SURANJAN PRASAD Vs. BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents -Bihar State Housing Borad to make allotment of Middle Income Group (MIG) residential plot of 300 sq. metres at Harmu/ Kadru for which he had made an application as early as on 13.5.1980 for the said plot. The petitioners case is that pursuant to the advertisement issued in the Newspaper he applied for MIG Flat by filing an application and deposited the earnest money of Rs. 1500/ -. In 1994 it is stated that instead of making allotment of the residential plot respondents have issued a tender notice for construction of 96 MIG flats at Harmu, Ranchi, under self - financing scheme and thereby denied the allotment of flat to the petitioner. This necessitated the filing of the instant writ petition.

(2.) IN the counter -affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that prior to 1982 the mode of allotment of land/flat/house etc. under different categories was used to be done in order of seniority subject to the completion of the application form of the petitioner and his due eligibility. For the first time, in 1982 the Bihar State Housing Board Act (Bihar Act 57 of 1982) came into force and the mode of allotment of the plot/house etc. has been decided to be done by way of lottery in different category as per the Bihar State Housing Board (Management and Disposal of Housing Estate) Regulation, 1983 (Housing Board Regulation No. 1/1983). It is further stated that after 1983 the Board neither advertised for the allotment of MIG. Plot nor could hold any lottery for such allotment in the year 1985. The Board issued notices calling upon all the persons who applied for residential plots to give their option for the allotment of house. It is further stated that there is no plot available for the allotment under the MIG at Harmu and some of the lands belonging to the Board has been encroached by unsocial elements and the Board is facing acute problem in alloting the plots to the petitioner.

(3.) MR . M.S. Anwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that at least the petitioner is entitled to refund to the earnest money of Rs. 1500/ - which was deposited in 1980 along with application. In my opinion, when the claim of the petitioner for allotment of flat itself is state claim then this Court cannot issue any direction for the refund of any amount which was deposited for about 22 years back for the simple reason that such claim was also become barred under general law of limitation. It is well -settled that money claim which has become barred by limitation can not be entertained by a Writ Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.