JUDGEMENT R.M.Doshit, J. 1. Learned Advocate Mr. Pradip Kumar-II 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.10H/23 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 4th September 1991, the petitioner was allotted sub-plot no. 10H/23 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 allotment 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 the agreement within that time, the allotment would automatically stand cancelled and the Earnest Money Deposit would stand forfeited. 2. 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. 4488 of 1992. 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 category of land. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 of the letter of offer. 3. The petition is contested by the Board on the point of land price. According to the Board the pricing pattern adopted by the Board was in consonance with the National Housing Policy and the guidelines issued by the National Housing Bank. 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. We are afraid, the question of pricing of land is highly technical one. 5. It has to be left to the good sense of the experts. 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. We are afraid, the question of pricing of land is highly technical one. 5. It has to be left to the good sense of the experts. 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 other expenses including the establishment cost incurred by the Board. There is nothing on the record to suggest that what should be the fair price of the land. 6. 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 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 Patna High Court forfeited. The petitioner now can not claim right to possession of the plot of land allotted to her. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Petition is accordingly dismissed. The parties will bear their own cost.