ORDER : 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the direction has been sought for upon the respondents to hand over the final possession of the allotted Housing Board plot bearing No.M-481, located at Dindali, Adityapur, Jamshedpur in favour of the petitioner as per the allotment letter No.396/94 dated 19.08.1994 or in lieu of the said plot, a plot be handed over in the district of Ranchi as also to pay to the petitioner the compensation @ 18% for the loss sustained by the petitioner from the date of agreement till date. 2. The brief facts as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that an agreement has been entered into between the petitioner and the competent authority of the Jharkhand State Housing Board for purchase of a plot of land on hire purchase agreement, vide Annexure-10 for allotment of a plot being M-481. It has been decided to be allotted in favour of the petitioner vide decision taken by the Housing Board vide Agenda No.1 in its meeting dated 19.03.1994 at a total cost of Rs.74,320/ and according to the petitioner the said amount has been paid in entirety but the plot has not yet been allotted, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for allotment of the said plot. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Jharkhand State Housing Board, wherein ground has been taken that there is no hindrance in the allotment of the plot and if the petitioner will approach to the Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Jamshedpur Division, he would take steps to deliver the said plot after completion of the legal formalities as per the procedure established by law. 4. Reply to the said counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, wherein it has been stated that he has approached the competent authority since the date of the agreement but however to no effect and, as such, appropriate order may be passed. 5. 4. Reply to the said counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, wherein it has been stated that he has approached the competent authority since the date of the agreement but however to no effect and, as such, appropriate order may be passed. 5. This Court has heard the matter at several occasions and has directed the learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Housing Board to come out with the specific instruction as to what legal formalities is to be followed before delivery of the said plot in favour of the petitioner and also to bring on record the copy of the order passed by this Court while granting status quo and disposal of the said writ petition. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Jharkhand State Housing Board has produced a communication issued by the Estate Officer dated 10.07.2019 addressed to him along with the update calculation chart duly been prepared and jointly signed by Revenue Officer, Accounts Officer and Branch Officer and Assistant by serving a copy of the same upon the petitioner and by referring the same it has been submitted that the update calculation has been made by capitalizing the cost of the land as also cost deposited by the petitioner as on the date of entering into an agreement dated 01.11.1994 and thereafter the difference of amount of Rs.3,42,158.00 has been assessed to be paid by the petitioner and while making said calculation on the basis of the cost of the land prevalent on the date of entering into agreement dated 01.11.1994 with the cost deposited by the petitioner and calculated present value on 31.07.2019, it cannot be said that petitioner if would follow he would be put at loss. 6. Upon this, the petitioner who is appearing in person, has submitted that there is no fault on his part and even accepting the order of status quo by this Court, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer since according to him, even in course of operation of interim order passed by this Court, the plots have been allotted in favour of others but he has been singled out and as such the calculation which has been prepared by the respondent-Housing Board to the tune of Rs.3,42,158.00 cannot be said to be justified one. He further submits that he is made to suffer right from 01.11.1994 as also on date and as such the respondent-Housing Board may be directed to handover the possession of the plot in pursuance to the cost determined at the time of entering into an agreement on 01.11.1994. 7. This Court after having heard learned counsel for the petitioner in person as also Dr. A. K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Board and after going across the affidavits filed on their behalf, has found that the hire purchase agreement has been entered into in between the petitioner and the Housing Board on 01.11.1994 as would appear from the said hire purchase agreement as has been annexed as Annexure-10, when a decision has been taken by the Housing Board in its meeting held on 19.03.1994 for allotment of a plot being M-481 at a total cost tentatively determined to the tune of Rs.74,320.00 and on the basis of terms and conditions as mentioned in the said allotment order, the petitioner has paid initially Rs.22,296/- towards the disposal price of the said plot of land and promised to pay disposal price of land allotted to the settlee. It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs.74,320/ has been paid by the petitioner in entirety. The terms and conditions of the allotment as also the hire purchase agreement has not been followed by the Jharkhand State Housing Board on the excuse of interim order of status quo passed by this Court in a writ proceeding. This Court has directed the learned counsel for the respondent-Housing Board to bring on record the copy of the interim order of status quo passed in the writ petition, but no such order has been brought on record or even placed for its appreciation that at what circumstances the order of status quo has been passed by way of interim measure, when the writ petition has been disposed of and even though specific direction to that effect has been passed on 13.06.2019. However, in course of hearing the calculation chart has been produced by the respondent-Housing Board through his counsel, Mr. However, in course of hearing the calculation chart has been produced by the respondent-Housing Board through his counsel, Mr. Singh, wherefrom it is evident that the total cost as has been assessed on 31.10.1994 to the tune of Rs.74,320/ has been admitted and the capitalized value of Rs.74,320/- for the period of 24 years 9 months has been calculated @ interest of 16.50% from 01.11.1994, the date of hire purchase agreement till 31.07.2019 to the tune of Rs.32,83,263.32 while the cost of the land on 31.07.2019 has been assessed to Rs.32,83,263 + the cost of law and accounts to the tune of Rs.300, total capitalized value of land comes to Rs.32,83,563.00 and the security money deposited by the petitioner as on 28.06.1980 was to the tune of Rs.1,500.00 and the money has been deposited time to time by the allottee/petitioner, the total capitalized money was deposited by the allottee Rs.29,41,405.00 and as such difference between the capitalized value of land and the capitalized value of the total money deposited taken on the basis of its value on 31.07.2019 comes to Rs.3,42,158.00. It has been submitted by Dr. A. K. Singh, learned counsel for the Housing Board that a sum of Rs.3,42,158.00 is to be paid by the petitioner. 8. The question herein is when the order of status quo passed by this Court in a writ proceeding has since been taken as a ground for non-allotment of the plot in favour of the petitioner and the copy of the said order has not been produced, therefore, this Court is not in a position to appreciate as on what ground the order of status quo and in which context the same has been passed as has been submitted by the petitioner even in course of operation of status quo the allotment of the land has been made and he has been discriminated, the said aspect of the matter has not been disputed by Dr. A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Board, however he fairly submits that this Court may pass appropriate order which shall be complied with. A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Board, however he fairly submits that this Court may pass appropriate order which shall be complied with. This Court after taking into consideration the aforesaid submission and after going across the entire factual aspects as referred herein above, is of the view that a hire purchase agreement has been entered into in between the petitioner and the respondent-Housing Board, wherein the total cost of Rs.74,320 has been determined which according to the Housing Board is a tentative determination and as such the excess amount is required to be paid but the question herein is that when the petitioner has already deposited the entire amount as and when required to be paid and Plot No.M-481 has been allotted in his favour but the said plot has not been provided to the petitioner and reason has been shown in the counter affidavit that the Plot No.M-481 could not have been handed over to the petitioner since the original land holder from whom the land has been acquired had filed case before this Court for hire purchase compensation in which the order of interim stay has been passed. 9. Now the question is that matter of compensation is to be paid in favour of the land loser whose land has been acquired and is sought to be handed over the possession thereof in favour of the petitioner and if there is any dispute in between the Housing Board and the displaced person why the petitioner will be put at loss? The Housing Board since has been created and constituted to provide the plot of land to the people who are in the middle or the lower income group and when the hire purchase agreement has been entered into it was the duty of the State Housing Board to first acquire and get the possession of the land in question and it is only thereafter the agreement ought to have entered into in between the allottees but as has been gathered by the affidavit filed by the Housing Board that the agreement has been entered into by the authority of the Housing Board with the petitioner without even taking decision over the land in question and the said aspect of the matter has not been brought to the notice of the petitioner and as such when the Housing Board has played hide and seek with the petitioner while on the other hand the petitioner has complied with the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement and further he has to run from pillar to post right from the year 1994 by approaching the authority and also before this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the calculation which has been shown to be paid by the petitioner, is nothing but is contrary to the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement and if the petitioner would have been allotted the plot in question at the relevant time, he would have constructed the house and resided therein with all tranquility and peace of mind, but he has made to suffer for last 24 years, as such this Court is of the view that the argument advanced on behalf of the Housing Board for making payment of difference of amount is nothing but an arbitrary action as also an action suffers from act of irresponsibility in entering into an agreement without possession of the land, therefore, this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is also a Court of equity, deem it fit and proper to direct the Managing Director, Housing Board to ensure the allotment of the Plot No.M-481 in favour of the petitioner forthwith without charging any additional cost from the petitioner. So far as question of quantum or the land in the district of Ranchi is concerned, this Court is of the view that although the petitioner has entered into a hire purchase agreement on 01.11.1994 but he has approached to this Court only in the year 2018 i.e. after lapse of about 24 years and as such in the circumstances, if any order of compensation would be paid by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that would not be proper. So far as allotment of plot in the district of Ranchi is concerned since the respondent-Housing Board has agreed with allotment of the plot as has been agreed by virtue of the hire purchase agreement, the said direction is not fit to be issued upon the Jharkhand State Housing Board. In view of the entirety of the facts and circumstances, the writ petition stands disposed of.