RAM PRASAD SHARMA Vs. JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the instant application filed under Sections 34 and 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, petitioner has prayed for setting -aside the Award dated 15.3.2004 passed by the Arbitrator -cum -Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi, whereby he has held that unless petitioner deposits rest of the amount so demanded, execution and registration of the agreement in respect of the allotment of land and building, cannot be made in favour of the petitioner and further held that in the event petitioner fails to pay the balance amount to the Board the allotment shall be cancelled.

(2.) PETITIONER 's case is that he was allotted a Middle Income Group (MIG) house with a piece of land by the Bihar State Housing Board, Patna in the year, 1983 at a price of Rs. 82,000/ -. He deposited the initial money and entered into a registered agreement with the Housing Board in 1986 and, thereafter, regularly paid installments as per the agreement. It is stated that in -spite of payment of Rs. 1,40,015.00 the Housing Board raised further demand of Rs. 84,931.00. The petitioner challenged the said demand notice dated 12.5.2003 before respondent No. 2, the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board by this representations dated 2.6.2003 and 12.9.2003 and when nothing was done the petitioner challenged the said demand notice before the Court by filing a writ petition being WPC No. 5870 of 2003, the learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties disposed of the said writ petition on 4.12.2003 by referring the matter to the Managing Director of the respondents -Housing Board in terms of Clause 25 of the Hire Purchase Agreement for passing appropriate order. The Managing Director of the Housing Board, in terms of order -dated 15.3.2004 held that the petitioner is liable to pay the amount so demanded by the Board. The petitioner challenged the said order of the Managing Director in the instant petition under Section 34 read with Section 42 of the said Act.

(3.) THE admitted facts of the case are that in the year 1983 one M.I.G. House together with land was allotted by the Housing Board in favour of the petitioner. In terms of the allotment order, petitioner had to execute Hire -Purchase Agreement with the Board and to pay the price within the specified time in installment. The Hire -Purchase Agreement was executed in 1986. A copy of Hire -Purchase Agreement has been annexed as Annexure -1 to the application from which it is evident that one M.I.G, House was allotted to the petitioner. The Arbitrator has considered the case of the petitioner in detail and recorded a finding that the House was allotted to the petitioner under the M.I.G. Scheme and the money for construction of the house was financed by the HUDCO on payment of interest. The Arbitrator further recorded a finding that petitioner failed to enter into a Hire -Purchase Agreement immediately after allotment was made in 1983, as a result of which Board had to pay interest to the HUDCO for entire period beginning from 1983.