JUDGEMENT R.M.Doshit, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed for recovery of possession of the piece of land bearing plot no.1H/87 at Digha housing project of respondent Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") Pursuant to the application made by the petitioner, under letter of allotment dated 25th September 1991, the petitioner was offered sub-plot no. 1H/87 admeasuring 1875 sq. ft. in Digha housing project. Under the said letter of allotment the petitioner was called upon to pay the first installment of Rs.35,530/- and the remaining Rs.94,105/- in 60 monthly installments. Clauses 4 and 5 of the said letter of offer required that the said Rs.35,530/- be paid within 30 days in one lumpsum. In case of failure to pay the said amount in one lumpsum and to execute agreement within that time, the allotment would automatically stand cancelled and the Earnest Money Deposit would stand forfeited. The petition is contested by the Board on the point of land price. The Board has first narrated how the land was acquired; the compensation was paid; part the land was encroached upon, illegal transfers were made by the erstwhile owners and the series litigations filed against the Board. 2. The Board has filed supplementary counter affidavit in support of pricing of the land. The Board has brought on record various calculations, the amount paid for compensation, development cost etc. to justify the price of land in various categories. The said affidavit is countered by the petitioner. She has made her own calculations to suggest that the real price of the land is far lower than the price determined by the Board. We are afraid, the question of pricing of land is highly technical one. It has to be left to the good sense of the experts. 3. Admittedly the petitioner did not pay the amount as required; nor did she execute the agreement; nor did she pay the monthly installments. Instead the petitioner approached this Court in above CWJC No. 7139 of 1991. She challenged the price of the land determined by the Board. According to the petitioner the price of land determined by the Board was exorbitant. The Board was not supposed to realise the price unless the Board identified the plot allotted to the petitioner. Instead the petitioner approached this Court in above CWJC No. 7139 of 1991. She challenged the price of the land determined by the Board. According to the petitioner the price of land determined by the Board was exorbitant. The Board was not supposed to realise the price unless the Board identified the plot allotted to the petitioner. The Board must first fix the land price in each group of plots, i.e. the plots in lower income group, middle income group and higher income group. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 , 7 and 9 of the letter of offer. Apart from the general defence as aforesaid, the Board has not put forth a specific defence in respect of the land allotted to the petitioner. Whether the said sub-plot was identified and was available for handing over the possession to the petitioner. We do appreciate, the housing project has not come up the way it was envisioned. Instead of common people, the landsharks are benefited. Be that as it may, the question of price of land cannot be decided in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Moreover, the price of land would not depend only on the amount of compensation paid by the Board and the development cost. The cost would also include the other expenses including the establishment cost incurred by the Board. There is nothing on the record to suggest what should be the fair price of the land. Learned Advocate, Mr. Shahi has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that even today if the Board identifies the sub-plot of land allotted to the petitioner, petitioner is ready to accept the allotment and to pay the offer price. 4. The offer made by Mr. Shahi is too late. As per the letter of allotment, the petitioner was required to pay the first installment of Rs.35,530/- within one month from the date of the allotment and to execute the agreement within that time. The petitioner having failed to accept the offer of allotment, the said allotment of land stood cancelled and the Earnest Money Deposit stood forfeited. The petitioner now can not claim right to possession of the plot of land allotted to her. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Petition is accordingly dismissed. Parties will bear their own cost.