Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 392 (PAT)

Suman Prasad Srivastava v. State of Bihar

2012-03-02

SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2012
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Housing Board. 2. The petitioners pray for quashing of the individual notices as contained in Annexure-17 and 18 Series thereto issued to them under the signature of respondent no.5, the Revenue Officer of the respondent Bihar State Housing Board asking them to pay the remaining cost/price of the respective Higher Income Group (H.I.G.) Houses allotted to them by the Board at Dalpatpur, Ara along with interest calculated up to 30.11.2009 failing which respective allotments made in their favour have been directed to be cancelled. 3. The petitioners also pray to reduce the interest for the period of status-quo granted by the Hon’ble Court by order dated 28.04.1993 passed in C.W.J.C. No.9446 of 1992 as contained in annexure-3 to the writ application. 4. The petitioners were allotted flat at Arrah in the year 1989 and 1992. A hire purchase agreement was entered between the petitioners and the Housing Board. In accordance with higher purchase agreement, the petitioners deposited the initial amount and agreed to deposit the rest amount in instalments. The petitioners’ case is that they had regularly deposited their installments. The petitioners are aggrieved by letters of the Board whereby the final cost of flat has been assessed arbitrarily high. 5. The petitioners moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No.9446 of 1992 and 9488 of 1992. The writ petitions after being heard were disposed of with a direction to the Managing Director to get the claim of the petitioners examined. This Court also observed that the liabilities to pay should be worked out keeping in mind the conditions in which possession were given or offered. 6. Counsel for the petitioners submit that without giving an opportunity of hearing, the respondent Board has issued new demand, which is very excessive and high. The petitioners state that the respondents would be entitled to charge enhanced amount only if they had made corresponding expenses towards repair of the flats or had paid extra amount on account of increase in cost of acquisition of the land or its development. 7. The petitioners submit that in case of Smt. Bina Singh @ Sinha Vs. The petitioners state that the respondents would be entitled to charge enhanced amount only if they had made corresponding expenses towards repair of the flats or had paid extra amount on account of increase in cost of acquisition of the land or its development. 7. The petitioners submit that in case of Smt. Bina Singh @ Sinha Vs. The Bihar State Housing Board & Ors., reported in 2006(4) PLJR 11 , the learned Single Judge observed that even there is increase in the cost of acquisition of land, or increase in the cost of construction, the respondents Board would not be entitled to charge any enhanced price, other than the one that arrived at the time of allotment of the premises. 8. I too agree with the observation of the learned Single Judge in case of Smt. Bina Singh @ Sinha (Supra) that where there is no increase in the cost of Land acquisition or where there is no expenses incurred towards repair or further construction of the flat, the respondent Board would not be entitled to charge an enhanced amount. 9. In the impugned demand notice, I find that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners to place their cases. Let the demand notice be treated as show-cause to which the petitioners would be entitled to file their detailed reply. Thereupon the respondent Board would furnish the reasons for charging the enhanced price of the flats in question and would give the necessary break-ups. 10. The petitioners have drawn my attention to the resolution of the Board dated 27.05.2008 (Annexure-12). The petitioners submit that the Board has sought for Government view of charging One Time Settlement under the OTS scheme. It is expected that the Government would take a decision on the proposal forwarded by the Housing Board. 11. The demand notice is kept in abeyance. 12. Counsel for the Board submits that some of the petitioners have not made any payment after execution of the agreement. This liberty would not available to them, who have not made any payment after the agreement. But where an allottee has made some payment after his purchase agreement they should be permitted to make payment of the balance amount. 13. Some of the petitioners submit that they have not been given even possession of flats (petitioner nos. This liberty would not available to them, who have not made any payment after the agreement. But where an allottee has made some payment after his purchase agreement they should be permitted to make payment of the balance amount. 13. Some of the petitioners submit that they have not been given even possession of flats (petitioner nos. 5 and 8 of C.W.J.C. No.1965 of 2010) though they have paid more than the instalments as per the hire purchase agreement. The Board would consider handing over of possession of flat in such case. 14. In the backdrop of discussions made above, the matter is remitted to the Pricing Committee for fresh adjudication. The petitioners would file their detailed representations before the Pricing Committee, which would be disposed of after giving a personal hearing to the parties. 15. These applications stand disposed of.