IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10658 of 2003 Mrinal Singh, son of Late Bhubneshwar Prasad Singh, resident of village- Kazigaon, P.S. and District- Rajmahal, at present Mohalla- Jogsar, P.S. Jogsar (Kotwali), District- Bhagalpur …………. Petitioner Versus 1. The Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna 2. The Chairman, Pricing Committee, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna 3. Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna 4. The Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna 5. The Revenue Officer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna 6. The Bhu Sampada Padadhikari, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna 7. The Superintending Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna 8. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna ………………………….. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: M/S. Diwakar Prasad Karn & Chandrashekhar Anand, Advocates For the Housing Board: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate. ------------ 6. 3.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Bihar State Housing Board. The petitioner seeks quashing/ setting aside of memo no. 1465 dated 22.4.2003 passed by the Chairman, Price Committee –cum- Revenue Officer, Bihar State Housing Board by which he has directed to pay Rs. 64,991.00 up to January, 1999 which amount shall further increase till April, 2003 to Rs. 1,10,073.00, on the basis of the letter dated 12.1.1999 of the Estates 2 Officer of the Board and the letter dated 12.1.1999 of the Executive Engineer of the Board. The petitioner applied for allotment of a plot of land at Mohalla Barari, P.S. Barari, P.O. Barari, Town and District- Bhagalpur for construction of a residential house under the Middle Income Group Housing Scheme and in the meeting of the Board dated 22.3.1979 he was allotted Plot No. M/51 having an area of 3600 sq. feet (90’ x 40’) on the tentative price of Rs. 21,900/- assessed on 30.9.1983 and the terms and conditions were set out in the said allotment no. 31 dated 10.9.1983. The petitioner deposited the amounts demanded from time to time and entered into Hire Purchase Agreement on 27.4.1984 with the Executive Engineer, Bhagalpur Division of the Board. He was also handed over possession on 4.6.1984. Till 3.11.1983 the petitioner deposited Rs. 31,879.40 against the tentative cost of Rs. 21,900/-. By another letter dated 6.4.1984 the petitioner was asked to deposit and deposited an amount of Rs. 4,779/- on 30.4.1994. The petitioner thereafter received another letter dated 20.12.1998 to deposit Rs. 64,991/- by 31.1.1999 and Rs. 65,721/- by 28.2.1999 in addition 3 to the amounts deposited earlier. The petitioner protested the aforesaid demands and ultimately filed CWJC No. 15568/2001 which was disposed of by order dated 6.3.2002 directing the petitioner to make a representation before the Price Committee constituted by the Board and the Price Committee was to require the appropriate authority to recalculate the amount which had already been deposited by the petitioner and the reasons for raising the demand of Rs. 64,991/- and if the petitioner was still aggrieved by the order of the Price Committee he shall be free to ventilate his grievance before the appropriate forum. The Price Committee by the impugned order dated 22.4.2003 found the aforesaid demand raised by the Board justified and in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the agreement. Accordingly, it found no reason to make any change in the same and directed the petitioner to deposit the balance amount in terms of the up to date calculation. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has come to this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the initial tentative amount having been fixed at Rs. 4 21,900/- against which the petitioner had already deposited Rs. 31,879.40 till 3.11.1983 and thereafter a further amount of Rs. 4,779/- on 30.4.1994 as a final demand, there was no occasion for the authorities of the Board to direct payment of any further amount. It is urged by learned counsel that the repeated demands by the authorities of the Board are wholly unjustified and the same should be quashed. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board, on the other hand, submits that the scheme in question was a Self Financing Group Housing Scheme and from the very beginning it had been made clear that the price was only a tentative price and the same would be subject to further increase on the basis of any increase in the expenditure made for the purpose of acquisition of the land and its development. It is contended that the awards of land acquisition cases had been challenged before the Court of law and pursuant to the same decrees were passed from 1982-83 to 1987-88 and on the basis of the orders passed by the Courts an amount of Rs. 7,57,240.32 has been paid by the Board in satisfaction of the awarded amounts on different dates and the said 5 amounts have been proportionately shown as spent on the Middle Income Group Housing Plots. Further expenses have been incurred over development of the area which was more than what had earlier been estimated and for the said reasons, the price of the plots had undergone escalation. It is further urged by learned counsel that the Board is not a profit making organization and is involved in Schemes of Group Housing project for the benefit of the members of the public, for which it acquires and develops the lands and the plots are being sold to the members of the public at cost price. It is submitted that there is no other way but to recover the said costs from those who are the beneficiaries of the allotment of land by the Board and thus the demand raised by the Board is justified as the entire cost has been incurred by the Board for the benefit of the allottees. In support of the said proposition, learned counsel relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shimla Development Authority Vs. Asha Rani: (1996) 8 SCC 487, in the relevant part of para-3 and 4 of which it has been held as follows:- 6 “3……. The admitted position, as stated earlier, is that the land of a private owner was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the Self Finance Scheme. As a matter of fact, when scheme for construction and allotment of the houses to the allottees is initiated, the allottee is bound to bear the cost of the value determined by the civil court under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act by award and decree or thereafter if an appeal is filed and further increase is made under Section 54 of the Act. In this case, admittedly, on reference under Section 18, the Court had determined the compensation by award and decree made under Section 26 on 30.4.1993. Therefore, the earlier demand was required to be modified, consistent with the escalation in the cost of the value of the land as a result of determination of the compensation by the civil Court.” 4. ……. As held earlier, the allottee is to bear the burden of not only the escalation in construction costs but also of the escalation of the value of the land when the Court enhanced the compensation under provisions of the Land Acquisition Act at various stages. Otherwise, who would pay the escalation cost value of the land etc. The appellant is not a private builder for profit.” He further relies upon another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Preeta Singh (Km) and others 7 Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others: (1996) 8 SCC 756, in para-7 of which it has been held as follows: “7. A conjoint reading of the above Rules would clearly indicate that the allottee is liable to pay a sale price including the additional price and the cost incurred and also the cost of improvement of the sites. It is to be remembered that the respondent HUDA is only a statutory body for catering to the housing requirement of the persons eligible to claim for allotment. They acquire the land, develop it and construct buildings and allot the buildings or the sites, as the case may be. Under these circumstances, the entire expenditure incurred in connection with the acquisition of the land and development thereon is required to be borne by the allottees when the sites or the buildings sold after the development are offered on the date of the sale in accordance with the regulations and also conditions of sale. It is seen that in the notice dated 9.8.1990, the total area, net area, the payable amount for the gross acreage, the acreage left for the developmental purpose, balance recoverable from the plot-holders, plot-table area have been given for each of the areas and recovery rate as has been mentioned under the said notice. Under these circumstances, there is no ambiguity left in the calculations. If, at all, the appellants had got any doubt, they would have approached the authority and sought for further information. It is not the case that they had sought 8 the information and the same was withheld. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the action taken by the respondents. The High Court, therefore, was right in refusing to interfere with the order.” On a consideration of the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds sufficient force in the submission of learned counsel for the Housing Board. It is evident from the decision of the Apex Court relied upon by learned counsel for the Board that it is the allottees who have to bear the cost of enhancement in the price on account of award and decrees in land acquisition cases with respect to the land in question otherwise who would pay the escalation cost of the land etc. In the present matter, it is evident that the lands were acquired by the Housing Board for allotment to the applicants and it is evident that it is the applicants who will have to bear the cost of the acquisition of the land as also for its development. If the same is not recovered by the Housing Board from the beneficiary then it is evident that the liability will be thrown upon the Board which does not have any independent resources of its own and 9 ultimately the same would have to be borne by the common tax payers on the said amounts being made over to the Board by the State Government. The allottees of the lands of the Housing Board cannot be permitted to take the benefit at the cost of members of the public who have no concern with the said land. If the cost of land gets escalated on account of decisions given by the Courts in land acquisition cases or on account of increase in the development cost, then the only persons who ought to bear the liability for the same should be the allottees and not any one else. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show that the calculations which have been referred to in the impugned order dated 22.4.2003 of the Price Committee have no factual basis or there is any material irregularity in the same. In the above circumstances, the writ application cannot succeed and it is accordingly dismissed. S. Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)