IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1694 of 2004 Deo Nath Sao, son of Late Nathuni Sao, resident of Mohalla Nehru Tola, Begampur, Patna City, at present East Chitragupta Nagar, Road No.16, Near Baleshwar Yadav, P.S. Kankarbagh, District Patna.........Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar State Housing Board, Patna through its Managing Director, Bihar, Patna 2. The Manager, Land Estate, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna 3. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna.............Respondents --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, Advocate For the respondent-Housing Board: M/s Rajiv Nayan Singh & Dinesh Mahraj, Advocates **** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH O R D E R Jayanandan Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent—Bihar State Housing Board. 2. Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the respondent-Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) to allot an LIG plot for which he had got himself registered on 19.12.1972. He has also prayed that in case plot is not available in Digha area, petitioner should be allotted in Bahadurpur area against the said registration. - 2 - 3. The case of the petitioner is that against his registration, a plot was allotted to him in Digha area vide Annexure-6 dated 28.09.1991. After receipt of the said allotment letter, petitioner deposited the initial instalment money on 25.10.1991 vide Annexure-7. Thereafter he came to know from the respondents that the plot which was allotted to him was already occupied and a house had come up on the same. Therefore, he filed a representation on 07.07.2003 as contained in Annexure-8 for allotment of an LIG plot in Bahadurpur, Patna. The same having not been done, petitioner has moved this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner deposited the first instalment in the respondent-Board and, thereafter at all point of time he was ready to perform his part of the duty as per terms and conditions of the allotment order, but the Board never sent him any communication in the matter, although he awaited all through for the same. He submits that petitioner is, therefore, entitled for direction from this Court to the Board for allotment of a plot to him, if not in Digha then at least in Bahadurpur where Housing Board plots are vacant. - 3 - 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Board in the case. Along with the counter affidavit, the allotment letter with complete terms and conditions of the allotment has been annexed as Annexure-A. Learned counsel for the Board submits that as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, within one month from the date of receipt of the same, petitioner was required to deposit initial instalment towards price of the plot and also required to get an agreement executed for the purpose. He has referred to Clause 8 of the agreement to contend that after deposit of the initial instalment, it was duty of the allottee to get a copy of the agreement from the office of the Executive Engineer of the Board, get it transcribed on a stamp paper, get the map of the land prepared, get it attached with the agreement and submit the same in the office of the Executive Engineer for its execution and thereafter to get it registered at his own cost. He submits that at no point of time petitioner ever approached the office of the Board to perform part of his duty in terms of Clause 8 of the agreement. Therefore, in terms of Clause 5 of the agreement, his allotment stands cancelled and the instalment money stands forfeited. He further - 4 - submits that in terms of the order passed by this Court in a P.I.L., a general notice was published in a newspaper, sometime in 1995, inviting the allottees of Digha to get the agreement registered in their favour pursuant to the allotment letter if they had not done it earlier. He submits that petitioner did not respond to the general notice also. Therefore, now petitioner has no right to claim allotment of the plot in his favour. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had approached the office of the Executive Engineer of the Board for performing his duty in terms of the Clause 8 of the agreement but nobody responded to it. However, he admits that the said public notice (Annexure-B) published 1995 escaped notice of the petitioner and, therefore, petitioner could not take steps in terms of the said public notice also. 7. The claim of the petitioner that in terms of Clause 8 of the agreement after deposit of initial instalment, petitioner had approached the office of the Executive Engineer of the Board, is not substantiated from the records of the case and the same is just a bald claim of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the - 5 - said stand. Moreover, as admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner had admittedly not responded to paper notice published in 1995. 8. Therefore, this Court is not able to hold that right of the petitioner to get allotment from the Housing Board still survives. Apparently, laches are on the part of the petitioner himself. He has sat over the matter since 1991. Therefore, as per clause 5 of the agreement, allotment of the petitioner clearly stands cancelled and advance stands forfeited. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rest of the amount of the petitioner is refundable by the Housing Board. This matter has to be examined by the Board in the background of the Rules and Regulations applicable in the matter, for which petitioner will be at liberty to represent. 10. The writ application is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. (Jayanandan Singh, J.) Patna High Court, Patna The 19th July, 2010 N.A.F.R. (B.T.)