IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10835 of 2003 PARMESHWAR DAYAL SINHA S/O LATE RAMA PATI SINHA, PHULWARI SHARIF, PATNA VERSUS 1. THE BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD PATNA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BSHB, PATNA 3. THE MD, BSHB, PATNA 4. THE MANAGER, LAND ESTATE OFFICER I CUM ADDL. JOINT SECY, BSHB, PATNA & 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BSHB, PATNA. ----------- 5 07.11.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has come to this court for direction to the respondent–the Bihar State Housing Board, Patna (in short the Board) and other respondents for giving delivery of actual physical right and vacant possession of the MIG plot no. 2M/38 of the land, measuring area 1430 Sqf. Situated in Sector 2 at Digha, Patna in the Town and district Patna which was allotted to him vide letter no. 3152 dated 27.9.1991 contained in annexure 4 to the writ petition. An agreement was also made and registered in favour of the petitioner by the Board on the basis of hire purchase agreement, but still Board has not given delivery of possession. The petitioner, by this time, seems vexed with the harassing attitude of the Board and thus now limits his prayer to refund of his amount deposited with the Board with interest. It would appear from order dated 10.9.2009 of this court that Board has no opposition to the same provided petitioner completes certain formalities. The petitioner states that when Board fails to deliver actual possession of land/Flat, it is liable to refund money deposited with interest. The petitioner states that he has completed formalities - 2 - and he is willing to comply with any further formalities. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon decisions rendered in cases of Ramkeshwar Choudhary Vs The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2003(3) PLJR & in case of Sudha Sharma Vs Bihar State Housing Board and others, reported in 2000(2) PLJR 12. In case of Ramkeshwar Choudary, this Court after considering Regulation 33 read with 45 of Bihar State Housing Board (Management and Disposal of Housing Estate) Regulation, 1983 directed for payment of 12% interest with a quarterly rest on the amount which was to be refunded by the Board. In case of Sudha Sharma, this Court observed that even after receiving the cost of land along with interest and the penal interest thereof, Housing Board failed to effect the delivery of possession of land in question. Since a long time since the Housing Board is not in position to make delivery of possession, it is directed to return the entire amount deposited by the petitioner with interest, along with the cost incurred by the petitioner in getting the plan for construction of the land sanctioned by the authority concerned within two months. The Board was also directed to pay compensation Rs. 25,000/- for undue harassment. This Court further observed that petitioner’s right to get delivery of possession of the land purchased becomes absolute with the deposit of the entire sale price of the said land with the Board, the petitioner also acquires an enforceable right thereof. Learned petitioner also submits that as the Board has not - 3 - been able to give delivery of possession of the plot in question, some encroachment has also come up on the piece of land. Learned counsel for the Board prays for further time. As the matter is running on the list since 2003, this Court is not inclined to grant further time to the Board. In the facts of the case, I direct the Board to make payment of deposited amount of the petitioner with 12% half yearly interest w.e.f. date of its deposit, preferably within three months from today. The writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid directions. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)