UMESH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed on 19-12-1986 seeking a direction to the respondent Housing Board to allot a middle income group (M.I.G.) house at Arrah to the petitioner. During the pendency of this application, the Housing Board (vide its letter dated 27-8-92, brought on record as Annexure 1 to a supplementary affidavit filed on 16-10-95 allotted a house to the petitioner at Dalpatpur, Arrah at a cost of Rs. 1,49,379 / as estimated on 30-9-1992.

(2.) Thus in so far as the allotment of a house is concerned, the grievance of the petitioner does not subsist any longer. However, a limited dispute between the parties relating to the price of the house being charged by the Board still remains subsisting. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to a house at the initial estimated cost of Rs. 90,000/- and the action of the Housing Board in charging the enhanced price of Rs. 1,50,000/- is illegal, unfair, unjust and unreasonable.

(3.) The petitioner in response to an advertisement issued by the Housing Board applied for a M.I.G. house in 1972 and deposited the requisite registration fee of Rs. 50 / -. In I 978, as advised by a notice issued by the Board in the newspapers, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 6,500/ - as earnest money. On 20-6-83, the petitioner also filed an affidavit declaring that he did not have any house/ land in any town and also submitted the required information concerning Income-tax. A receipt showing submission of this affidavit is enclosed as Annexure 1. It is stated in the writ petition that by 1983, 30 houses had been constructed by the Board which were available for allotment to the applicants and accordingly a seniority list of applicants was prepared for allotment of houses on 'first come first served' basis. In this list the petitioner's name figured at serial No. 4. A lottery was held on 12-11-1983 for allotment of houses to the applicants in this list. It may be noted here that the lottery was not held to decide as to whether an applicant would get a house or not but to determine as to which house would go to which applicant. In this lottery only 23 houses were allotted to 23 applicants from the list of 30. Seven houses remained unallotted because some of the applicants, for various reasons, were not considered for allotment. Out of seven, three were for different reserved categories and four for the general applicants.