IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.7376 of 1991
===========================================================
Ranjit Kumar Singh, son of late Naurangi Prasad Singh, resident of Village –
Beldiha, P.O. Beldiha, P.S. Belhar, District – Bhagalpur
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar,
2. Bihar State Housing Board, through its Managing Director, Bihar State
Housing Board Office, Patna – 800 025,
3. Manager, Estate – cum – Addl. Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna –
800 015
…. …. Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahendra Prasad Gupta.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ram Prasad Bhagat.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
24th June 2011.
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Learned Advocate Mr Mahendra Prasad Gupta is not present
on call.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been
filed by the petitioner against the allotment of land by the respondent
Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”).
It appears that pursuant to the advertisement published by the
Board the petitioner had applied for allotment of a plot of land in the
Higher Income Group in the housing project at Digha, Patna undertaken
by the Board. The petitioner paid the registration fee of Rs. 50.00 and
2 Patna High Court CWJC No.7376 of 1991 dt.24-06-2011
2/3
the Earnest money Deposit of Rs. 5,000.00. Nearly ten years after the
deposit of the Earnest Money, under allotment letter dated 26th
September 1991, the petitioner was allotted a piece of land, Plot No.
10H/164, admeasuring 1875 Sq. Ft. in the aforesaid Digha housing
project. Under the letter of allotment, the petitioner was called upon to
pay the first instalment of Rs. 35,530.00 and the remaining money in
sixty monthly instalments.
Feeling aggrieved by the allotment of the plot no.
10H/164, admeasuring 1875 Sq. Ft., and the price determined by the
Board, the petitioner has filed the present petition. According to the
petitioner, under the scheme framed by the Board, the Board had to
offer a plot of land admeasuring 3600 Sq. Ft. (450 sq. mt.). The
petitioner was, therefore, entitled to a plot of land admeasuring 3600
Sq. Ft. (450 sq. mt.). According to the petitioner, the price of the land
determined by the Board was exorbitant and that the Board was under
obligation to allot land at the cost price.
The petition is contested by the Board. The Board has
filed counter affidavit to point out that the Board is facing several
litigations in respect of acquisition of land and on other issues. It
appears that large part of the land acquired for the housing purpose was
eventually encroached upon by the land sharks leaving limited space to
accommodate the legitimate applicants. The applicants of land in the
Higher Income Group were allotted smaller plots of land admeasuring
1875 Sq. Ft.
The question of determination of disposal price of the land
cannot be contested in the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Apart from the amount of compensation paid to the land
owners and the development cost, there may be several other costs
incurred by the Board which would have a bearing on the cost of the
land. Determination of price is a highly technical matter. Unless ex
3 Patna High Court CWJC No.7376 of 1991 dt.24-06-2011
3/3
facie arbitrary or discriminatory this court exercising power of judicial
review cannot interfere in such matters. Besides, the petitioner has not
placed any material before the Court to suggest what should be the fair
price of the land.
It appears that after payment of the Earnest Money
Deposit the petitioner did not pay the first instalment as required under
the offer of allotment nor did he pay the monthly instalments. In our
opinion, in accordance with Clauses 4 and 5 of the offer of allotment,
the allotment made to the petitioner stood cancelled and the Earnest
Money Deposit made by him stood forfeited. The petitioner, having
failed to comply with the conditions of offer of allotment, has forfeited
his right to allotment of land. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to
any relief.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
The parties will bear their own cost.
( R.M. Doshit, CJ )
( Birendra Prasad Verma, J )
Dilip.