APARESH KUMAR SINGH - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has moved this court in the year 2003, being aggrieved by the order of cancellation of his flat vide letter no. 1173/Aa dated 24.3.2001(Annexure-5). According to the petitioner she was allotted L.I.G. Flat on making application in the year 1989 vide allotment order dated 24.1.1992 (Annexure- 1/A). It is the contention of the petitioner that the original price fixed in the allotment order was Rs. 63,210. However, in spite of request made by the petitioner to execute the agreement of the flat in question in her favour the respondent- Board instead proceeded to cancel the allotment itself.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent- Housing Board, on the other hand submitted by way of the averments made in the first counter affidavit that from the impugned order itself it would appear that order of cancellation was issued after repeated notice and even after publication of notice in newspaper and the possession was not given to the petitioner. However, it appears that by the order dated 9.1.2009 petitioner was allowed to deposit arrears within a period of 2 months, where after, petitioner submits that he has deposited the balance amount of Rs. 58,210 through demand draft and is ready for execution of the agreement for the said flat. In his contention petitioner has submitted that he was required to pay the amount fixed at the time of allotment. However, from the allotment order (Annexure-1/A) itself in clause 3 it is stated that in the matter of allotment of flat/ plot of the Housing Board price fixed at the time of allotment is tentative depending upon the final price, which may be decided after final valuation of whole project in question. Besides that counsel for the respondent also submitted that petitioner was liable to pay amount in the number of installments allowed to him together with interest as per the allotment order itself and on failure to do so it cannot be said that original amount of Rs. 68,210 was the only amount, which he was required to pay. From the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent- board, it appears that in such cases where allotment has been canceled because of some reason or other, the Jharkhand State Housing Board has in its 16th resolution dated 8.11.2007 decided to reconsider for reallotment of the flats which have been canceled on the present existing price of the flat/plot. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that if petitioner approaches the respondent- Board and agrees to pay the existing price, which is fixed after the valuation by the housing board, the board will consider his case for allotment and execution of agreement for the flat. However, the possession claimed by the petitioner has been strongly denied on the part of the respondent- board. In the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner is allowed liberty to approach the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board within a period of 4 weeks from the receipt of the copy of the order of this court for redressal of his grievances with an undertaking to pay the final amount fixed as per the present valuation of the flat in question, where after the respondent- Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board shall consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 12 weeks, thereafter. Needless to say that if the Board takes a decision to allot the flat by entering into an agreement,it would be open for the housing board to fix the installments of the amount, which the petitioner would be liable to pay as the terms and conditions of the fresh agreement entered into between them. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.;