IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 2840 of 2004
Kashinath Singh Petitioner
Versus
1. The Jharkhand State Housing Board
2. The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi
3. The Revenue Officer (Head Office), Jharkhand State Housing
Board, Ranchi
4. The Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Jamshedpur
5. The Bihar State Housing Board, Patna Respondents
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.G.R. Patnaik
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, Advocate
---
5. 11.03.2010
Heard counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the
respondents to allot him and hand over the possession of HIG Plot No. H/204, in place of
HIG Plot No. H/300 which was earlier allotted to him pursuant to the agreement entered
into between him and the respondent Board on 6.6.1995.
3. It is informed by the counsel for the respondents that during the pendency of this
writ application, the respondents have allotted the petitioner a substituted plot no. H/I71
of which the petitioner is satisfied. The subsisting grievance of the petitioner is that
though he had paid the entire amounts as payable by him pursuant to the agreement
mentioned above, the respondents have been raising demands for payment of further
amounts which, according to the petitioner, he is not liable to pay.
4. Counsel for the respondent Housing Board informs that the amount which the
petitioner had deposited initially, was only a tentative amount and the final assessment
was made in 2004 and therefore, the difference of amount which the petitioner is liable
to pay, has been demanded from him.
5. As it appears from the rival submissions, the dispute between the parties is
concerning the amount which is payable by the petitioner.
Since the respondent Board has already allotted the substituted plot to the
petitioner, the further subsisting grievance of the petitioner can be considered and settled
by the Managing Director of the Board satisfactorily.
6. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this writ application is disposed
of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation annexing all the relevant
documents including allotment letter, hire purchase agreement and other documents in
support of his claim before the Managing Director of the Respondent Board, who shall
consider the petitioner’s claim on the basis of the documents available on record. Upon
making such fresh reconsideration of the entire issue, the Managing Director shall also
take into consideration the amount which the petitioner had already deposited and shall
also make concession to the petitioner for the delay caused on the part of the respondent
Board in allotting the plot and shall also take into consideration the fact that though, the
petitioner had deposited the initial amount of Rs. 1,33,350/- in 1995, but the allotment of
plot was made after more than 10 years. The decision on the petitioner’s representation
must be taken by the Managing Director of the respondent Board within three months
from the date of receipt of the representation and such decision must be effectively
communicated to the petitioner.
With these observations, this writ application is disposed of at the stage of
admission itself.
Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondent Board.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J)
Ranjeet/