Patna High Court
Case Details
7IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10712 of 2008 ====================================================== Prakash Chandra Jha, son of Bhola Jha, Resident of 6 MF 8/253, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, P.S. Agam Kuan, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Bihar State Housing Board, through its Secretary, 6, Sardar Patel Path, Patna- 800 015 2. The Revenue Officer, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Sardar Patel Path, Patna- 800 015 3. The Estate Officer, Bihar State Housing Board, 6, Sardar Patel Path, Patna- 800 015 4. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna Division-1, Kankarbagh, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar Singh For the Housing Bard : Mr. Anshuman Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 15 10-12-2013 I.A. No. 8543/2013: The interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 12.11.2013 of the Pricing Committee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for amendment is allowed. I.A. No. 8543/2013 is, accordingly, disposed of. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Bihar State Housing Board. The petitioner seeks quashing of the letter dated 14.1.2006 issued by the Revenue Officer, Bihar State Housing
Facts
Patna High Court CWJC No.10712 of 2008 (15) dt.10.12.2013 2/12 Board, respondent no. 2 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,11,565/- as dues payable against the Middle Income Group Flat No. 6 MF-8/1/253. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted the aforesaid flat by letter dated 16.1.1982 of the Bihar State Housing Board which is located at Bahadurpur, Patna. The petitioner paid within time the 40% amount of Rs. 24,000/- out of the tentative price of Rs. 60,000/- stated in the allotment letter and thereafter he did not take steps for getting the agreement executed which was finally done on 12.10.1990. Clause 3 of the agreement also referred to the tentative price of Rs. 60,000/- out of which the petitioner is stated to have paid Rs. 24,000/- and balance was to be paid in 120 equated monthly instalments from November, 1990. A rebate was allowable in case it was paid by the 7th of the month in which case the instalment would become of Rs. 483.84 per month. The petitioner claims to have paid the regular instalments and deposited the amount by 5.6.2000 even before the required period of 120 months. However, on 13.2.1999 the petitioner received a notice from the respondents that he was required to deposit Rs. 23,943.63 which he should deposit within 15 days. The petitioner on completing the payment of instalments, approached the Patna High Court CWJC No.10712 of 2008 (15) dt.10.12.2013 3/12 respondents for registering the conveyance deed. By letter dated 14.1.2006 the Housing Board informed the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 3,11,566/- was due to be paid on the said flat. The said letter contained all the details including of the amounts which became payable. The petitioner, instead of challenging the said decision, deposited Rs. 8,000/- on four dates from the month of April to July, 2006 totalling to Rs. 32,000/- but thereafter after obtaining legal opinion he filed the present writ application. During the pendency of this writ application, the matter of the petitioner was referred to the Pricing Committee which was directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the parties and pass order in the matter. The Pricing Committee by its order dated 12.11.2013, after looking into all aspects of the matter, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to pay the amount as demanded by the Housing Board. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed I.A. No. 8543/2013 challenging the order dated 12.11.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Board has increased the price in 1998 but did not communicate the same till 2006 whereas the petitioner has paid all the instalments by the year 2000 and thus there is no justification for the Board to claim any increased price. Patna High Court CWJC No.10712 of 2008 (15) dt.10.12.2013 4/12 It is further submitted by learned counsel that the Board could have charged interest only on raising demand and not otherwise. In support of the aforesaid propositions learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of a learned
Legal Reasoning
Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shiv Sahay Verma Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors: 2006(4) PLJR 264, in paras 6 and 7 of which it has been held as follows:- “6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, it is quite apparent that the house in question was allotted by the authorities to the petitioner as far back as in the year 1983 and agreement was executed on 3.4.1989 and much before that all the infrastructures were complete and the cost of land as well as of constructions were already paid to the persons concerned and hence such financial liability incurred over the land acquisition as well as its development and construction were recoverable from its beneficiaries as the Low Income Group Houses were allotted on „no profit no loss basis‟ as per the Government policy. Furthermore, in terms of Clause 3 of the letter of allotment and clause 4 of the agreement, the allottee is liable to pay increased cost/price due to increase in Patna High Court CWJC No.10712 of 2008 (15) dt.10.12.2013 5/12 expenditure in cost of acquisition of land and its development or due to final valuation of the unit. In the instant case there is no question of any increase of the cost of acquisition of land or increase of the cost of construction as it had already been made much before the allotment to the petitioner and on that basis calculations were already made. Hence, in the said circumstances, there was no occasion for the authorities concerned to again revise the said cost and direct the petitioner to pay further amounts with interest on the enhanced amount from the date of allotment. 7. Although the respondents-authorities have claimed that there was an error in calculating the price before agreement but the said agreement was executed in the year 1989 and no notice or information was ever given to the petitioner with respect thereto nor any such claim has been made before this Court by the respondents concerned and it was only in the year 2001 and that also after the payment chart etc. (Annexures-6 and 8) were issued by the Executive Engineer on 12.9.2000. In any view of the matter, no material has been produced by the respondents to show that the Housing Board ever communicated about any such alleged mistake to the petitioner and hence it is difficult to accept the claim of the Board. It is Patna High Court CWJC No.10712 of 2008 (15) dt.10.12.2013 6/12 also not disputed that several houses of the same type were allotted to different other persons on the price fixed at the time of agreement but their cost has not been enhanced. It may now be noted in this case that a policy decision has already been taken by the authorities concerned that allotment in such cases will be made on the basis of „no profit no loss‟ and the cost of land and of construction having already been paid on the basis of which the price has already been fixed by the concerned authorities, there was no occasion for issuance of the impugned letter dated 1.3.2001(Annexure-11).” Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Sardar Singh: 1999(1) BLJR 694, in para-4 of which it has been laid down as follows:- “4. The interest is liable to be charged on an amount which has not been paid after demand. In the instant case, no such demand was raised on the respondent before 1994 informing him about the balance of the price of the house, i.e. Rs. 6,246.25. In absence of any such demand, the question of charging interest from the respondent does not arise. If the Board has not informed the respondent about the balance amount of Rs. 6,246.25 earlier, the respondent Patna High Court CWJC No.10712 of 2008 (15) dt.10.12.2013 7/12 is not responsible for it and he cannot be punished for the negligence on the part of the Board. The learned Single Judge, therefore, was fully justified to struck off the interest from the demand raised by the Board on the respondent. No exception can be taken to the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeal lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. It is open to the Board to make fresh calculation in terms of the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the directions contained therein.” Learned counsel for the respondent-Housing Board, on the other hand, submits that the aforesaid decisions are not at all applicable to the facts of the present case as there has been no actual increase of the cost of the flat. It is submitted that it is clear from the letter dated 14.1.2006 that, as a matter of fact, the price of the flat upon re-calculation had decreased by a little less than Rs. 4500 and the benefit of the same has been conferred upon the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Board that under Regulation 36(1) and (5) of the Bihar State Housing Board (Management And Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulation, 1983 the hire purchase deposit is required to be paid by the applicant within two months after decision has been taken Patna High Court CWJC No.10712 of 2008 (15) dt.10.12.2013 8/12 to allot him a dwelling flat which is to be transferred after expiry of hire purchase period. It is further provided that balance hire purchase price of the property including interest thereon at such rates as may be prescribed by the Board shall be recovered in monthly instalments, the amounts whereof shall be fixed in each case. It is submitted that the liability of the petitioner arose on the allotment of flat whereas the monthly instalments were started to be paid by the petitioner only after entering into the agreement, nearly eight years later in the year 1990 and thus the petitioner would be liable for payment of interest on the balance amount after deduction of the hire purchase deposit made by him from the date of such allotment. It is further submitted that there has not been any increase made in the price of the flat rather on the re- determination of the price of the flat on 31.3.1998 keeping the rate of interest at 12.25%, the value of the flat after deducting the amount of Rs. 24,000/- already paid by the petitioner as on 27.1.1982 remained only Rs. 31,341.25 as compared to the balance of Rs. 36,000/- which the petitioner was liable for payment as per the original allotment order and even the belated agreement. It is submitted that the petitioner‟s liability has arisen solely on account of the fact that he was liable to pay interest Patna High Court CWJC No.10712 of 2008 (15) dt.10.12.2013 9/12 from the date of allotment on the balance amount and the detailed calculation has been annexed showing interest charged and after giving benefit of the amount deposited, the petitioner became liable to pay Rs. 3,11,565/- as was demanded. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the Pricing Committee has gone into the entire matter in great detail and only thereafter it has upheld the stand of the Board. It is urged by learned counsel that the petitioner cannot claim raising of any demand with respect to the charge of interest as the same is statutory in nature being on the basis of regulations. It is also contended by learned counsel that the petitioner was continuously in default as he did not enter into the agreement after 1982 and did not start paying the instalments immediately thereafter until the year 1990 and thus it is not open to him to claim that the statutory interest is not payable on the balance amount by him. It is submitted that as per the computerized calculation of the entire account of the petitioner brought on the record as Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4, it has been clearly shown that the total amount to be paid by the petitioner by the end of October, 2012 comes to Rs. 3,95,721.74 and the petitioner Patna High Court CWJC No.10712 of 2008 (15) dt.10.12.2013 10/12 would also be liable to pay interest on the said amount till the date of payment. I have considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties. I have also closely considered the order dated 12.1.2013 passed by the Pricing Committee in which the complete details of the case of the petitioner have been dealt with and the submissions of the parties have also been recorded and thereafter the Pricing Committee has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay the amounts as have been demanded by the Board. It is evident from the provisions of the Regulation 36 specially Sub-Clause (5) thereof that interest would be chargeable on such amount as remains to be paid after the allotment. This is not a case where the Board has revised the price of the flat itself claiming enhancement on the ground of cost of acquisition, development and other charges rather on the revaluation of the property in October, 1998, the Board capitalized the value on the date of allotment giving the benefit of approximately Rs. 4500/- on the overall price of the flat, and the price payable by the petitioner has only increased for the reason that the interest on the balance amount after hire purchase deposit was liable to be paid by the petitioner for the period from 1980 to Patna High Court CWJC No.10712 of 2008 (15) dt.10.12.2013 11/12 1990 when the agreement was entered into in terms of the statutory provisions of Regulation 36 which had not been taken into account in the agreement which referred to the old price and the old balance. Thus, it cannot be said that the action of the Board is, in any view of the matter, arbitrary and discriminatory. The decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Sahay Verma (supra) has no relevance in the present matter as this is not a case where there has been enhancement of price on account of increase of cost of acquisition of lands and its development. As a matter of fact, on revaluation the price of the flat had gone down on capitalization at the rate of interest of 12.25% fixed by the Board under the Regulations. Similarly, no benefit can be derived by the petitioner from Sardar Singh‟s case (supra) in which it was stated that in the absence of demand, question of charging interest does not arise whereas in the present matter, the interest is being charged on the basis of statutory regulation as pointed out above. There can be no question of making any demand where the interest is chargeable on the basis of statutory regulations. Thus, on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I see no occasion to interfere with the order dated 12.1.2013 of the Pricing Committee. Patna High Court CWJC No.10712 of 2008 (15) dt.10.12.2013 12/12 The writ application is devoid of merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. S.Pandey/- (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)