ARUN PRABHAT SINHA Vs. BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Advocate Mr Ram Kishore Singh is not present on call.

(2.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners against the allotment of land by the respondent Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board"). It appears that pursuant to the advertisement published by the Board the petitioners had applied for allotment of plots of land in the Middle Income Group in the housing project at Digha, undertaken by the Board. The petitioners paid the registration fee of Rs. 50.00 and the earnest money deposit of Rs. 2,000.00. Nearly ten years after the deposit of the Earnest Money, under allotment letters dated 26th September 1991, the petitioner no. 1 was allotted a piece of land, Plot No. 3M/413, admeasuring 1430 Sq. Ft. and the petitioner no. 2 was allotted a piece of land, Plot No. 2M/49, admeasuring 1430 Sq. Ft. in the aforesaid Digha housing project. Under the letter of allotment, the petitioners were called upon to pay the first instalment of Rs. 21,269.00 each and the remaining sum of Rs. 53,828 in 60 monthly instalments. Feeling aggrieved by the allotment of the plot admeasuring 1430 Sq. Ft. and the price determined by the Board, the petitioners have filed the present petition. According to the petitioners, under the scheme framed by the Board, the Board had to offer plots of land admeasuring 300 Square Metres to the applicants in the Middle Income Group. The petitioners were, therefore, entitled to plots of land admeasuring 300 Square Metres. According to the petitioners, the price of the land determined by the Board was exorbitant and that the Board was under obligation to allot land at the cost price. The petition is contested by the Board. The stand of the Board is that the Board is facing several litigations in respect of acquisition of land and on other issues. It appears that large part of the land acquired for the housing purpose was eventually encroached upon by the land sharks leaving limited space to accommodate the applicants. The applicants of land in the Middle Income Group were allotted smaller plots of land admeasuring 1430 Sq. Ft. The question of determination of disposal price of the land cannot be contested in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Apart from the amount of compensation paid to the land owners and the development cost, there may be several other costs incurred by the Board which would have a bearing on the cost of the land. Determination of price is a highly technical matter. Unless ex facie arbitrary or discriminatory this Court exercising power of judicial review cannot interfere in such matters. Besides, the petitioners have not placed any material before the Court to suggest what should be the fair price of the land.

(3.) It appears that after payment of the earnest money deposit the petitioners did not pay the first instalment as required under the letter of allotment nor did they pay the monthly instalments. In our opinion, in accordance with Clauses 4 and 5 of the letter of allotment, the allotment made to the petitioners stood cancelled and the earnest money deposit made by them stood forfeited. The petitioners having failed to comply with the conditions of letter of allotment have forfeited their right to allotment of land. The petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to any relief.