SUDHA SHARMA Vs. BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.V.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner, and Mr.G.C.Jha, Advocate for the respondent, Bihar State Housing Board.

(2.) BY order dated 5.5.99 this Court had expressed its displeasure over the averments made in paragraph -10 of the counter affidavit of the Board and the Managing Director of the Board was directed to swear the affidavit personally explaining the aforesaid statement. The counter affidavit sworn by the Managing Director has been submitted before this Court today, paragraph -3 of which read as follows: -

(3.) LEARNED counsel has further invited my attention to the averments made in paragraphs -16, 17 and 18 of the writ petition read with Annexure -9 that the respondent Board had directed the petitioner to get the plan for construction sanctioned by the Ranchi Regional Development Authority (RRDA, in short), presumably as a condition precedent to delivery of possession of the commercial plot in question. Accordingly, the petitioner got the plan sanctioned, as manifest from the communication contained in memo no.932, dated 30.7.96 (Annexure -9), from the RRDA to the petitioner. The petitioner has further stated in paragraph -18 of the writ petition that she had incurred about Rs.15,000/ - in getting the plan sanctioned, Rs.10,000/ - (approie) out of which was deposited towards fee with the RRDA. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that though the total cost of land along with penal interest was deposited on 28.8.95, notwithstanding which delivery of possession of the plot of land in question has not so far been effected. Feeling exasperated, she prays that the respondent -Board should be directed to refund the amount with interest and reasonable amount -of compensation, and the cost incurred in getting the plan sanctioned.