JUDGEMENT R.M.Doshit, J. 1. Learned Advocate Mr. Mahendra Prasad Gupta appearing for the petitioner is not present before us. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed for recovery of possession of a piece of land bearing plot no.10M/383 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 26th September 1991, the petitioner was allotted sub-plot no. 10M/383 admeasuring 1430 sq. ft. in Digha housing project. 2. Under the said letter of allotment the petitioner was called upon to pay the first installment of Rs.21,269/- and the remaining Rs.53,828/- in 60 monthly installments. Clauses 4 and 5 of the said letter of offer required that the said Rs.21,269/- 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. 3. Admittedly the petitioner did not pay the amount as required; nor did he execute the agreement; nor did he pay the monthly installments. Instead the petitioner approached this Court in above CWJC No. 1089 of 1992. He 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 allotment. 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 and illegal transfers were made by the erstwhile owners and the series litigations filed against the Board. 4. 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. 4. 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 or the development cost. The cost would also include the other expenses including the establishment cost incurred by the Board. The Board has filed supplementary counter affidavit in support of pricing of the land. The Board has brought on record the various calculations, the amount paid for compensation, development cost etc. to justify the price of lands in various categories. The said affidavit is countered by the petitioner. He has made his own calculations to suggest that the real price of the land is far lower than the price determined by the Board. 5. 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. Apart from the general defence put forth by the Board, the Board has not put forth its 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. As per the letter of allotment, the petitioner was required to pay the first installment of Rs.21,269/- within one month from the date of the offer 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 him. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Petition is accordingly dismissed. The parties will bear their own cost.