Arun Kumar v. Bihar State Housing Board
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ application stands disposed of
Judgment
Operative part
.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Amarendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent-Board : Mr. S.K.P. Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 01-02-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K.P. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Housing Board. The grievance of the petitioner is against the demand of Rs.14,14,869.99 paise against the MIG House No.5 MH/34 situated at Barari, Bhagalpur, vide letter No.7970 dated 3rd of September, 2011, issued by the Revenue Officer of the Board, as contained in Annexure 7. It is submitted that the demand of Rs.14 lacs and odd is incorrect for the simple reason that on perusal of Letter No.475 dated 12.7.2007, as contained in Annexure 6, it would 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.7070 of 2012 (2) dt.01-02-2013 appear that the demand against the said house was Rs.5,30,400/- and as such, the present demand of Rs.14 lacs and odd, as contained in Annexure 7, is not correct. Mr. S.K.P. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Housing Board, on the other hand, submits that the question of accounting/calculation as raised by the petitioner in this writ application cannot be a matter to be adjudicated in a Writ proceeding. It is further submitted that the Board has constituted a Pricing Committee for examining the issue with respect to the price of the house/plot. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner proposes to make an appropriate application before the Pricing Committee to determine the correct price of the plot as per the terms of the agreement executed between the petitioner and the Board. In case an application is made within a period of three weeks, the application of the petitioner be disposed of by the Pricing Committee expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months on receipt of such application. The writ application stands disposed of. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.