Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 392 (PAT)

Awadh Bihari Singh v. State Of Bihar

2020-08-13

MOHIT KUMAR SHAH

body2020
JUDGMENT Mohit Kumar Shah, J. - The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 05.07.2013 passed by the respondent-Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna, whereby and whereunder the representation of the petitioner dated 12.06.2012 for allotment of 966 sq. ft. of land located at Sri Krishna Nagar, Plot no. CH-28, at residential rate and not at commercial rate, has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 25.06.2008 issued by the respondent-Estate Officer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), to the extent that the petitioner has been apprised that the Board, in its 225th Meeting has taken a decision to allot an additional 966 sq.ft. of land at the commercial rate and the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,83,813/- till July, 2007 and a sum of Rs. 5,90,624/- till August, 2008. The petitioner has further prayed for holding that the allotment of land for residential purposes cannot be charged at commercial rates since the same is contrary to the Housing Scheme as also the Act. Consequently, it has been prayed to direct the respondent-Board to allot the said 966 sq.ft. of land in favour of the petitioner at the residential rates. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondentBoard took a decision in its 106th Meeting dated 29.08.1986 to allot a plot of land under the High Income Group Scheme to the petitioner at Shri Krishna Nagar, Patna. Accordingly, a letter dated 23.09.1986 was issued by the then Secretary of the Board informing the petitioner about allotment of High Income Group Plot bearing no. CH-22 and the petitioner was directed to deposit certain sums of money. The petitioner had then entered into a hire purchase agreement dated 04.12.1986 with regard to the aforesaid piece of land admeasuring 2452 sq.ft. located at Shri Krishna Nagar, Patna bearing plot no. CH-22 and Clause 9 of the said agreement clearly provides that the premises is to be used for residential purposes. The provisional cost of the land was fixed at Rs. 17,960/- and the petitioner, as per the requirement, had deposited 30% of provisional cost to the tune of Rs. 5,388/-. The petitioner was also required to pay monthly installments which he had paid in time. Thereafter, the plot in question was handed over to the petitioner on 19.03.1990. The provisional cost of the land was fixed at Rs. 17,960/- and the petitioner, as per the requirement, had deposited 30% of provisional cost to the tune of Rs. 5,388/-. The petitioner was also required to pay monthly installments which he had paid in time. Thereafter, the plot in question was handed over to the petitioner on 19.03.1990. Since the adjacent land to the plot of the petitioner on the western side was lying vacant and was of no use to anyone, in view of its small size, the petitioner had filed a representation before the respondentBoard to allot the same to him. On the basis of the said representation of the petitioner, the Board in its 225th meeting held on 28.03.2008, vide agenda no. 4, was pleased to resolve to allot the additional land situated in between Plots no. CH-22 and CH-23, admeasuring 1420.20 sq.ft. Consequently, a letter dated 28.05.2008 was issued by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent- Board, whereby an additional land admeasuring 1420.20 sq.ft. was allotted in favour of the petitioner herein. The Estate officer of the respondent-Board had then issued a letter dated 24.06.2008 informing the petitioner about allotment of 966 sq.ft. of land instead of 1420.20 sq.ft. of land and a demand on the basis of commercial rates was made for the said piece of land. This led to the petitioner filing a representation dated 07.07.2008 and when no action was taken, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. no. 19033 of 2008 and this Court vide order 30.04.2012, had remanded the matter to the Chairman-cumManaging Director of the respondent-Board. The petitioner had then filed a detailed representation before the Chairman-cumManaging Director of the respondent-Board on 12.06.2012 and the Managing Director of the respondent-Board had then passed an order dated 05.07.2013, rejecting the representation of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allotment of the land in question has been done only for residential purposes in light of the provision of the Scheme and the Act and Regulations thereof, hence the demand of commercial rate from the petitioner for the additional plot of land is without any authority of law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allotment of the land in question has been done only for residential purposes in light of the provision of the Scheme and the Act and Regulations thereof, hence the demand of commercial rate from the petitioner for the additional plot of land is without any authority of law. It is submitted that Section 29 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1982) empowers the Board to undertake housing improvement schemes which includes matter relating to provision of accommodation in any class of inhabitation. Section 45(3) of the Act, 1982 empowers the Board to maintain, allot, lease and otherwise use plots, building, and other properties of the Board or the Government and to collect rents from the properties under the control and management of the Board and repay loans to the State and Central Governments. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to Regulation 5 of the Bihar State Housing Board (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulation, 1953 and submits that the same enables the Board to execute housing schemes for the purposes of making provisions of dwelling units or sites for eligible individuals of different income group and as per Regulation 6, disposal of such properties is to be effected either for sale or hire purchase or in such manner subject to suitable terms and conditions, as may be decided by the Board. Regulation 7 of the said Regulations, 1953 empowers the Board to determine the price of such hire purchase. Regulation 13 provides that the properties, so allotted shall be used for such purpose only as may be prescribed in the hire purchase agreement and regulations 34 to 41 deals with the manner in which the property is vested to the allottee. It is thus submitted that since the entire scheme in question was for residential purpose and the petitioner was also allotted plot for residential purposes, on residential rates, i.e. the one bearing plot no. CS-22 admeasuring an area of 2452 sq.ft. It is thus submitted that since the entire scheme in question was for residential purpose and the petitioner was also allotted plot for residential purposes, on residential rates, i.e. the one bearing plot no. CS-22 admeasuring an area of 2452 sq.ft. and since the adjacent land in question was lying vacant as also was not usable on account of its small size, the petitioner had requested the respondent-Board to allot the same in his favour and the Board, in its 225th meeting, had infact also taken a decision in favour of the petitioner for allotting the said small size land admeasuring 1420.20 sq.ft. to the petitioner herein. However, the Estate Officer of the respondent-Board had subsequently, by his letter dated 25.06.2008, confirmed allotment of only 966 sq.ft. of land, which the petitioner is not challenging, but it is the illegal determination of the cost of the said plot at commercial rates, with which the petitioner herein, is aggrieved. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no rationale behind charging commercial rates for the plot in question, inasmuch as the entire scheme is for residential purposes and the plots have been allotted on the basis of residential rates. It is further submitted that the decision of the Board, in its 187th meeting held on 27.09.1999 regarding settlement of additional land with the adjacent allottee at commercial rates, is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment ( All Manipur Pensioners Association v. State of Manipur, (2019) 3 PLJR 233 SC ), paragraph no. 8 whereof, is reproduced hereinbelow :- " 8. Even otherwise on merits also, we are of the firm opinion that there is no valid justification to create two classes, viz., one who retired pre1996 and another who retired post1996, for the purpose of grant of revised pension, In our view, such a classification has no nexus with the object and purpose of grant of benefit of revised pension. All the pensioners form a one class who are entitled to pension as per the pension rules. Article 14 of the Constitution of India ensures to all equality before law and equal protection of laws. At this juncture it is also necessary to examine the concept of valid classification. All the pensioners form a one class who are entitled to pension as per the pension rules. Article 14 of the Constitution of India ensures to all equality before law and equal protection of laws. At this juncture it is also necessary to examine the concept of valid classification. A valid classification is truly a valid discrimination. It is true that Article 16 of the Constitution of India permits a valid classification. However, a very classification must be based on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the just objective presupposes the choice of some for differential consideration/treatment over others. A classification to be valid must necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective and secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another, must have a reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved. The test for a valid classification may be summarised as a distinction based on a classification founded on an intelligible differentia, which has a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. Therefore, whenever a cutoff date (as in the present controversy) is fixed to categorise one set of pensioners for favourable consideration over others, the twin test for valid classification or valid discrimination therefore must necessarily be satisfied. In the present case, the classification in question has no reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved while revising the pension. As observed hereinabove, the object and purpose for revising the pension is due to the increase in the cost of living. All the pensioners form a single class and therefore such a classification for the purpose of grant of revised pension is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose from amongst similarly situated persons, a cutoff date for extension of benefits especially pensionary benefits. There has to be a classification founded on some rational principle when similarly situated class is differentiated for grant of any benefit." 4. The State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose from amongst similarly situated persons, a cutoff date for extension of benefits especially pensionary benefits. There has to be a classification founded on some rational principle when similarly situated class is differentiated for grant of any benefit." 4. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no valid justification to create class within class by prescribing two types of rates for the said residential plots i.e. (i) residential rate and (ii) commercial rate, hence the decision of the Board to charge commercial rate is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which guarantees to all, equality before law and equal protection of laws. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the decision of the Board to charge commercial rates from the petitioner with regard to the residential plot in question is arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable and no reason whatsoever has been furnished for such action. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment ( Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. Prakash Dal Mill, (2011) 6 SCC 714 ), paragraphs no. 23 to 25 whereof, are reproduced hereinbelow :- "23. The Board being State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is required to act fairly, reasonably and not arbitrarily or whimsically. The guarantee of equality before law or equal protection of the law under Article 14 embraces within its realm exercise of discretionary powers by the State. The High Court examined the entire issue on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been observed that the fixation of price done by the Board has violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is correctly observed that though Clause 7(b) permits the Board to fix the final price of the demised premises, it cannot be said that where the Board arbitrarily or irrationally fixes the final price of the site without any basis, such fixation of the price could bind the lessee. In such circumstances, the Court will have the jurisdiction to annul the decision, upon declaring the same to be void and non est. 24. A bare perusal of Clause 7(b) would show that it does not lay down any fixed components of final proce. In such circumstances, the Court will have the jurisdiction to annul the decision, upon declaring the same to be void and non est. 24. A bare perusal of Clause 7(b) would show that it does not lay down any fixed components of final proce. Clause 7(b) also does not speak about the power of the Board to revise or alter the tentative price fixed at the time of allotment. The High Court has correctly observed that Clause 7(b) does not contain any guidelines which would ensure that the Board does not act arbitrarily in fixing the final price of demised premises. Since the validity of the aforesaid clause was not challenged, the High Court has rightly refrained from expressing any opinion thereon. 25. Even though the clause gives the Board an undefined power to fix the final price, it would have to be exercised in accordance with the principle of rationality and reasonableness. The Board can and is entitled to take into account the final cost of the demised premises in the event of it incurring extra expenditure after the allotment of the site. But in the garb of exercising the power to fix the final price, it cannot be permitted to saddle the earlier allottees with the liability of sharing the burden of expenditure by the Board in developing some other sites subsequent to the allotment of the site to the respondents." 6. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision of the Board, taken in its 187th meeting held on 27.09.1999 as well as the one taken in its 198th meeting held on 18.10.2002 is wholly misconceived and not tenable in the eyes of law and the same cannot be said to be a "Regulation" within the meaning of Section 2(20) r/w Sections 28 and 115 of the Act, 1982. It is submitted that Section 28 of the Act, 1982 provides for various types of schemes that the Board has to undertake and subsequent thereof, gives power to the Board to rent out, lease out, sell out on hire- purchase basis or sell outrightly, the houses/ plots constructed under the Schemes as specified under Sub-section (1). The Board is required to prepare regulation for allotment of house/ flats/ plots with the approval of the Government and the allotment has to be made in accordance with the "Regulations". The Board is required to prepare regulation for allotment of house/ flats/ plots with the approval of the Government and the allotment has to be made in accordance with the "Regulations". Section 2(20) of the Act, 1982 defines the "Regulations" to means the "Regulations" made under the Act and Section 115 deals with the power of the Board, by way of notification, to make the "Regulations", not in-consistent with the Act and the rules made thereunder. Section 115(3) of the Act, 1982 provides that " no regulation or its cancellation or modification shall have effect until the same shall have been approved and confirmed by the Government. " Thus, it is submitted that since the decision for charging of commercial rates for residential plots, has been taken by the Board in its 187th / 198th meeting and the same has not been approved and confirmed by the Government under Section 115(3) of the Act, 1982, the same has got no force. It is thus submitted that respondent- Housing Board being a no profit no loss organization, it does not lie within its domain to profit at the cost of the petitioner herein or other similarly situated persons. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment ( Amareshwar Singh v. Bihar State Housing Board, (1995) 1 BLJR 445 43 ), paragraph no. 7 whereof, is reproduced hereinbelow :- "7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Housing Board wherein it is stated that Housing Board is no profit no loss organisation and it never enhances the price or cost of the house sites or dwelling units arbitrary on unreasonable ground. It charges only the cost, which it incurred. While determining the cost it takes into account cost of acquisition of land, development cost of land, cost of construction of flat/ house, cost of fencing/ boundary well around the whole required land, cost of maintenance, administrative charge, charge of documentation and interest on the ground borrowed from the financing body etc. It charges only the cost, which it incurred. While determining the cost it takes into account cost of acquisition of land, development cost of land, cost of construction of flat/ house, cost of fencing/ boundary well around the whole required land, cost of maintenance, administrative charge, charge of documentation and interest on the ground borrowed from the financing body etc. The decision to allot the plots to the petitioner was taken by the Chairman of the Board but the same could not be implemented due to nonsupply of certain required documents by the petitioner as such final decision for the implementation of the decision of the Chairman was not taken earlier and, however, when the petitioners complied with all the formalities the decision was taken in July, 1992 to allot the plots to the petitioner. In pursuance of the aforesaid decision, the allotment letters were issued in the month of January, 1993. Thereafter, the petitioners entered into a hire purchase agreement wherein the tentative price of the alleged plots was given. The total area of land allotted to the petitioners of the first instalment as per agreement the possession has been given in the month of April, 1993. The petitioners have been charged at the rate prevailing at the time of allotment in the year, 1992 and the same is not excessive on the other hand the same has been charged on the basis of taking into consideration the relevant factors as mentioned above." Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the Board is fully competent to enact laws which are applicable only to a particular class or group but for the classification to be valid, it must be founded on an intelligible differentia and the differentia must have a rationale nexus to the object sought to be achieved by a particular provision of law. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a Constitution Bench judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in (2018) 10 SCC 1 7. Per contra, the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents- Bihar State Housing Board has at the outset drawn the attention of this Court to the various provisions of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982 which are reproduced hereinbelow :- "Section 27 :- Section 27 deals with the power to undertake Housing improvement scheme and their expenditure. Per contra, the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents- Bihar State Housing Board has at the outset drawn the attention of this Court to the various provisions of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982 which are reproduced hereinbelow :- "Section 27 :- Section 27 deals with the power to undertake Housing improvement scheme and their expenditure. Section 28 :- Provides different types of scheme i.e. Low Income Group Housing Scheme, Middle Income Group Housing Scheme, Rental Housing Scheme, Rural Housing Scheme. Section 29 :- Provides different types of improvement schemes." Section 30 :- Provides that no housing or improvement scheme to be inconsistent with the master plan Section 45 :- It deals with other duties of the Board to take measures with a view to plan and coordinate with various functions. Section 114 :- Vest power to the State Government to make rules for carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. Section 115 :- Vest power to the Board to make regulations not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act. 8. At this juncture, it would also be relevant to re-produce the relevant regulations of the Bihar State Housing Board (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates), Regulation, 1983 hereinbelow :- " Regulation 5:- The Board shall execute housing schemes for the provision of dwelling units or sites for eligible individuals or different income groups. 6.The disposal of a property shall be effected by either sale or hirepurchase or in such other manner and subject to such terms and conditions as may be deicided by the Board from time to time. Regulation 7:- The hire-purchase price or sale lease hold or the disposal price, as the case may be shall be such price as may be determined by the Board or as arrived at by auction in cases prescribed hereinafter. Regulation 9:- The applicant must belong to the particular income group in which category the dwelling unit or flat or site applied for is available. The various income groups are indicated below:- (a) Economically weaker sections- Up to 6000 P.a. (b) Low Income Rs. 6001 to Rs. 12000. (c) Middle Income Rs. 12001 to 24000. (d) High Income Rs. 24001. Regulation 9:- The applicant must belong to the particular income group in which category the dwelling unit or flat or site applied for is available. The various income groups are indicated below:- (a) Economically weaker sections- Up to 6000 P.a. (b) Low Income Rs. 6001 to Rs. 12000. (c) Middle Income Rs. 12001 to 24000. (d) High Income Rs. 24001. Regulation 13:- the property thus allotted shall be used for such purpose only as may be specified in the conveyance deed/hire purchase tenancy agreement . Regulation 37:- The possession of the dwelling unit/flat shall be handed ver to the hirer after the hirer has paid the prescribed number of instalments and such other dues as shall have been demanded by the Board. Regulation 38:- During the hire purchase period a heir shall remain the tenant of the Board and shall have no other right except that of tenancy as per agreement executed. Regulation 39:- During such period as a hirer remains a tenant he shall abide by the tenancy stipulations as specified in the hire- purchase agreement. Regulation 40:- If the hirer fails to do a thing or refrains from doing a thing as required by the agreement executed under these regulations, the Board shall have the power to get such things done or prevent such things being done at the risk and cost of the hirer. Regulation 41:- The hirer shall cease to be a tenant and shall be the owner of the flat dwelling unit only after the last instalment of hire purchase and all other dues have effected through a conveyance deed in such from as may be prescribed by the board." 9. The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent-Housing Board has submitted that in exercise of the aforesaid power under the Act, 1982, the respondent-Board had framed the aforesaid Regulations, 1983. It is stated that in view of the provisions of the aforesaid Act and regulations framed thereunder, the respondent-Board had made various schemes for allotment of flats, houses and plots under the low income group, medium income group, higher income group and rental schemes. Infact, for carrying out the object and purpose of the said schemes, the Board carves out plots under various development schemes, makes allotment in accordance with the provisions contained in the regulations and fixes price, in view of the provisions contained in regulation 7, pertaining to the various units/ plots. Infact, for carrying out the object and purpose of the said schemes, the Board carves out plots under various development schemes, makes allotment in accordance with the provisions contained in the regulations and fixes price, in view of the provisions contained in regulation 7, pertaining to the various units/ plots. It is thus submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner was allotted a plot on 23.09.1986, whereafter a hire-purchase agreement was executed on 04.12.1986 and then the petitioner was also found to be in possession of an additional piece of plot i.e. the one in dispute. It is submitted that a cut plot adjacent to the plot of the petitioner cannot be equated with the general plots under the said scheme, under which various plots have been allotted to various allottees including the petitioner herein. It is stated that prior to the year, 1999, there was no provision for settlement of such cut plots, inasmuch as the provisions contained in the regulations were only with respect to allotment of units/ plots under the various subsequent schemes in accordance with the provisions made thereunder. Thus, with a view to settle the said cut plots, the Board, in exercise of its powers under Section 51 of the Act, 1982 took a policy decision to settle such cut plots situated adjacent to/ opposite to the plot of the allottees, provided such allottees were willing to purchase the same at commercial rates. In the instant case, the petitioner, knowing well about the aforesaid policy of the respondent-Housing Board, applied for allotment of the adjacent cut plot on 24.06.2000 and the same was allotted to him in accordance with the rules after a decision was taken in the meeting of the Board held on 28.03.2008, whereafter a letter dated 28.05.2008 was issued to the petitioner. The learned Advocate General has referred to the written notes of argument filed on behalf of respondent-Board and has drawn the attention of this Court to the submissions made therein, which are reproduced hereinbelow :- " I) The plot allotted to the various allottees including the petitioner, cannot be equated with the cut plots. Both stand on different footing. II) It is well settled that unequals cannot be made equal and as such, the cut plots cannot be treated at par with general plots. Both stand on different footing. II) It is well settled that unequals cannot be made equal and as such, the cut plots cannot be treated at par with general plots. III) It is always open and permissible to make classification of course the same has to satisfy the twin test viscera. (i) The classification must be founded on intelligble differential, which distinguished person or things different that are grouped together. (ii) The differentia must have rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2007(8) SCC 669 (para 17). IV) In view of the provision contained under Section 51 read with Regulation 7, the Board in its wisdom took a policy decision way back in 1999 that such cut plots would be settled at commercial rate. Firstly, the said cut plots cannot be equated at par with the general plots and as such, the mode and manner of fixation of cost of the general plots under scheme cannot be applied also in fixation of cost of the cut plots. If different yardstick or manner or methods are applied for fixation of the cost of cut plots, it cannot be said that such action will be in teeth of Article 14. V) Further, there is a rational in respect of settlement of cut plots, General plots are settled through the procedure laid down under the Regulation i.e. by inviting applications, draw of lots etc. whereas the cut plots are to be settled with the adjacent allottees and keeping in view such special and distinguished feature of grant of extra benefit to such allottees, Board had taken decision to charge commercial rate. VI) Since the petitioner applied for allotment in view of the 1999 policy, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise grievance that demand of commercial rate is illegal. Having derived benefit out of the 1999 policy decision, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the other part of the said policy decision. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court (para 23) Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi., (2013) 11 SCC 309 In view of the aforesaid fact, the submission of the petitioner that fixation of commercial rate is arbitrary is not sustainable rather the same is reasonable and sustainable in law. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court (para 23) Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi., (2013) 11 SCC 309 In view of the aforesaid fact, the submission of the petitioner that fixation of commercial rate is arbitrary is not sustainable rather the same is reasonable and sustainable in law. VII) The petitioner having come to know of the 1999 policy applied for settlement of the cut plot in the year 2000 and now after 19 years challenge to the said policy of 1999 should not be allowed to challenge the same on the ground of gross delay, latches, waiver, estoppels etc. VIII) In a similar matter, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Kailhal v. The State of Jharkhand, W.P. (C) no. 346 of 2011 upheld the decision of the Jharkhand Housing Board for charging commercial rate. The said decision squarely covers the present issue also. IX) In view of the conduct of the petitioner also the Hon'ble Court should not grant any relief to the petitioner." 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. I find from the records that the petitioner was allotted a plot bearing CH-22 admeasuring 2452 sq. ft. vide allotment letter dated 23.09.1986, whereafter the petitioner had entered into a Hire-purchase agreement with the respondent-Board and the plot in question was handed over to the petitioner on 19.03.1990. Since a small size plot was lying vacant, adjacent to the plot of the petitioner herein, the petitioner thought it proper to request the respondent-Board to allot the same in his favour, hence the petitioner filed a representation dated 24.06.2000 before the Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna for the purposes of allotment of the said adjacent cut plot. Thereafter, the respondent-Board in its 225th meeting held on 28.03.2008 decided to allot the plot situated in between plots no. CH-22 and CH-23 admeasuring 1420.20 sq. ft. in favour of the petitioner herein and accordingly, the Estate officer of the respondent-Board vide letter dated 25.06.2008 had asked the petitioner to pay the cost of the said cut plot, admeasuring 966 sq.ft. as per the commercial rates, totalling to a sum of Rs. 5,90,624/-, the same being the amount assessed till the month of August, 2008. ft. in favour of the petitioner herein and accordingly, the Estate officer of the respondent-Board vide letter dated 25.06.2008 had asked the petitioner to pay the cost of the said cut plot, admeasuring 966 sq.ft. as per the commercial rates, totalling to a sum of Rs. 5,90,624/-, the same being the amount assessed till the month of August, 2008. However, the petitioner, being aggrieved with the assessment of the cost of the cut plot on commercial rates, had filed a representation and had then challenged the said action of the respondent-Board by filing a writ petition bearing CWJC no. 19033 of 2008, which was disposed off by an order dated 30.04.2012 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the matter was remanded back to the Managing Director of the respondent-Board, who had then decided the case of the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 05.07.2013, wherein it has been held that the assessment of the price of the cut plot has been correctly made on commercial rates. This Court further finds that the respondent-Board, prior to filing of the application by the petitioner for allotment of adjacent cut plot on 24.06.2000, had already taken a policy decision in its 187th meeting held on 27.09.1999 to the effect that additional land situated in its various housing colonies could be settled with the adjacent allottee, provided (i) this additional land was not a part of any other land, (ii) its nature should not be that of an independent plot, (iii) if the additional land was adjacent to more than one plots then the allottees of these plots could be allowed a chance for allotment of the additional land and on their willingness, it would be through lottery system and (iv) the cost of said additional land would be assessed at commercial rates, however the same would not be utilized by the allottees for commercial purpose. The Board in its 198th meeting held on 18.10.2002, had further taken a decision that if the area of the additional land would be equal to the area of other plots in the cluster of plots where it is situated and in case, it is possible to make it an independent plot in the said cluster, then the additional land would be auctioned with the base price being the minimum of the commercial rate and in case the additional land cannot be made an independent plot, then the same can be settled with the adjacent allottees on commercial rates, in accordance with the earlier decision taken in the 187th meeting. 11. Upon having gone through the various provisions contained in the Act, 1982 and the Regulations, 1983, this Court finds that under Section 28(3) of the Act, 1982, the Board is required to prepare regulations for allotment of houses/ flats/sites, with the approval of the Government and the allotments are to be made in accordance with the said regulations. This Court further finds that the respondent-Board has made the Bihar State Housing Board (Management & Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1983 in this regard. Infact, Section 115(3) of the Act, 1982 provides for approval and confirmation of the regulation or its cancellation or modification, by the Government and only then the same will be effective. Admittedly, the aforesaid Regulations, 1983 have been approved by the Government. The power to dispose of the land is vested with the respondent-Board by virtue of Section 51 of the Act, 1982 and the power to determine the price of the land can be found under Regulation 7 of the aforesaid regulations, 1983. Admittedly, the aforesaid Regulations, 1983 have been approved by the Government. The power to dispose of the land is vested with the respondent-Board by virtue of Section 51 of the Act, 1982 and the power to determine the price of the land can be found under Regulation 7 of the aforesaid regulations, 1983. Thus, this Court is of the view that since the Board has already framed the Regulations, 1983, which has also been approved by the Government, as required under Section 115(3) of the Act, 1982, the respondent- Board is vested with the power to dispose of the land, building or other property vested in it and situated in the area comprised in the Housing Scheme under Section 51 of the Act, 1982 and is also empowered to determine the price thereof under Regulation 7 of the Regulations, 1983, therefore the respondent-Board is well within its power to have taken a decision in its 187th and 198th meeting dated 27.09.1999 and 18.10.2002 respectively to allot additional land/ cut plots to the adjacent allottees at the commercial rates. This Court is of the opinion that neither class within class is being created by the respondent-Board nor any discrimination is being made nor the aforesaid policy of charging commercial rates for the cut plot is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the cut plots cannot be treated at par with the general plots and moreover, since additional benefit is being bestowed upon such allottees, like the petitioner herein, without resorting to the usual procedure laid down under the regulations i.e. of inviting applications from all concerned and that too out of turn, the decision of the respondent-Board cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14, inasmuch as the status of such an allottee like the petitioner herein, is special, unique and distinct, hence such allottees of cut plots can in no circumstance, be treated to be at par with the general allottees of general/ regular plots. Thus, this Court finds that the argument of the petitioner that the aforesaid fixation of cost of the Government plot at the commercial rate is discriminatory, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, illegal and amounts to creating a class within a class, is misconceived and fit to be rejected, for the aforesaid reasons, as also on the ground that the status of the petitioner vis-a-vis allotment of cut plots is that of a privileged allottee and not that of a regular allottee of a regular plot, hence the decision of the Board, taken in its 187th and 198th meetings dated 27.09.1999 and 18.10.2002 respectively cannot be faulted with, specially in view of the provisions contained in Section 51 of the Act, 1982 r/w Regulation 7 of the Regulations, 1983. Consequently, the ancilliary argument of the petitioner to the effect that the aforesaid decision of the Board does not ipso facto becomes a regulation, without its specific approval by the State Government, is also bound to fall and therefore, does not merit consideration, being misconceived. This Court further finds that the aforesaid decision of the Board to settle the cut plots by charging commercial rates, also does not suffer from any irrationality, for the reasons stated hereinabove, as also on account of the fact that the general plots are settled through the general procedure, whereas the cut plots are to be settled, out of turn, with the adjacent allottees, upon request being made by such allottees which amounts to grant of fortituous benefits to such allottees, hence the Board is definitely vested with the power to charge commercial rates and the said decision of the Board to charge commercial rates for the additional land/ cut plots is well-founded, particularly considering the distinguishing features of the cut plots which are allotted to the adjacent allottees, out of turn and de hors the queue, on a priority basis without following the regular procedure laid down under the regulations. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition, hence the same is dismissed.