Back
2019 Supreme(Pat) 448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY, J.
Manoj Kumar Bansal – Petitioner
Versus
The Bihar State Housing Board and Others – Respondents
CWJC No. 672 of 2014
Decided On : 25-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Mr. Alok Kumar Agrawal, Mrs. Priya Gupta.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ansuman Singh.
Headnote:
Bihar State Housing Board (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1983 – Regulation 33 – Allotment of plot – Threatened cancellation of allotment for non-payment of demand raised in lieu of interest – Court is not competent to decide matter of price fixation, but Court is definitely competent to decide patent illegality in decision making process by Housing Board – Issue involved in this case is not of calculation, but the issue is discharge of responsibility of authorities like Housing Board and fastening accountability of paying interest to allottee for default of Board – Housing Board has noticed all allottees to provide copy of deposit made by allottees which in order course of business is responsibility of Housing Board – Housing Board instead of instantly responded to request made by allottee, even took 19 years and taking advantage of their lapse have saddled petitioner with liability to pay interest – Demand is arbitrary – For raising such demand and compulsive litigation accountability has to be fixed – Somebody in Housing Board has to take responsibility – Managing Director of Housing Board should come forward to take responsibility for fixing accountability for compulsive litigation where litigants/allottees have to approach this Court – Demand raised by Housing Board quashed. (Paras 14 to 20)
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY, J.
1. Heard Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ansuman Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Housing Board.
2. The petitioner has filed the present application for quashing of the letter dated 27.11.2013 issued by the Revenue Officer, Bihar State Housing Board, by which the respondent threatened cancellation of allotment for non-payment of demand raised in lieu of interest to the tune of Rs. 1,54,58,129.70/-.
3. The original price of the plot was Rs. 9 lacs in auction purchase. The auction was held on 04.02.1984 on higher purchase basis for a period of 66 years.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is a telling tale of taking advantage of total inaction and incompetence of the Housing Board and penalizing the allottee/petitioner for the admitted inaction on behalf of the Housing Board. He has drawn the attention of the Court to various letters issued and enclosed with the writ application. Mr. Sanjay, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in terms of the auction notice deposited security amount Rs. 10,000/- and he further deposited 90,000/- (10 % of the bid amount) on 09.02.1984 and further Rs. 1,25,000/- (15% of the bid amount) on 27.03.1984. After deposit of 25% of the bid amount, the plot was allotted to the petitioner vide letter no. 311 dated 06.06.1984 and the deed of agreement was registered between the petitioner and the Housing Board and possession of the land was handed over to the petitioner on 26.08.1989. In terms of the hire purchase agreement, the petitioner paid the entire amount, the last installment was paid on 18.11.1993.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after payment of the entire amount, the petitioner approached the respondent Board for completing all the remaining formalities for registration of the deed as per hire purchase agreement. The contention of the petitioner is that after 19 long years slumber, the respondent served notice on 22.03.2012 raising a demand for a sum of Rs. 1,11,01,844.43/- as interest against the original price of the plot i.e. Rs. 9,00,000/- (Nine lacs). In response of the aforesaid demand notice, the petitioner filed representation detailing the calculation of the amount paid and submitted that nothing is now payable by the petitioner and there is manifest error in the calculation in raising demand.
6. Surprisingly on 27.11.2013, the Housing Board raised another demand of Rs. 1,54,58,129.71/-. It is in the aforesaid background, the petitioner has filed the present writ application.
7. The order-sheet of this case indicates that time and again indulgence was granted by the Court to the Housing Board. The Court believed that the Housing Board will come out with true facts and figure and assist the Court in settling the dispute between the petitioner and the Housing Board.
8. In the instant case, The Housing Board filed three counter affidavits. In the first counter affidavit, the following stand was taken in para 6 to 22, which are quoted herein below for ready reference:
“6. That in the aforesaid context it is very relevant to submit most humbly that the petitioner has been allotted a commercial plot bearing Plot no. DS-30 consisting of area about 7.30 Katha, situated at Lohiya Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna vide public auction held on 04.02.1984 as the petitioner was highest bidder and had quoted the rate of Rs. 9.00 Lacs (Rupees Nine Lacs Only) for the said plot. The BSHB vide Letter No. 2000/AA dated 06.06.1984 had duly informed the petitioner about the allotment of said plot in his favour.
7. That s is not out of place to submit most humbly that in terms of spirit of transaction, the petitioner had to deposit 25% of the total value i.e. Rs. 2,25,000/- (Rupees Two lacs and twenty five thousand only) and rest 75% of the total val
