SATISH CHANDRA DHAR Vs. JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has sought a direction upon the respondents to allot plot No.KH-23 in Kadru, Ranchi on payment of balance amount and to deliver possession thereof within a specified period. According to the petitioner, on the basis of a lottery held on 10th May,1990, the petitioner has succeeded in getting the allocation of plot No.KH 23 from the respondent-Housing Board, vide Annexure 2. The petitioner thereafter by letter dated 29.3.2007 sought certain information under the Right to Information Act in respect of the plot in question and as to the allotment made by the Housing Board to other persons, vide Annexure 3. By Annexure 5 dated 13.6.2007, according to the petitioner, he was informed by the Public Information Officer of the Board that 155 applicants were allotted land pursuant to the lottery held on 10.5.1990 in which 137 persons Junior to the petitioner were also allotted the said land. However, counsel for the petitioner informed that by the same letter the petitioner was informed that by public notice dated 13.12.2005 respective allottees were informed to seek refund of the earnest money deposited earlier on paucity of plots for being allotted to the respective persons, who could not be handed over the possession of the plots. It is submitted that the petitioner is willing to pay the balance amount and is entitled to claim of the possession of the said plot and also to enter into an agreement with the Housing Board.

(2.) COUNSEL for the Housing Board submits on the basis of instruction and averment made in the counter affidavit that about 85 HIG plots were identified and in lottery held on 10.5.1990, 30 plots were allotted to other persons including the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has concealed the important fact that he was asked to enter into an agreement within 30 days vide Annexure A dated 21st May,1992 itself and deposit the tentative cost of the plot in question, failing which as per clause 5, allotment of the plot would be treated to be cancelled. It is submitted on behalf of the Board that those allottees, who have entered into an agreement with the Board but could not be granted possession of the plot in question because of reason explained in the earlier paragraphs of the counter affidavit, have been adjusted by giving plots in other places. The petitioner has failed to enter into an agreement and again claimed parity with other allottees, who had entered into an agreement. It is further submitted that due to paucity of the plots available in respect of allottees, who have been earlier allotted plots by the Bihar State Housing Board, a notice was published on 13.12.2005 in news paper, which is enclosed as Annexure B to the counter affidavit, whereby such allottees were asked to seek refund of their earnest money as the allotment could not be made to them. The respondents submit that the petitioner may also approach the respondents to seek refund of the earnest money. Counsel for the respondents, however, also explained that plots in the said area transfered in the name of the Housing Board were matter of serious encroachment being agitated on behalf of the Board in different forum including the High court and on account of such unauthorized occupation, the allotments made in favour of other person also could not be handed over physical possession. However, he submits that the petitioner's case stands on totally different footing and he has come before this Court after 18 long years of the lottery held on 10.05.1990 and no explanation was offered for such delay .

(3.) THE respondents, on the other hand, have explained that under the terms of allotment letter, which is Annexute A, the petitioner was to enter into an agreement on depositing of tentative cost within 30 days itself vide letter dated 21.05.1992, failing which the allotment would be treated to be canceled. However the Jharkhand state Housing Board, after bifurcation, has taken a stand to refund the earnest money to such allottees, who could not be allotted land earlier by the Bihar State Housing Board as per public notice published in December 1996. The case of the petitioner is obviously different to other allottees, who have entered into an agreement as per their allotment letter, by virtue of which they were handed over the possession of the plot and finally agreement have been entered into with such persons. The writ petitioner has moved this Court after 18 years of the said lottery held in the month of May,1990 and the writ petition otherwise also suffers from gross delay and laches.