Ravindra Nath Ojha Son Of M.N. Ojha ... vs Jharkhand State Housing Board ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4464 Jhar

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           W.P. (C) No. 3037 of 2013
                     --------

Ravindra Nath Ojha son of M.N. Ojha resident of M/436, Adityapur P.O.P.S. Adityapur Dist Saraikella Kharsawa .... ... Petitioner Versus

1.Jharkhand State Housing Board through its Chairman having its office at P.O Harmu P.S. Argora Dist Ranchi

2.Treasury Officer Jharkhand State Housing Board having its office at P.O Harmu P.S. Argora Dist Ranchi ... Respondents

-------

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

-------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Advocate For the Respondents : None

------

Order No. 13/Dated 29th November, 2021

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India for quashing demand letter dated

31.01.2011 whereby and whereunder demand to the tune

of Rs. 2 lakh and odd has been raised against the petitioner

for the period in which the land which was allotted to the

present petitioner was never handed over by the

respondents-authorities due to encroachment.

Reference may be made to order dated 10th

February, 2020 wherein learned counsel for the petitioner

relying upon the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench

of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4269 of 2011 dated 20.08.2018, in particular paragraph 5 thereof, wherein it is

alleged that there is reference of decision taken by the

Jharkhand State Housing Board in its 40th meeting held on

07.04.2015 which contains a decision vide agenda Item

No.11 containing a decision to resolve the issue pertaining

to a situation where the plot has not been handed over by

the State Housing Board hindrance free, has submitted

that the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered

by the said case.

Pursuant thereto, the respondent-Housing Board

was directed to place on record the decision of 40th meeting

of Jharkhand Housing Board dated 07.04.2015, but till

date no affidavit has been filed placing the said decision

before this Court.

Today, none appears for the respondent-Housing

Board.

However, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf

of respondent-Housing Board stating inter alia therein that

a 'Middle Income Group' Plot No. M/654 was allotted to the

petitioner vide allotment letter no. 762 dated 05.09.1997.

As per clause 3 of the allotment letter, the tentative price of

the plot was fixed at Rs. 1,16,093 as on 30.09.1997.

Thereafter, a Hire Purchase Agreement dated 20.03.1998

was executed between the Board and the allottee. It is

alleged that after executing the agreement, the petitioner remained silent for a long period of time and approached on

12.11.2002 with a request to allot another plot in lieu of

earlier plot and finally vide letter dated 29.01.2008 another

plot being plot no. M/436 was allotted in lieu of earlier plot.

Accordingly, fresh agreement was entered into between the

parties on 14.08.2008 in respect of plot no. M/436. It has

further been averred that as per clause 4 A of the

Agreement, the price was tentative and may increase in

future. As such final price of the land in question was

communicated to the petitioner and demand notice was

sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 31.01.2011.

This Court, having heard learned counsel for the

petitioner and taking into consideration the fact that the

writ petitioner is claiming that his case is squarely covered

by the judgment dated 20.08.2018 rendered in W.P. (C) No.

4269 of 2011, without going into the merit of the case,

deem it fit and proper to grant liberty to the petitioner to

submit detailed representation before the concerned

authority of the Housing Board annexing therewith order

dated 20.08.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4269 of 2011,

within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy

of this order.

If such representation is submitted before the

concerned authority, he shall take appropriate decision in

accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter.

It is made clear that if the facts of the present case

is similar to that of W.P. (C) No. 4269 of 2011 same benefit

shall be extended to the petitioner within the aforesaid

period.

In the event, the case of writ petitioner is not found

to be covered with the judgment passed in W.P. (C) No.

4269 of 2011, appropriate decision shall be taken on the

representation of the petitioner, which will be

communicated to the petitioner within a period of six weeks

from the date of receipt of such representation.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the

writ petition stands disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Alankar/