SANTOSH KUMAR NANDA Vs. ODISHA STATE HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the letter dated 13.07.2016 vide Annexure-7 and also seeking a direction to hold the circular dated 26.09.2011 vide Annexure-8 is not applicable to the case at hand.

(2.) Short background involved in the case is that the "Odisha State Housing Board" hereinafter in short called as "O.S.H.B" floated an advertisement for allotment of houses under Self Financing Scheme. In the process and considering an application for allotment by the petitioner, the petitioner has been allotted with one HIG house under the Self Financing Scheme at a provisional cost of Rs.2,50,000/-. The petitioner was handed over with possession of the constructed house over Plot No.HIG-175 measuring an area 45'X60' at Phase-VII, Chandrasekharpur, Sailashree Vihar, Bhubaneswar on 29.09.1992 at a total cost of Rs.3,42,999/-, including the cost of the land under the Self Financing Scheme of 1989. The possession was handed over with the execution of an Agreement with the Opposite Party No.1, on 29.09.1992.

(3.) Challenging the enhancement of the cost of the house, defects in construction and for the delay in delivery of the house by the opposite party no.1 the petitioner filed complaints before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa hereinafter in short called as "State Commission" claiming compensation for delay in delivery, enhancement in cost and defects in construction and compensation for the mental agony. The State Commission by order dated 5.11.1997 upheld the escalated cost of the building but awarded interest @18% for the delayed delivery of the possession, from 31.01.1992 to the actual date of possession and also allowed compensation towards the defects in the respective houses besides awarding litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- against the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 challenged the order passed by the State Commission in the National Commission. The National Commission in the process interfering in the impugned order while reducing the interest towards delay in delivery from 18% to 12% remanded the matter to the State Commissioner for fresh adjudication with regard to the defects in each of the houses allotted to the complainants and to have a fair estimated expenditure which might have been required to be spent for repairing the defects. Challenging the order of the National Commission, the opposite party no.1 preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 12.07.2007. As a consequence of remand, the State Commission ultimately deciding the matter afresh on the aspect of estimated expenditure for rectifying the defects came to hold that the estimated cost would be between Rs.45,000/- to Rs.55,000/- individually. The State Commission also held that the complainants will be entitled to interest @9% per annum on the said amount, from the date of delivery of possession to them and opposite party no.1 was directed to make the payment by 31.12.2007, failing which the rate of interest would be 14% per annum. This order was again involved in appeal in the National Commission. The appeal was dismissed with modification of the interest but however, with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid in each case. The judgment of the National Commission was considered in Civil Appeal No.15214 of 2015 and the Civil Appeal was ultimately dismissed on 10.07.2015. Upon finality of the matter the petitioner met the opposite party no.3 and requested him to take steps for execution of the Lease-cum-Sale Deed. The opposite party no.3 by his letter intimated the petitioner to attend his office on 20.12.2015 for execution of Lease-cum-Sale Deed and asked the petitioner to ascertain the value of the Stamp fees to be purchased for the purpose of registration form the Office of the Sub-Registrar. By communication dated 26.11.2015 pursuant to receipt of the letter vide Annexure-5, the opposite party no.3 wrote a letter to the opposite party no.4 and requested him to intimate the value of stamp papers and other registration cost for execution of the deed. There was no response for some time but ultimately, the opposite party no.4 vide letter dated 13.07.2016 intimated the petitioner that the stamp duty and registration fees for execution of the lease deed will be calculated as per the present benchmark value fixed by the District Valuation Committee and no registration of the document can be made below the benchmark valuation fixed by the District Valuation Committee.