Anjani Kumar Sinha, son of G. S. Prasad, resident of Old Housing Colony, Adityapur-1 v. 1. Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Ranchi, District Ranchi 2. Chairman
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 1965 of 2004 Anjani Kumar Sinha, son of G. S. Prasad, resident of Old Housing Colony, Adityapur-1, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, Petitioner District Singhbhum West … … Versus 1. Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Ranchi, District Ranchi 2. Chairman, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Ranchi, District Ranchi 3. Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Adityapur, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, Town Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum … Respondents East … --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- 15/17.01.2023 1.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. D. K. Chakravery is present. 2. 3. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction from this Hon’ble Court for quashing the letter No. 1800 dated 25.8.03 issued by the respondent no. 3 whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 3 made a demand of Rs. 20,410/- for rent and demanded a sum of Rs. 15,36,215/- for allotment of the house no. M/4 situated at Housing Colony, Adityapur in favour of the petitioner otherwise the allotment of the said house would be cancelled and it would be allotted to any other person AND for issuance of a the further writ/order/direction commanding upon concerned respondents to forbear from giving effect to or acting pursuant to or in furtherance of the said impugned order dated 25.8.03 (Annexure-5 hereto) AND for issuance of any other appropriate writ/order/direction that Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the house involved in the present case was allotted in the name of father of the petitioner on rental basis on 25.07.1969. However, the same was subsequently allotted in favour of 3rd party and the said decision was 2 challenged by the father of the petitioner by filing a writ petition before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7723/1988. The learned counsel submits that on contest, the writ petition was allowed with th following findings: -
Decision
“For the foregoing reasons, I find and hold that the petitioners are entitled to the allotment of the house on the basis of the Board’s decision taken in its meeting dated 6.1.1976. The Board is accordingly directed to complete the necessary formalities of allotment and transfer of title etc. in respect of the house in favour of the petitioners in terms of the decision taken on 6.1.1976 and on the petitioners’ making payment of all lawful dues and complying with the relevant legal requirements.” 5. The learned counsel submits that as per the records of the petitioner, all the admissible dues of the respondent-Housing Board was already paid by the father of the petitioner at the relevant point of time, but in spite of that, the petitioner was deprived of the property and allotment was made in favour of 3rd party, which was subject- matter of challenge in the earlier round of writ application. The learned counsel submits that after the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7723/1988, the respondents issued the impugned letter No. 1800 dated 25.8.03 issued by the respondent no. 3, whereby the respondent no. 3 made a demand of Rs. 20,410/- for rent and demanded a sum of Rs. 15,36,215/- for allotment of the house no. M/4 situated at Housing Colony, Adityapur in favour of the petitioner otherwise the allotment of the said house would be cancelled and it would be allotted to any other person. The learned counsel submits that nothing was due and payable from the side of the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner had raised objection to the impugned order vide legal notice dated 10.02.2004 (Annexure-6). The learned counsel submits that the respondents have not verified their records properly and illegal demand has been raised against the petitioner. No opportunity of hearing, as such, was granted to the petitioner prior to raising the demand involved in the present case. 7. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents. However, as per the counter-affidavit dated 05.11.2018, the respondents have given a calculation sheet at Annexure-B, demanding an amount of Rs. 3 95,18,670/- to execute a lease agreement in favour of the petitioner. A statement to this effect has also been made in para 5 of the said counter affidavit. 8. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1127/2010 decided on 21.07.2011 as annexed with the rejoinder to the counter affidavit and the demand raised by the petitioner which is impugned in the present case as well as the demand mentioned in the counter-affidavit dated 05.11.2018 are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. Considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, this Court finds that pursuant to the impugned letter, the petitioner has raised objection by filing a legal notice dated 10.02.2004 (Annexure- 6) and having no response the present writ petition was filed. It further appears that the demand has been revised and the petitioner has been asked to pay a sum of Rs. 95,18,670/- in order to execute the lease agreement. The calculation sheet has also been annexed along with the counter-affidavit dated 05.11.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner/his father has been deprived of the property for a long time for no fault on their part and further the case is covered by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1127/2010 decided on 21.07.2011. 10. The matter primarily appears to be dispute regarding calculation and the petitioner claims to have paid the entire admissible amount which has been disputed by the respondents. Further factual verification is required to be done in the light of the law laid down by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1127/2010 decided on 21.07.2011. 11. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioner to approach the respondent No. 2 by filing a detailed representation raising his grievance against the impugned demand as well demand of Rs. 95,18,670/-, as filed by the respondents vide affidavit dated 05.11.2008 and also give details of the payment already made by the petitioner/his father. The petitioner would also demonstrate as to how the case of the petitioner is covered by judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1127/2010 decided on 4 21.07.2011. The petitioner may rely upon any other judgment or circular of the Board. The Petitioner shall also file a copy of this order and a copy of the writ records along with the representation. 12. Upon filing of such representation, the respondent No. 2 shall look into the records and consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative in accordance with law. The reasoned order be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation and the reasoned order be also communicated to the petitioner through speed-post at the address which may be provided by the petitioner in the representation itself. 13. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. 14. 15. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)