Full Judgment
A.K. Ganguly, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Before filing of the present writ petition there were some facts, relating to allotment of plot of land between the parties. It appears that the petitioner was earlier allotted a plot of land and in respect of the said allotment an agreement was also entered into between the parties but the said plot was not given to the petitioner was the said land was in an unauthorised occupation.
Thereafter the petitioner initiated certain proceedings.
3. The case of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that the respondent Board has offered to the petitioner another plot of land having an area of 1609 Sq. ft. but the petitioner did not respond to the said offer. Ultimately arising out of the writ petition which was filed by the petitioner some order was passed and for non compliance of the said order, the petitioner initiated a contempt proceeding being M.L.C. No. 1653 of 1994. The said M.L.C, application was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court by recording the offer made by the respondent Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the said Board) to give an alternative plot to the petitioner and the petitioner's acceptance of the said plot being Plot No. K/508 and the Hon'ble Court disposed of the contempt petition with the following direction ;--
'The petitioner, in the circumstances, may take plot No. K/508 without prejudice to her rights and contentions.'
4. Now the dispute is over the price to the said plot. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board, it has been stated that the said plot is a scattered plot, and, therefore, the commercial price is required to be paid. Therefore, if the petitioner has to accept the offer, the petitioner must pay the commercial price of that plot. Even if the Court accepts that the petitioner is to accept the commercial plot, the Court cannot appreciate the stand of the Board that the petitioner has to pay interest which is calculated by the Board on the price of the said plot.
5. It is clear from the facts of this case ,that in the instant case the petitioner is not responsible for the delay in acceptance of the allotment. In fact the delay was on account of non-availability of the earlierplot in view of unauthorised occupation. If the Board cannot maintain its plot from being encroached by unauthorised person, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bihar State Housing Board v. Lalit Ram reported in 1998 (1) Pat LJR (SC) 72 : (AIR 1997 SC 961). In the said case the learned Judges of the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of that case, negatived the claim of the Board for
payment of Rs. 68.320/- by way of interest from the allottee of plot in that case.
6. Following the same fine of reasoning, this Couirt is also of the opinion that in the instant case the petitioner cannot be asked to pay the amount of interest.
7. Thus it is clear that because of the delayed allotment of plot, the petitioner is also suffering in the sense that if the petitioner has to raise construction on the said plot, the cost of construction has gone up considerably during these years. In that view of the matter, this Court balancing the equity between the parties directs the respondent Board to allot the said plot No. K/508 at Lohia Nagar. Patna to the petitioner and deliver possession thereof by executing agreement and completing all other formalities within a period of one month from the date of receipt/service of a copy of this order upon the respondent Board at its commercial price but by excluding the amount of interest from the said calculation of price.
8. With the above observation/direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.