Dr. Devendraji and Others vs Jharkhand State Housing Board and Others

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners are aggrieved by letter dated 6th December 2006 (Annexure-7 series) issued by the Manager, Land Estate, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi whereby the Board has fixed the tentative price of the flats at Rs. 9,47,120/-.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that in terms of the notice contained at Annexure-2 dated 31.03.2001 as also the notice contained at Annexure-4 dated 28.07.2004, applications were invited from the intending buyers for purchase of the flats at Dindli, Adityapur, Jamshedpur Housing Colony being constructed by the Housing Board. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the estimated cost shown for the HIG flats as per the said notice was Rs. 6,78,471. Petitioners made the offer to purchase the flat, but after three years, allotment order as contained at Annexure-7, has been issued whereby the petitioners have been asked to deposit the tentative price of Rs. 9,47,120/- as on 31st December 2006 for allotment of the flat in the said Housing Colony. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have not acted as per the terms and conditions of the notice itself which contemplated that the Board have to justify the increase in the estimated cost on the basis of the land acquisition cost, repayment of interest to the financial institution, etc. which, the respondents have failed to do while arbitrarily fixing the tentative price at higher rate of Rs. 9,47,120/-. Counsel for the petitioners submits further that the entire amount as shown in the allotment order has been deposited by the petitioners under protest, whereafter, final perpetual lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioners which has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the escalation of the price is without justification and therefore. Is arbitrary which needs to be set aside by directing the respondent Housing Board to honour the price quoted in their notice inviting offer as contained in Annexures-2 and 4.

Counsel for the respondent Board, on the other hand, submits that the notice as contained in Annexures-2 and 4 are only notice inviting offers from the intending purchasers which were issued In the years 2001 and 2004 respectively, whereafter, on application made by the intending purchasers, the Board has estimated the tentative price as oh 31st December 2006 to be Rs. 9,47,120/- keeping into account the various elements constituting the cost of flat such as land acquisition cost, repayment of interest to the financial institution, etc. Counsel for the respondent Board further submits that the delay in issuance of allotment order has occurred partially on account of delay on the part of the petitioners to deposit the offer amount well within the time as stipulated. It is further submitted that the tentative price of Rs. 9,47,120/- shown in the allotment order is now final price of the flat; the petitioners have already deposited the same and a perpetual lease deed has also been executed in favour of the petitioners. Counsel for the respondents submits that the price fixation of the plots/flats by the Housing Board is done taking into account all relevant aspects and factors which contribute in the fixation of the price and this exercise is conducted by the experts and unless the same is shown to be arbitrary on the part of the petitioners by bringing cogent and substantive material on record, it cannot be said that board has acted arbitrarily in fixing the price of flats. Counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of India reported in Bareilly Development Authority and Another Vs. Ajay Pal Singh and Others, . Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials brought on record, it appears that Annexures-2 and 4 are notices inviting offer from the intending purchasers which were issued in the years 2001 and 2004. Pursuant to the submission of the applications, the Board has accepted the offer in the year 2006 taking into account the final fixation of the price of the flats in question after incorporating the factors which contribute in the final fixation of the price at the relevant point of time. It is apparent from the submission of the parties that though the price shown in the allotment order is said to be an interim price of Rs. 9,47,120/- but it is the stand of the Board that the same is the final price, upon deposit of which the Board has entered into a perpetual lease deed with the petitioners in question. The fixation of the price as on 31st December 2006 by the Board cannot be said to be arbitrary on the ground that the tentative price was quoted in the notice issued in the years 2001 and 2004 by inviting offers from the intending purchasers. Parties like the petitioners made their offers whereafter it has been accepted by the Board in the final allotment order contained at annexure-7 taking into account the relevant factors for fixation of the price which according to them, is the final price now. In these circumstances, I do not find the grievance of the petitioners alleging arbitrariness on the part of the Board in fixation of the price of the flats, to be genuine and the grounds made out on behalf of the petitioners in the writ petition are also not substantiated by any material proof to establish violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in these applications, which are accordingly dismissed.