IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3349 of 2006 1. RAM ANUTHA SINGH, son of Late Ram Kishun Singh. 2. Manju Singh Wife of Shri Mithilesh Kumar Singh. Both are resident of Mohalla-9, L.I.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna, P.S. Patrakar Nagar, District- Patna. . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. The Patna Regional Development Authority through its Vice- Chairman, Maurya Lok, Patna.1. 2. The Vice Chairman, Patna Regional Development Authority, Maurya Lok, Patna-1. 3. The Estate-cum-Revenue Officer of the Patna Regional Development Authority, Maurya Lok, Patna-1. . . . . . . . Respondents. For the Petitioners : M/s Arvind Tiwari, Mukul Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Mrs. Sujata Mukherjee, Advocate. ----------- 9/ 07.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners have prayed for quashing letter no. 84 dated 23.01.2006, whereby the cost of the plot in question has been enhanced. The facts of the case is that the petitioners applied for a plot of land in Transport Nagar, Patna for carrying transport related work. After due scrutiny they were allotted plot no. B-64 in Transport Nagar, Patna vide letter no. 1992 dated 06.08.2003, a copy whereof is contained in Annexure-2. The petitioners state that in fact they have deposited the entire amount with more than 18 per cent interest on delayed payment. In place of 6,48,000/- they have deposited Rs. 6,93,000/-. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been started in paragraph 5, that 25 per cent of the total consideration money was deposited by the petitioners on 03.09.2003 and the rest of the amount was to be deposited in four equal installments with interval of every three months. However, petitioners did not deposit the entire amount within time. The petitioners deposited only Rs. 3,78,000/-in - 2 - place of 6,48,000/- within the time specified. It is further stated that by January, 2005 the petitioners had deposited only Rs. 4,88,000/-. In paragraph 7 it is stated that the rates were revised on 27.04.2005 as market price had soared high and there being rise in cost of materials. Sujata Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondents states that enhanced rate has been charged from other allottees, who had not paid the full installment in time. She further submits that petitioners should also deposit the enhanced rate and have the agreement executed. She has produced a copy of the chart to show that other allottees have deposited the amount at the enhanced rates. Heard counsel for the parties, the petitioners do not dispute that they did not pay the due amount in time but they submit that respondents would be entitled to interest on delayed payment, in place of enhanced rate. The petitioners should first raise these points before the respondent no.1 or its successor, that they would be entitled for only interest on delayed payment. The petitioners may place reliance on all documents including Annexure-1. In case, such representation is filed, it should be disposed of within four weeks thereof. Petitioners would be entitled to produce all documents in support of their claim. With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioners, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)