IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5398 of 2005 DEB JYOTI SANYAL, SON OF LATE SMT.UMA SANYAL W/O DEB PRASAD SANYAL, RESIDENT OF MIG, H.NO.123, PO. HANUMAN NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, PATNA. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD 2. THE MD BSHB, MANGLES ROAD, PATNA 3. THE MANAGER, LAND ASSETS CUM JOINT SECY, BSHB, PATNA 4. THE REVENUE OFFICER, BSHB,PATNA 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BSHB, PATNA ----------- 5 03.02.2010. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The instant writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to execute the Transfer Deed/Sale Deed of the MIG House No. 123, Hanuman Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna in the name of the petitioner who has now been substituted vide order dated 3.2.2010 as heir of Smt. Uma Sanyal w/o Deb Prasad Sanyal. On 20.8.1981 by way of higher purchase agreement MIG House No. 123 at Hanuman Nagar, Kankarbagh was allotted to Deb Prasad Sanyal vide office order no. 6141 dated 17.8.1981. According to allotment order dated 17.8.1981, price of the house with land was originally fixed to the tune of Rs. 66,276/- out of which 25% of the amount i.e. 16,569/- was deposited by the petitioner and he was required to deposit rest balance amount of Rs. 49707/- in 144 monthly installments of Rs. 551.75p before 7th day of every month, and Rs. 622.99 after 7th day of every month. It was stipulated in the agreement that no sooner the payment of entire amount is made, sale deed would be registered. In the year, 1992 husband of petitioner Deo Prasad Sanyal passed away and the allotment was then confirmed in the name of his wife Smt Uma Sanyal. On 16.1.1993, the petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of - 2 - Rs. 16,917/- as outstanding dues towards final payment of the allotment vide agreement dated 28.2.1993, a copy of letter dated 16.1.1993 is annexed as annexure- 5. Late Smt Uma Sanyal made the due payment within time. Grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of payment of total amount under agreement for sale, no sale deed in respect of the above mentioned MIG house has been executed in her favour nor the Board made any further demand within the stipulated period which ended in the year, 1983. He then submits that there could be no justification for not having registered the land in her name. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Board authorities. In para 6 thereof, it has been stated that in addition to payment of dues in installments as stipulated, the petitioner had an option for payment of entire dues at a time. Counsel for the Board also submits that allotment price contained in annexure 1 was tentative and clause 3 of the agreement stipulates that in case of rise in price, the Board would be entitled to enhance the demand which the allottee would be required to pay. In para 11 of the counter affidavit, the Board on 7.12.2009 has opined that revised cost & payable dicreetal amount outstanding would be Rs.3,05,970/- on 31.1.2010. It appears from the counter affidavit that for the first time, the enhanced demand was made after 16 years of settlement of dues in February, 1993 and 28 years of initial allotment. Since 1981 to 1993, the last date for payment of installments, no demand - 3 - in respect of enhancement of cost of allotted plot was made. The agreement ought to have been registered in 1993 after payment of final amount as per annexure 1. It was on account of lackadaisical approach of Board that agreement remained pending over the years. Even such demand for the first time has been raised after 28 years of allotment. The Board after such a long delay cannot be permitted to raise the enhanced demand, after 28 years of allotment, when not only the original allottee but the substituted allottee (the husband and wife) both died. Action of the Board is unreasonable and arbitrary and annexure B enhancing the demand for the 1st time on 7.12.2009 is not sustainable in eye of law, particularly where the petitioner has paid the entire cost of MIG house in installments as per annexure 1. In the facts discussed above, the respondent-Board is directed to execute the sale in favour of the petitioner, preferably within four months from the date receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)