IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10180 of 1992 =========================================================== Sri Shiva Ratan Rungta, Son of late Matadin Rungta, New Punaichak, Patna. At present residing at Chowhatta, Bankipore, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Bihar State Housing Board, through its Managing Director, Mangles Road, Patna. 3. The Estate Officer-cum-Additional Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board, Mangles Road, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahendra Prasad Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent/s : None =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT 24th June 2011 (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Learned Advocate Mr. Mahendra Prasad Gupta appearing for the petitioner is not present before us. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed for recovery of possession of a piece of land bearing plot no.10H/345 at Digha housing project of respondent Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) Pursuant to the application made by the petitioner, under letter of offer dated 25th September 1991, the petitioner was offered Patna High Court CWJC No.10180 of 1992 dt.24-06-2011 2 sub-plot no. 10H/87 admeasuring 1875 sq. ft. in Digha housing project. Under the said letter of offer the petitioner was called upon to pay the first installment of Rs.35,530/- and the remaining Rs.94,105/- in 60 monthly installments. Clauses 4 and 5 of the said letter of offer required that the said Rs.35,530/- be paid within 30 days in one lumpsum. In case of failure to pay the said amount in one lumpsum and to execute agreement within that time, the allotment would automatically stand cancelled and the earnest money deposit would stand forfeited. Admittedly the petitioner did not pay the amount as required; nor did he execute the agreement; nor did he pay the monthly installments. Instead the petitioner approached this Court in above CWJC No. 10180 of 1992. He challenged the price of the land determined by the Board. According to the petitioner the price of land determined by the Board was exorbitant. The Board was not supposed to realise the price unless the Board first made the provision for civic amenities such as drainage, power supply, water supply etc. The petitioner has also claimed that, he had applied for land in other housing projects in areas like Lohia Nagar, Bahadurpur or Srikrishna Nagar. Instead the petitioner has been allotted land in undeveloped area of Digha. The petition is contested by the Board on the point of land price. The Board has first narrated how the land was acquired; the Patna High Court CWJC No.10180 of 1992 dt.24-06-2011 3 compensation was paid; part the land was encroached upon and illegal transfers were made by the erstwhile owners and the series litigations filed against the Board. The Board has also stated that the Board does not have enough land to satisfy the need of all applicants. We do appreciate the housing project has not come up the way it was envisioned. Instead of common people, the landsharks are benefited. Be that as it may, the question of price of land cannot be decided in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. We are afraid, the question of pricing of land is highly technical one. It has to be left to the good sense of the experts. Moreover, the price of land would not depend only on the amount of compensation paid by the Board or the development cost. The cost would also include the other expenses including the establishment cost incurred by the Board. The Board has brought on record various calculations, the amount paid for compensation, development cost etc. to justify the price of lands in various categories. Apart from the general defence put forth by the Board, the Board has not put forth its specific defence in respect of the land allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner has not brought anything on the record to suggest what should be the fair price of the land. As per the letter of allotment, the petitioner was required to pay the first installment of Rs.35,530/- within one month from the date of the offer and to execute the agreement within that time. The Patna High Court CWJC No.10180 of 1992 dt.24-06-2011 4 petitioner having failed to accept the offer of allotment, the said allotment of land stood cancelled and the Earnest Money Deposit stood forfeited. The petitioner now can not claim a right to possession of the plot of land allotted to him. For the aforesaid reasons, petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The parties will bear their own cost. Rahman/ ( R.M. Doshit, CJ ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)