SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 751

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Vijay Shankar Jha – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors.- Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 4790 of 2023, W.P.(C) No. 5058 of 2023, W.P.(C) No. 2854 of 2024, W.P.(C) No. 3836 of 2024
Decided On : 23-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate, Mr. Sharon Kerketta, Advocate Ms. Ayushi, Advocate, Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate Master Akash, Advocate, Mr. Vijay Shankar Jha, Advocate, Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Shivam Singh, AC to SC-II For Jh.State Housing Board:-Ms. Surbhi, AC to Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
The Jharkhand State Housing Board cannot charge compound interest on amounts already paid; only simple interest on outstanding amounts is permissible.

Headnote:

(A) No specific statutory rule or law empowers the Jharkhand State Housing Board to charge compound interest on amounts already paid by the petitioners. The court found that the demand for compound interest was arbitrary and quashed the letters demanding such payments. (Paras 16-18)

(B) The court directed the Jharkhand State Housing Board to calculate simple interest on outstanding amounts only, ensuring that those who have already paid are not charged any interest. (Paras 19-21)

Facts of the case:

The petitioners challenged the letters from the Jharkhand State Housing Board demanding compound interest on plots for which payments had been made, arguing that such demands were arbitrary and unsupported by law.

Findings of Court:

The court ruled that the demand for compound interest was unjustified and quashed the letters issued by the Jharkhand State Housing Board.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Jharkhand State Housing Board had the authority to charge compound interest on amounts already paid by the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Jharkhand State Housing Board could not charge compound interest without statutory backing and that interest could only be charged on unpaid amounts.

Result: The petitions were disposed of with directions to calculate simple interest only.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Since in all these writ petitions a common question of facts and law are arisen and in view of that all these writ petitions have been heard together with consent of the parties.

2. In W.P.(C) No.4790 of 2023, the prayer has been made for quashing of the letter dated 27.06.2023 issued by the respondent Jharkhand State Housing Board whereby the respondent Jharkhand State Housing Board has charged compound interest over the plot to the petitioner.

3. The further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondent Jharkhand State Housing Board not to charge interest or compound interest over the actual allotment for which the payment has already been made in the year 2011 itself.

4. In W.P.(C.) No.5058 of 2023, the prayer has been made for quashing of the letter dated 18.08.2023 issued by the respondent Jharkhand State Housing Board whereby the respondent Jharkhand State Housing Board has charged interest or compound interest over the plot allotted to the petitioner.

5. The further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondent Jharkhand State Housing Board to accept the amount as asked to deposit by the respondent authority by the letter dated 24.07.2023 contained in Annexure-13.

6. In W.P.(C.) No.2854 of 2023, the prayer has been made for quashing of the letter dated 11.03.2024 issued by the respondent Jharkhand State Housing Board whereby respondent Jharkhand State Housing Board has charged compound interest over the plot allotted to the petitioner.

7. The further prayer has been made for direction not to charge interest or compound interest over the actual allotment for which payment has already been made in the year 2011.

8. In W.P.(C.) No.3836 of 2023, the prayer has been made for quashing of the letter dated 06.10.2023 issued by the respondent Jharkhand State Housing Board whereby the petitioner has been directed to make the payment of Rs.72,81,257/- in relation to HIG plot no.HD no.50 situated at Harmu Housing Colony, Ranchi.

9. The further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondent Jharkhand State Housing Board to execute and register the conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner after granting No Objection in relation to HIG plot no.HG 50.

10. Mr. Saurav Arun the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4790 of 2023 submitted that the petitioner is a practicing lawyer in the High Court of Jharkhand and has applied for plot in terms of advertisement made in the year 2011 and has applied for MIG plot under general category. By letter dated 10.09.2011, the petitioner was allotted MB/2,’ 1998 sq.ft at Harmu for a total consideration of Rs.12,39,716/- contained in annexure-1. Pursuant to the said allotment letter, the petitioner has deposited 10 % amount which was amounting to Rs.1,20,000/- and thereafter 25% i.e. Rs.1,90,229/- was deposited on 28.07.2011 and 20.09.2011. The petitioner was asked to enter into an agreement on 19.12.2011 and accordingly an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent Jharkhand State Housing Board on 23.12.2011 as contained in Annexure-2 and 2/1. In terms of the agreement, the petitioner has already deposited further amount of Rs.11,41,997/- and informed the same to the Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board. He then submitted that on 21.03.2015, all of a sudden, behind the back of the petitioner, the land allotted to the petitioner on 20.08.2011 was cancelled on 20.08.2011. He further submitted that the petitioner has moved before this Court in W.P.(C) No.1346 of 2015 challenging the order dated 21.03.2015 and 12.07.2013 along with others and the said writ petition was allowed by order dated 10.12.2015 and thus, the orders were set aside contained in Annexure- 5. Thereafter, after the order of the High Court, the petitioner has made representation before the competent authority. He submitted, however, on 09.11.2016 a decision was taken by the authority that money /installment will not be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top