IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 32538 of 2005(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ N. SARASAMMA, RAGEE NIVAS, MATTOM NORTH, THATARAMBALAM P.O. MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PROMY KAPRAKKATT RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, KOCHI HOUSING UNIT, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, COCHIN-16. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THRISSUR DIVISION, AYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC, KSHB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T NO REPRESENTATION. DISMISSED. 22.2.2008 SD/- K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. TRUE COPY C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) Nos.32538 & 32455 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT The W.Ps. are filed challenging additional demand raised by the Housing Board including interest towards value of the house plots allotted to the petitioners in 1992. Counsel for the petitioners contended that even though possession was given and the entire balance work was done by the petitioners for development and for construction of the house, for the first time after handing over possession of the house plots, the petitioners were served with demand notices in 2005 demanding additional costs which are in the nature of cost incurred by Housing Board for development work, overhead charges incurred for the Colony etc. 2. On hearing both sides, I feel petitioners are liable to remit the claim because price originally paid was tentative and final price was never paid. In fact, sale deeds are also not seen executed, even though property was conveyed 16 years back. However, I do not find any justification for demanding interest at 18% except for period of default after service of notice of demand. The W.Ps. are accordingly allowed in part directing the Housing Board to limit recovery of interest for actual period of default after 2 service of demand notice. Payments already made will be adjusted and balance if any will be claimed as directed above. There will be further direction to the Housing Board to execute sale deeds on petitioners making payment as above and on complying with other formalities. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms