Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P.(C) No. 2265 of 2007 Suresh Chandra ....... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. Revenue Officer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Government of Jharkhand, Adityapur, Jamshedpur. ........ Respondents with W.P.(C) No. 7732 of 2006 Sri Shiv Dayal Sharma ....... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. Revenue Officer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Government of Jharkhand, Adityapur, Jamshedpur. ........ Respondents with W.P.(C) No. 2957 of 2008 Gorakh Nath Mishra ....... Petitioner Versus 1. The Jharkhand State Housing Board through its Managing Director, Ranchi 2. The Revenue Officer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi 3. The Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Adityapur, Jamshedpur.
4. The Manager, Estate-II, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi. ........ Respondents with W.P.(C) No. 2927 of 2012 Raj Kishore Prasad Barnwal ....... Petitioner Versus 1. Jharkhand State Housing Board, Harmu, Ranchi through its Managing Director 2. Secretary, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi 3. Estate Officer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi 4. Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Adityapur, Seraikella-Kharsawan. ........ Respondents with W.P.(C) No. 7825 of 2012 Avinash Kumar Singh ....... Petitioner Versus 1. Jharkhand State Housing Board through Managing Director, Ranchi 2. Revenue Officer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi 3. Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Adityapur, Jamshedpur. ........ Respondents -2- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioners : M/s. Amitabh, Sidhartha Ranjan, Advs. For the Respondents : M/s. Sachin Kumar, Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocates … 08/27.07.2016: Petitioners in all these writ petitions have a common grievance in relation to demand issued by the respondent-Housing Board for payment of the outstanding balance of the consideration money in respect of allotment of MIG flats in the town of Adityapur, now falling within the District of Seraikella-Kharsawan. The allotment orders in individual cases have been made from 1983 onwards before the year 2000. Individual facts of the petitioners need not be gone into now for the reason that there have been developments in the matter which now necessitate the present writ petitions to be disposed of for undertaking an exercise of computation of the demands in terms of the decision of Jharkhand Housing Board contained in its 40th meeting held on 7th April, 2015 and Agenda No.11 whereunder the principle in respect of such matters as contained in memo no.313 dated 9th March, 2015 have been approved. Both the resolutions dated 7th April, 2015 and 21st March, 2015 on the contents of letter bearing memo no.313 dated 9 th March, 2015 have been produced by the counsel for the petitioners. The operative portion of the resolution dated 21st March, 2015 of the committee of the Housing Board is quoted hereunder :- “mDr ds vkyksd esa lfefr dk izLrko gS fd %& 1- 17-05-2006 ds iwoZ ykxw x.kuk i)fr dks oSls fuxZr vkoaVu vkns'k ,oa ,djkjukek esa ykxw fd;k tk; ftlesa Li"V :i ls pdzo`f) C;kt pktZ fd;s tkus dk mYys[k ugha gS ,oa ,sls ekeyksa esa vkoaVu vkns'k ,oa ,djkjukek esa fufgr izko/kku ds vuqlkj x.kuk fd;k tk;A2 vkoaVu vkns'k fuxZr gksus ds mijkUr foyEc ls ,djkjukek fd;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa lk/kkj.k C;kt pktZ fd;k tk;] dk fu.kZ; cks MZ ds Kki la[;k 408 fnukad -3- 01-03-2013 ls fy;k x;k Fkk] dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fnukad 27-01- 2014 ds mi;ZqDr mfYyf[kr dzekad 1 ls 8 ds vkoafV;ksa }kjk nk;j ekeys esa bl vof/k ds fy, pktZ fd;s x;s lwn dks Quash dj fn;s tkus ds QyLo:i ,sls vof/k dk C;kt pktZ ugha fd;k tk;A3 ftu vkoafV;ksa dk ,djkjukek iwoZorhZ fcgkj jkT; vkokl cks MZ ds le; lEikfnr gqvk gS mu vkoafV;ksa dks ekuuh; >kj[k.M mPp U;k;ky;@loksZPp U;k;ky; } kjk fofHkUu ;kfpdkvksa esa ikfjr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa bl i)fr ls ,djkjukek esa fufgr izko/kku ds rgr~ x.kuk dh tk; ,oa vkoafV;ksa dks ikouk jkf'k dh lwpuk nh tk;A4 iwoZorhZ fcgkj jkT; ,oa >kj[k.M jkT; xBu ds mijkUr fd;s x;s ,djkjukek ,oa vkoaVu vkns'k dks la'kksf/kr fd;s tkus dh vko';drk crk;h xbZA5 bl x.kuk i)fr dks cks MZ ds vuqeksnuksijkUr vkns'k fuxZr dh frfFk ls ykxw ekuk tk;A Item no.11 of the Board's resolution dated 7th April, 2015 is also being quoted hereunder :- 11- >kj[k.M jkT; vkokl cks MZ ds Kkikad 313 fnukad vuqeksfnrA0903-2015 ls x.kuk lEcU/kh ekeyksa ij fopkj gsrq xfBr lfefr ls izkIr izLrko ds vuqeksnu ds laca/k esaA Learned counsel for the respondent-Board submits that the competent authorities under the respondent-Board would examine the case of individual petitioners in the light of the aforesaid Board resolution and raise the outstanding demand, if any, as per the rates, simple/compound applicable to the individual petitioners in the light of the terms and conditions of the allotment order and the resolution on that subject within a reasonable time. Thereafter, the individual petitioners would be required to deposit outstanding demand within the stipulated time for execution of the lease agreement with each one of them. Having taken note of the relevant material facts and the resolution of the Housing Board as stated herein above, the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of for the Housing Board to take an informed decision in the matter of the individual petitioners within a -4- reasonable time, preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Individual petitioners may have liberty to file representation with all supporting facts and documents along with certified copy of the order before the competent authority of the respondent Housing Board to undertake the aforesaid exercise for coming to an informed decision. Dependent upon such decision, the respondent Housing Board would proceed to execute the lease agreement with the concerned petitioners/persons in accordance with law. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. In view of what has been observed herein above, the impugned order shall not stand in the way of the respondent Housing Board to take a fresh decision. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/