Dismissed¶45

Smt Asha Lata Prasad v. Housing Board

Jharkhand HC1 Apr 2026WPC/4243/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Jharkhand State Housing Board; scattered (cut) plot; Regulation 2(xxxi); Rule 30 and Rule 30(B); latest/present commercial value; cancellation of allotment of adjoining land; excess cost demand; boundary wall removal; dispossession notice; HIG Plot No. H-84 Harmu Housing Colony Ranchi; Bihar State Housing Board allotment 05.08.1978; transfer letter 144/A dated 22.01.2011; letter 1654/A dated 19.08.2011; letter 1236/A dated 22.06.2011; letter 377/A dated 13.04.2012; Article 226; Ramesh Chandra Kaithal 2014 SCC Online Jhar 843; vires of Rule 30 upheld; W.P.(C) No. 4243 of 2012; Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

By the allotment letter only 90 x 50 Sq. ft. of land was allotted to the petitioner's husband; the further 2743.50 Sq. ft. was never formally allotted to her. ¶41

Smt Asha Lata Prasad Vs Housing Board — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the cancellation of the allotment of the adjoining extra land (2743.50 Sq. ft.) to HIG Plot No. H-84 and the imposed cost of Rs. 32,94,000/- are lawful and liable to be quashed. +2 more

¶15

Court's answer

By the allotment letter only 90 x 50 Sq. ft. of land was allotted to the petitioner's husband; the further 2743.50 Sq. ft. was never formally allotted to her.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The extra land of 2743.50 Sq. ft. could be allotted to the petitioner only on payment of Rs. 32,94,000/-; she having failed to pay, the cancellation of the allotment followed.

¶41

Key takeaways

The petitioner herself was responsible for inviting the cancellation, as she did not pay the price of the extra land despite being allowed physical possession of it.ratio¶44
Allotment of the plot must be at the rate fixed in accordance with the Rules and Regulations; the Court will not re-assess or rectify the Board's demand fixed under them.ratio¶41
No relief can be extended to the petitioner and the writ petition is dismissed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 by the widow-transferee of HIG Plot No. H-84, Harmu Housing Colony, Ranchi, challenging (i) cancellation of the allotment of the adjoining cut piece of 2743.50 Sq. ft. (letter no. 1654/A dated 19.08.2011), (ii) the demand of Rs. 32,94,000/- for that land (letter no. 1236/A dated 22.06.2011) and (iii) the direction to remove her boundary wall (letter no. 377/A dated 13.04.2012). HELD: The original allotment letter covered only 90 x 50 Sq. ft.; the extra land could be allotted only on lump-sum payment of the latest/present commercial value under Rule 30(B) of the Jharkhand State Housing Board (Management and Acquaintance of Residential Estate) Regulation, 2004 — Rule 30 having been upheld in Ramesh Chandra Kaithal v. State of Jharkhand, 2014 SCC OnLine Jhar 843. The petitioner, though permitted physical possession of the extra land, never paid the demanded price and thereby invited the cancellation; the rate fixed under the Regulations is not open to re-assessment by the Court. No relief extended; writ petition dismissed, pending I.A., if any, disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶1

 ( 2026:JHHC:9155 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4243 of 2012

¶3

Smt. Asha Lata Prasad, wife of late Jagannath Prasad, resident of HIG Plot No. H-84, Harmu Housing Colony, P.S. Argora, P.O. Doranda, District-Ranchi

¶4

……………Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

The Jharkhand State Housing Board through its Managing Director, Head Office at Harmu Housing Colony, P.S. Argora, Dist. Ranchi,

¶8

The Estate Manager, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Harmu Housing Colony, P.S. Argora, Dist. Ranchi.

¶9

The Revenue Officer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Harmu Housing Colony, P.S. Argora, Dist. Ranchi.

¶10

The Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Harmu Housing Colony, P.S. Argora, Dist. Ranchi.

¶11

...... … Respondents

¶12

-------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, A.C. to SC-IV

¶13

For the Housing Board : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate Ms. Aditi Raj, Advocate

¶14

25/ 01.04.2026 : Heard Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, learned counsel for the Respondent-State and Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Housing Board.

¶15

This petition has been filed for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the cancellation order of allotment of adjoining land of HIG Plot No. H-84, Harmu, Ranchi vide letter no. 1654/A dated 19.08.2011 and also to quash the letter no. 1236/A dated 22.06.2011 whereby excess cost has been imposed against the extra land occupied by the petitioner. Letter no. 377/A dated 13.04.2012 issued by the Executive Engineer-respondent no.5 is also under challenge by which the petitioner has been directed to remove the boundary wall from her land. Prayer has also been made for re-assess the cost of the extra land.

¶16

Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the owner of the HIG Plot No. H-84, situated at Harmu

¶17

¶18

 ( 2026:JHHC:9155 )

¶19

Housing Colony, Ranchi which has been allotted by the Bihar State Housing Board, Patna in the name of her husband and after death of her husband the same has been transferred vide letter 144/A dated 22.01.2011 issued by the Respondent No. 3 at the total cost of Rs. 24, 120/ only and the husband of the petitioner had already paid entire amount with interest to the respondent which is evident from the money receipts annexed as Annexures-1, 1/1 and 1/2 to the writ petition. He further submits that the extra land of original plot no. H-84 is useless for the Respondent Board due to uneven size of the land which is evident from the letter no. 1781 dated 05.12.2003 issued by the Executive Engineer in view of that the petitioner has been allotted extra land. He refers to Annexure-2 of the writ petition and submits that the respondent no. 5 has stated therein that the allotment of the extra land of 2743.50 Sq. ft. can be done in favour of the petitioner and recommended to the respondent no.3 with site plan of the extra land for further order of the allotment however, the same was kept pending. He further submits that by letter dated 22.06.2011 the said extra land was directed to be given to the petitioner subject to payment of Rs. 32,94,000/-. He then submits that the said extra land was in possession of the petitioner inspite of that the said land was not executed in favour of the petitioner and now exorbitant price has been demanded and by the impugned letter the allotment has been cancelled and in view of the said demand is required to be re-assessed by the Jharkhand State Housing Board. According to him the piece of land is part of residential plot allotted by the Board within the residential periphery and in view of that the said land is not commercial however on the basis of commercial plot, the demand has been made. According to him boundary is described and the road is in both sides. On these grounds, he submits that this writ petition may kindly be allowed.

¶20

¶21

 ( 2026:JHHC:9155 )

¶22

On the other hand Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the Jharkhand State Housing Board vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner is not final transferee of the earlier plot and seeking the allotment of adjacent plot to the earlier plot but after allotment of the adjacent plot i.e plot H.-84 in the light of Rule 30 of Jharkhand State Housing Board (Management and Acquaintance of Residential Estate), Regulation, 2004 the amount of the said adjacent plot/ cut piece plot has not been paid by the petitioner. He submits that vires of the said Rule has been challenged in the Division Bench in the case of “ Ramesh Chandra Kaithal Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.” reported in 2014 SCC Online Jhar 843 and the said rule was held to be valid by the Division Bench in the said judgment. He further submits that the payment was not made and the said Rule provides to the Jharkhand State Housing Board to charge separate and in view of the validity of the said Rule the petitioner was required to pay the said amount however the petitioner failed to pay the same and in view of that cancellation order has been passed. He also submits that the cost of the extra land adjacent to earlier plot/original plot has been fixed at the time of allotment letter of the said extra land was issued which is on the basis of the decision taken by the Board and in view of that there is no illegality or malafide intention on the part of the respondentBoard. He submits that the rate of the land already demanded cannot be rectified. He further submits that in view of above for non payment of cost of extra land the allotment of the extra land has been cancelled and after the cancellation of the said allotment the notice for dispossession has already been issued against the petitioner. On these grounds, he submits that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the 3

¶24

 ( 2026:JHHC:9155 )

¶25

dispute is between the petitioner and Housing Board.

¶26

In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the Annexures annexed with the writ petition, counteraffidavit as well as rejoinder, it transpires that the husband of the petitioner was allotted HIG Plot No. H-84 on 05.08.1978 thereafter an agreement was made on 07.08.1981 and possession of the said plot was provided on 08.12.1982. The contention of the petitioner is that the corner plot of HIG Plot No. H-84 is having area of 2745.15 Sqft has also been allotted to the petitioner. From letter dated 05.12.2003 issued by the Executive Engineer of the said Board contained in Annexure-2, it transpires that the petitioner was allotted a plot of 90 x 50 Sq. ft however she was in physical possession of 2743.50 sq. ft of the land also. By letter dated 22.06.2011 contained in Annxure-4 a sum of Rs. 32,94,000/- was demanded by the Board from the petitioner for giving possession of extra land of 2743.50 Sq. ft. The petitioner has not paid the amount and by letter dated 19.08.2011 the allotment of said cut plot has been cancelled.

¶27

In the rejoinder to the counter-affidavit, the petitioner has annexed the document contained in Annexure-8 containing the report wherefrom it transpires that 90 x50 Sq. ft. of land has been allotted to the petitioner. In the said report it is also disclosed that the petitioner is in physical possession of cut plot of 2743.50 Sq. ft. The recommendation was also made that the said can be settled in favour of the petitioner. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has failed to pay the amount to the Housing Board and thereafter the cancellation letter has been issued.

¶28

For ready reference, Regulations 2 (xxxi) and 30 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board (Management and Acquaintance of Residential Estate) Regulation, 2004 is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶29

¶30

 ( 2026:JHHC:9155 )

¶31

“2(xxxi) Scattered (Cut) plot means those plots which remained unallotted as a piece / part after development/ allotment of the dwelling units and it is not fit to be allotted independently for housing. But in the following circumstances scattered piece of plot shall not be fit to be allotted if:

¶32

(i) It is a part of proposed road or park.

¶33

(ii) Sewer line, water drainage and water supply pipeline passes through it.

¶34

(iii) Any other scheme of the Housing board is proposed thereon.” "30. Allotment of scattered (cut) plots shall be made under the following procedure by the Housing Board:-

¶35

(A) On receipt of the application for carrying out allotment the same shall be scrutinized by the Executive Engineer of the concerned Division and the report shall be submitted to the Housing Board. (B) On finding the inquiry report in conformity with the provision of section 2 (XXXI), allotment shall be made after receiving installment in one lump sum, determining the latest/ present commercial value.

¶36

(C) Allotment of scattered plot shall be made among such allottees against whose name estate is already allotted in nearby / frontrear(place).

¶37

(D) If the scattered plot to be allotted is attached in a similar manner to earlier allotted plot/flat of more than one allottees, in such circumstance, opportunity for getting allotment shall be given to the concerned allottees by issuing notice. If more than one allottee is ready to give value of the plot in one lump sum at a commercial rate then the decision of allotment among them shall be made through the draw of lottery.

¶38

(E) The allotment of scattered plot situated in the residential area shall not be made for the commercial purpose.”

¶39

It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Housing Board that the said plot is not a cut plot and this is land of an area 2743.50 Sq. ft. The Rule 30 of the said Regulation has said to be valid in the case of

¶40

“Ramesh Chandra Kaithal” (supra) . Sub-clause (B) of Rule 30 of the said Regulation stipulates that Board will charge the latest/present commercial value.

¶41

In view of above, it is for the Housing Board to allot the plot at the rate fixed in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. In the allotment letter only 90 x50 Sq. ft. of land has been allotted to the husband of the petitioner and so far as 2743.50 Sq ft. of land is concerned, there is communication that can be allotted to the petitioner subject to payment of Rs. 32,94,000/- however, the petitioner has not paid the same and thereafter cancellation letter has been issued.

¶42

¶43

 ( 2026:JHHC:9155 )

¶44

It transpires that the petitioner is responsible for inviting the cancellation letter as the payment has not been made. The Housing Board was generous in allowing the petitioner to have physical possession of part of land however the petitioner has not paid the same and thereafter action has been taken.

¶45

In view of above facts, reasons and analysis this Court finds that no relief can be extended to the petitioner and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

¶46

Dt.01.04.2026

¶47

Satyarthi/ A.F.R

¶48

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶49

Smt Asha Lata Prasad v. Housing Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Asha Lata Prasad v. Housing Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Ranjan Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Avinash Chandra Pandey Alias Avinash Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mokhtar Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S.Girindra Hard Coke Enterpr Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. And Ors.

Sri Sai Coke Industries Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. And Ors.

Sambhunath Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.