IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.
(29.8.2022)
CWJC No. 9046 of 2018
Yogendra Ray : Petitioner
Vs.
Bihar State Housing Board
& Ors. : Respondents
Housing–Allotment of Flat–Though allotment of Flat in question was made to petitioner, petitioner failed to deposit any monthly installments–Fault lies with petitioner who wants that respondent-Board should execute agreement in question and deliver possession of Flat to petitioner without realizing price of Flat which is impermissible–On account of non-payment of monthly installments, allotment made in favour of petitioner has already stood cancelled–Writ Petition dismissed. (Paras 5 and 6)
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.:–The present writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents to execute the deed of agreement of Janta Flat at Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Patna bearing Flat no. FF-211, allotted to the petitioner by the Bihar State Housing Board, Patna (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Board”), vide letter dated 29.10.1983 and consequently, deliver the possession of the said Flat to the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, is that the respondent-Housing Board had issued a general notice inviting applications from the general public for allotment of housing sites and dwellings in the month of September, 1974, whereupon the petitioner had applied for allotment of Flat. It is further submitted that in pursuance to the application submitted by the petitioner, the respondent-Housing Board had allotted a Janta Flat bearing Flat no. FF-211, vide letter dated 29.10.1983, whereby and whereunder a sum of Rs. 2,660/- was to be deposited in the account of the Housing Board within 30 days and rest of the amount, to the tune of Rs. 12,240/-, was to be deposited in 120 monthly installments of Rs. 142/- per month. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,660/- on 23.11.1983 i.e. within time and had requested the respondent-Board to execute the agreement in question, however, the respondent- Board had not responded. It is the further case of the petitioner that after about 15 years, the respondent- Board had informed the petitioner, vide letter dated 18.12.1998, regarding execution of agreement within 15 days, whereafter the petitioner had approached the concerned Executive Engineer on 08.01.1999 but no action was taken. Subsequently, the Executive Engineer, Housing Board, vide letter dated 07.03.2002, had informed the petitioner that the price of the Flat has been revised and the balance outstanding amount totals upto a sum of Rs. 85,966/-, which is required to be paid in 120 installments i.e. @ Rs. 1196.35 per month. The petitioner had then requested the Executive Engineer of the respondent-Board vide application dated 09.03.2004 for execution of agreement but to no avail, nonetheless, the respondent- Board had sent a letter dated 20.04.2004 to the petitioner, raising the cost of Flat to a sum of Rs. 1,19,547/-.
3. It is also contended by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-Board had published a notice on 17.02.2013, in the daily newspaper “Hindustan” regarding revival of allotted flats on the basis of revised rate and such scheme was valid till 31.03.2013.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Board has submitted that Executive Engineer, Patna Division-I of the respondent-Board had intimated the petitioner vide letter dated 20.03.2004 with regard to deposit of a sum of Rs. 2,639/- as also a sum of Rs. 95,638/- against the outstanding E.M.Is. for the purposes of execution of the registered deed, however the same was not deposited by the petitioner. Again, the Executive Engineer, Patna Division-2 of the respondent-Board had intimated the petitioner vide letter dated 30.11.2018 to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 95,638/-, failing which, his allotment would be cancelled, inasmuch as the petitioner had deposited only a sum of Rs. 550/- on 27.02.1978 and a sum of Rs. 2,660/- on 23.11.1983. Nonetheless, the petitioner had failed to deposit the said E.M.I. amount, hence, the allotment was cancelled, as such the agreement could not be executed in between the petitioner and the respondent-Board. It is further submitted that there is no policy of the respondent-Board, at the moment, for revival of the cancelled allotment, hence no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record, from which, it is apparent that though the allotment of the Flat in question was made to the petitioner on 29.10.1983, however, apart from depositing a meager sum of Rs
Extension of completion period and waiver of penal interest altered the original terms of the contract, making time no longer the essence of the payment.
The court affirmed that failure to comply with payment terms in a contract justifies forfeiture of earnest money, and a claim for refund is not valid under such circumstances.
Timely action against administrative decisions is essential, as courts cannot condone delays after significant lapses, particularly when property rights have transferred.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority's power to cancel allotment in case of default and the requirement for the petitioner to rectify the default within the specified tim....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.