., respondent No. 6 herein) entered into agreement after accepting the price fixed by the Board and took possession of the respective flats also. This fact has not been disputed by the counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners- respondents. 10. Be that as it may, it is well settled that the initial fixation of price at the time when the applications were invited by the Board was the tentative price of the flats. When lottery is held, the price of the flats is fixed and on the basis of that price allotments are made. It was not the case of the writ petitioners that after final agreement was executed, the Board arbitrarily increased the price. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has not correctly appreciated the law and proceeded to decide the issue only on the basis that the writ petitioners belong to weaker section of the society. Besides the above, the price fixed by the Board at Rs. 61,120/- cannot at any stretch of imagination can-be said to be on higher side. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also regard being had to the fact that all the writ petitioners, except one, accepted the price of the flats and entered into agreement with the Board, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in law. 61,120/- cannot at any stretch of imagination can-be said to be on higher side. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also regard being had to the fact that all the writ petitioners, except one, accepted the price of the flats and entered into agreement with the Board, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in law. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order/judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 12. I agree.