IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 10476 of 2006(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- S.ANANDA RAMA IYER, S/O.SRI. SAHASRA NAMA IYER, AGED 59, SUBHAPTHI VILLA, PULLAZHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN SRI.P.S.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ADINISTRATIVE OFFICER, KOCHI HOUSING UNIT, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 16., 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THRISSUR DIVISION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC KSHB, TVM FOR R1 -3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.10476/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 4.5.92. P2:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 3.1.2006. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.10476 of 2006 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging additional demand raised by the Housing Board including interest towards value of the house plot allotted to the petitioner in the year 1992. Counsel for the petitioner contended that even though possession was given and the entire balance work was done by the petitioner for development and for construction of the house, for the first time after handing over possession ofo the house plot, the petitioner was served with demand notice in 2006 demanding additional costs which are in the nature of cost incurred by the Housing Board for development work, overhead charges etc. 2. Having heard both sides it is fairly clear that the petitioner is liable to remit the claim because price originally paid was tentative and final price was never paid. In fact, sale deed is also not seen executed even though the property was conveyed 16 years back. However, I do not find any justification for W.P(C) No.10476 of 2006 -:2:- demanding interest at 15%except for period of default after service of notice of demand. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part directing the Kerala State Housing Board to limit recovery of interest for actual period of default after service of demand notice. Payments already made will be adjusted and the balance, if any, will be claimed as directed above. There will be a further direction to the Housing Board to execute sale deed on the petitioner making payment as above and on complying with other formalities. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) ahg. KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------- W.P(C).No.10476 of 2006 ----------------------------------- JUDGMENT 29th October, 2008