IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.821 of 2011 ---------- Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 3-2-2010 passed By a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5398 of 2005. ---------- 1. Bihar State Housing Board Constituted under the Bihar State Housing Board Act having its Office at Mangles Road, Patna through its Managing Director 2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board, Mangles Road, Patna. 3. The Manager, Land Assets-Cum-Joint Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna Bihar. 4. The Revenue Officer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna, Bihar 5. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna Division, Patna, Bihar............................................... Appellants Versus Deb Jyoti Sanyal, son of Late Deba Prasad Sanyal, Resident of MIG, H.No. 123, P.O. Hanuman Nagar, P.S. Kankarbagh, District- Patna-800020............................................................ Respondent --------- 6 26-9-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the order of the writ court under appeal dated 3-2-2010 whereby writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 5398 of 2005 has been allowed with a direction to the appellant- Board to execute the sale in favour of the writ petitioner, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Court’s order. 2. The writ court has noted the relevant facts as to the manner in which the writ petitioner paid various amounts towards hire purchase agreement and how after the original allottee, Deo Prasad Sanyal died in the year 1992, his widow was asked by annexure-5 dated 16-1-1993 to deposit the final payment vide agreement dated 28-2-1993. The writ court has referred to the letter dated 16-1-1993 contained in annexure-5 and has noted that the final payment was made by late Smt. Uma Sanyal within time. 2 3. The stand of the appellants- Board is that the allotments made in the year 1981 were questioned and hence they were treated as cancelled in the year 1982 itself and regularized much later during the pendency of the writ petition, in the year 2008. On that account it has been submitted that although final payment as demanded in the year 1993 was made, the deed could not have been executed till the year 2008 when the allotment was regularized after scrutiny along with cases of other 53 similar allottees. It was submitted that several litigations with regard to price were raised by the allottees and Board’s stand was accepted that price as prevailing or as calculated after the regularization was payable by the allottees. 4. If the allottees had not been asked to pay the final payment, the aforesaid stand could have been acceptable but once, in the case of the petitioner a final demand was made in the year 1993 and the due payment was made within time, unless error is shown in calculation of the dues in January or February, 1993, the Board cannot justify demand of further money from the writ petitioner only because the Board took its own time and regularized the allotment in 2008. 5. In simple commercial transaction whenever price is due, with passage of time further demand may be made on account of interest, but once final price is demanded and paid then only on the basis of error in calculation further demand can be justified. In the present case we gave an opportunity to the Board by our order dated 12-8-2011 to give us materials to justify why price has been revised in the case of the petitioner by the Board only on account of alleged 3 irregular allotment made in the year 1981. No error in the calculation has been shown to us although a supplementary affidavit has been filed. In the supplementary affidavit the only stand is that in the year 1981 norms for allotment had not been followed and hence the cost would remain tentative till the allotment is regularized and till deed is executed. 6. In our considered view, this stand of the Board is wholly unjustified and unacceptable. Unless the final demand made by the Board earlier in the year 1993 is shown to be erroneous, it cannot lie in the mouth of the Board to say that it is entitled to demand more money because it has taken long years from the initial allotment to reconsider the matter and hold that the initial allotment be regularized. In the facts of the case, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Shivaji Pandey,J)