Disposed

Ram Ayodhya Singh v. Jharkhand State Housing Board Through Managing Director And Ors.

Jharkhand HC9 Aug 2016WPC/6225/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning outstanding dues on an allotment flat, the High Court of Jharkhand disposed of the matter without deciding merits. The court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation relying on a recent Housing Board resolution regarding interest calculation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit fresh representation to the Revenue Office; subsequent deposit required if authority decides so; impugned demand notice suspended pending fresh decision.

Ram Ayodhya Singh Vs Jharkhand State Housing Board… — Landlord and Tenant | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (C) No. 6225 of 2015

¶3

Ram Ayodhya Singh

¶4

... ... ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.Jharkhand State Housing Board through Managing director Harmu Housing Colony, Harmu Ranchi

¶7

2.Revenue Office, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Harmu Housing Colony Ranchi

¶8

Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Adityapur ... ... ... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH

¶10

............

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Siddhartha Ranjan, For the Respondents : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Mr. Binod Kumar

¶12

4/09.08.2016

¶13

Heard counsel for the parties.

¶14

This petitioner is aggrieved by the demand contained in letter No. 05/AA 379/12/210/AA dated 27th June 2012, Annexure-5 issued by the Revenue Officer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, wherein he has been asked to pay outstanding dues to the tune of Rs. 8,90,171/- as on 31st July 2012 and Rs. 8,96,148/- as on 31st August 2012 in respect of M.I.G. flat/house towards the balance principal amount as well as interest thereupon, Annexure-5. Petitioner was allotted the house in question through allotment letter No. 16 dated 24th September 1983 whereupon he deposited a sum of Rs. 9350/- in favour of Bihar State Housing Board on 22 November 1983.

¶15

According to the petitioner, due to some initial encroachment issue, the completed flat was finally given possession in the year 1992. Petitioner has also entered into a hire purchase agreement on 27th October 1984 with erstwhile Bihar State Housing Board, Annexure-2 as per which, the total cost of house was determined at Rs. 78,500/- minus initial payment of Rs. 15,700/- made and balance to be paid in 120 installments.

¶16

Petitioner is aggrieved by the outstanding demand raised through the impugned order at Annexure-5 wherein the Respondents have capitalized the value of installment not paid in time and sought to recover it in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment rendered by the learned Single

¶17

-2-

¶18

Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1127 of 2010 in the case of Arun Kumar Sinha versus Jharkhand State Housing Board and Others Annexure-6 as also the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 346 of 2011.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a decision has been taken by the Housing Board in its 48th meeting held on 7th April 2015 and such payment on the basis of compound interest has been modified and corrected. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2265 of 2007 in Suresh Chandra versus The State of Jharkhand with analogous cases dated 27.07. 2016 wherein taking note of the decision of the Jharkhand Housing Board in its 48th meeting held on 7th April 2015 and the letters bearing memo No. 313 dated 9th March 2015, this court had disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Housing Board to take an informed decision in the matter of individual petitioners within the stipulated time on the question of the outstanding demand raised against them. It is submitted that this writ petition may also be disposed of on similar lines to enable the petitioner to pursue his grievance before the competent authority/Respondent No. 2, Revenue Office, Jharkhand State Housing Board in accordance with law.

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Housing Board prays for time to take instruction in the matter.

¶21

However, considering the fact that Respondent Housing Board has in its resolution dated 7th April 2015 taken a decision to examine the question of outstanding demand raised upon the individual allotment orders and lease agreement in question on the issue of charging simple/compound interest in individual cases, this court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition without getting into merits of the matter at this stage by relegating the petitioner to pursue his grievance before the competent authority/Respondent No. 2 by way of a fresh representation duly supported with all necessary facts and documents including the judgment relied upon by him, within a period of two weeks from today.

¶22

On receipt of such representation, the competent authority/Respondent No. 2 would consider the representation and

¶23

-3-

¶24

take an informed decision in the matter in accordance with law and the resolution issued by the Respondent-Housing Board on the subject in question within a reasonable time preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶25

Dependent upon such decision, if petitioner is required to deposit any outstanding amount, he would deposit the same thereafter within the time stipulated by the Respondent Housing Board. On such deposit, the Respondent Housing Board would proceed to execute the lease agreement with the petitioner/eligible persons in accordance with law.

¶26

The impugned demand would not stand in the way of Respondent Housing Board in taking fresh decision in the matter in view of what has been observed hereinabove.

¶27

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶28

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

¶29

Binit

Ram Ayodhya Singh v. Jharkhand State Housing Board Through Managing Director And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Ayodhya Singh v. Jharkhand State Housing Board Through Managing Director And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Sayeed Akhtar Through Its Proprietor Sayeed Akhtar Vs Drinking Water And Sanitation

Ms Index Suppliers Private Limited Through One Of Its Directors Devendra Kumar Singhania Vs The Authorised Officer State Bank Of India And Anr.

Bhanu Gorai Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Baleshwar Pandey Vs the Steel Authority of India Limited through the Chairman and Ors.

Biplab Sharma Vs Transport

Subodh Bara Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.