AWADHESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal dispute was as to the area of the flat. This dispute has now been sorted out by an Architect of repute, who has submitted his report, which has been accepted by the parties. In terms of the said report; it appears that the area of the flat in question is 1550 sq. ft. The parties have accepted that the area of the flat in question is 1550 sq. ft.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner was interested in a smaller flat and applied for allotment of a smaller flat. Subsequently, he made a request to change his allotment for a bigger flat, and accordingly on 27th November, 2002, the flat in question was allotted in favour of the petitioner and he was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 8,69,857/- on or before 31st December, 2002. The principal contention of the petitioner since 2002 had been that the calculation of the price as on 27th November, 2002 was incorrect inasmuch as the flat was a smaller flat than proposed to be allotted, and accordingly for a smaller flat, the Board cannot demand price of a bigger flat. It appears to be the contention of the petitioner that in 1994 the flat in question was represented to be of 1650 sq. ft. and the tentative price there of was fixed at Rs. 3,80,000/-. The petitioner contends that if that be so then on the basis of the 1994 calculation, the price should be reduced inasmuch the flat is 100 sq. ft. less than the flat which was proposed to be sold in 1994. It appears from the Brochure that it was proposed that the flat would be 1650 sq. ft. and the tentative price thereof would be Rs. 3,80,000/-. If that be so, then per square feet price of the flat was Rs. 240/-. In such view of the matter, if the flat was 100 sq. ft. less then the price thereof would be only Rs. 3,56,000/-. In the instant case, it appears that the Board had fixed the price of the flat in 1994 at Rs. 3,49,317/- which is less than Rs. 3,56,000/- and accordingly it does not appear that there is any question of reconsideration of ascertainment of the price of the flat in the year 1994.

(3.) The next question that crops up for consideration is whether the Board could asked for interest at the rate of 14.25% from the petitioner. The Board could ask for such interest from the petitioner provided the Board was asking similar interest from people similarly situate to that of the petitioner. It does not appear from the records that the Board had asked anyone else similarly situate to that of the petitioner to pay interest at any rate less than 14.25%. In such circumstances it would not be appropriate on my part to interfere with such charging of interest.