SACHIDA NAND SINHA Vs. JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to execute registered indenture in favour of the petitioner in respect of House No.100/2-2 in compliance to the direction as contained in para-16 of the judgment dated 30.04.2013 rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in L.P.A. No.612 of 2006 (Annexure-8). Further prayer is made for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the reasoned order dated 09.08.2019 passed by the respondent no.2 (Annexure-19).

(2.) Mr. Ayush Aditya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Bihar State Housing Board evolved a scheme to let out pool of house under the Subsidized Industrial Housing Scheme to the employees/workman in ancillaries and industries. The petitioner was working on the post of Laboratory Assistant in National Metallurgical Laboratory under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research situated at Jamshedpur in the district of East Singhbhum. He further submitted that in or about the year 1963, the petitioner was allotted the aforesaid House No.100/2-2 situated at Adityapur. Accordingly, on 01.09.1963, the petitioner came in occupation of the said house. The petitioner made an application as settlee for Hire Purchase Agreement of the said House No.100/2-2. He further submitted that by letter No.223(A) dated 08.09.1995, the Bihar State Housing Board allotted the aforesaid House No.100/2-2 under the Integrated Subsidized Industrial Housing Scheme to the petitioner in accordance with the decision taken by the Board vide meeting held on 21.01.1985 for a total cost of Rs.39,908/- fixed at the market rate asking the petitioner to pay initial amount of Rs.16,954/- and pay Rs.344.00 as instalment since October, 1995. He further submitted that a bipartite Hire Purchase Agreement was executed between the Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Jamshedpur and the petitioner on 25.09.1995. He further submitted that the Revenue Officer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna intimated the petitioner about the final cost remained due and payable by the petitioner. The petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs.4,392/- by 31.05.1999. He further submitted that upon the receipt of the letter dated 09.04.1999 and in compliance to the direction as contained therein and on 26.07.1999, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.4,430/- instead of Rs.4,392/- against grant of Receipt No.1593 dated 26.07.1999. He further submitted that although the amount in question was paid in full, no step was taken by the respondents to execute the registered indenture in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said house. He further submitted that on 13.01.2001, the respondent no.5 made calculation of deposits made by the petitioner in respect of the said house and found that Rs.2,177/- was further due. The petitioner deposited Rs.2,200/- through pay-in-slip dated 19.12.2013. He further submitted that although the amount in question has already been paid, but the registered deed of indenture was not entered into and that is why the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Mr. Ayush Aditya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his argument relying on the judgment rendered by this Court in " Jharkhand State Housing Board & Ors. v. Dr. Brajendra Prasad Verma " reported in 2013 (3) JLJR 234. He put much emphasis on paragraph no.16 of the said judgment, which is quoted hereinbelow:

(3.) He further submitted that the L.P.A judgment was taken before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P(C)No. 18641 of 2013 and the said S.L.P. was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 25.10.2013. He further submitted that the facts of this case and the case of " Jharkhand State Housing Board & Ors. v. Dr. Brajendra Prasad Verma " (supra) are similar and in that view of the matter the writ petition is fit to be allowed. He further submitted that Clause-16 and Clause-24 of the Hire Purchase Agreement was wrongly invoked against the petitioner. He further submitted that in the case of " Jharkhand State Housing Board & Ors. v. Dr. Brajendra Prasad Verma " this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Division Bench that Clause-16 cannot be allowed to be invoked after such passing of the long period of more than 30 years, as it was not invoked earlier. He submitted that in view of the said judgment the prayer of the petitioner is fit to be allowed. He further submitted that the petitioner was not served with any notice for cancellation of the Hire Purchase Agreement and this aspect of the matter was considered by the Division Bench in that case. Thus, the case of the petitioner is fully covered and is fit to be allowed. Mr. Aditya, the learned counsel for the petitioner by way of opposing the prayer of the intervenor in I.A. No.10473 of 2019 submitted that the intervenor is not required to be added in this writ petition as the petitioner has not sought any relief against the intervenor. He submitted that even taking into consideration that if the intervenor is in possession of the said Flat as he failed to bring any suit for specific performance of contract this I.A. is fit to be dismissed. He further submitted that in " Jharkhand State Housing Board & Ors. v. Dr. Brajendra Prasad Verma " case this aspect has been considered in paragraph no.10 and 11 of the said judgment and in that case the intervention application filed by the intervenor was dismissed.