SHIV SAHAY VERMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State of Bihar and learned Counsel for the Bihar State Housing Board and its authorities. Page 0034

(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Bihar State Housing Board communicated vide letter No. 316 dated 1.3.2001 (Annexure-11) issued under the signature of the Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna by which the petitioner was directed to pay additional demand of Rs. 1,54,657/- by 31.12.2001 in addition to the amount already paid by him as the price of L.I.G. House No. LH-1/27 in the year 1983 and also for a direction to the respondents authorities for transferring and registering the said L.I.G. house in the name of the petitioner as per the agreement between the parties.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner further contends that if from the date of agreement 180 monthly instalments are calculated it would end sometimes in the year 2004 but the petitioner not only went on depositing the instalments in time but deposited further amounts in addition to instalments due to which the entire money was deposited in less than 140 instalments by September, 2000 which is apparent from the chart dated 12.9.2000 (Annexure-6) as well as the check list also dated 12.9.2000 (Annexure-8) both issued under the signature of Executive Engineer of the Board showing total payment of Rs. 65,159.50 paise Including the money deposited prior to the execution of the agreement amounting to Rs. 9687/-. Inspite of the terms of agreement as well as the payment of entire money much within the period prescribed in the agreement, the same Executive Engineer of the Board issued letter No. 316 dated 01.03.2001 (Annexure-11) to the petitioner directing him that now he has to pay further amount of Rs. 1,68,300/-, out of which he has paid only Rs. 13,643/- and hence he was asked to pay Rs. 1,54,657/- by 31.12.2001, failing which further action will be taken. The petitioner was surprised to receive the said letter and hence he sent his reply to the said authority of the Board on 12.3.2001 (Annexure-12) stating in detail about the entire payment made by him much within the time prescribed and hence the entire fresh demand was absolutely baseless and frivolous and the authorities of the Board were duty bound to transfer the said premises to the petitioner by way of executing a proper deed. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner also states that no heed was paid to the aforesaid representation of the petitioner and hence he had no other remedy but to file this writ petition on 02.05.2001 whereafter the said petitioner died on 18.05.2001 and his wife was substituted in his place in this writ petition as writ petitioner by order of this Court dated 24.08.2006.