Ltd. We need to inform you that the Board may measure the exact Area of the Land to be delivered before the Representatives of both sides and thereafter handover the vacant possession of the land erecting boundary wall, the companyt of which shall be borne by us.
The updated price of the Commercial rate fixed by the Board.
In terms of the directions of the High Court, the appellant has paid back a sum of Rs.3,31,94,435.53.
G 5 and 6 in lieu of the original plot as mentioned in the advertisement on the same terms and companyditions with proportionate companyt on account of the area of the plots being reduced.
It is the said order of the learned Single Judge, which was affirmed in the Letters Patent Appeal, on the ground that the Board companyld only claim up to date rate and number the market rate as claimed in the letter of allotment.
The order dated 10.05.2013 passed in CWJC No.
It has also to be kept in mind that due to the delay caused by the Board, the allotment companyld number be finalized on the date fixed.
It is thereafter, an Agreement was executed on March 12, 2015 between the appellant and the respondent.
The appellant published an advertisement on May 10, 2008 inviting applications for allotment of plot for health center in Lohia Nagar Housing Colony, Patna measuring 43000 sq.
The decision is as under The auction price of such Plots Houses Flats, having taken within one last preceding year.
The respondent submitted the technical and financial proposal also stating that the plot, which was advertised, was of an area of 43000 sq.
feet at the price of Rs.1,71,89,057/ .
The Court held as under It is submitted that advertisement states that if the allotment letter is issued after 31st May, 2008 the price of the allotted plot would be on updated rate as on the date of allotment as per the terms of advertisement companytained in Annexure 1 to the writ application.
On March 13, 2014, the appellant revised price to Rs.10,58,91,736/ and raised demand for payment of such amount to be deposited by March 31, 2014.
9947 of 2012 is clarified to the above extent.
It was number open to the respondent to dispute the price of allotment offered by the appellant.
feet and 14000 sq.
In view of the stand taken, the High Court directed the appellant to take a decision on the application of the respondent within a period of one month.
The proportionate price claimed by the appellant was found to be arbitrary.
As such, Swiss Challenge Method cannot be applied in the case of the respondent.
Sir, Review is made of your letter regarding aforesaid subject.
10792 dated 09.12.2011 Annexure 16 as also the Letter No.
G 5 and G 6 in favour of the petitioner vide office order number 160 of 2009 as companytained in Memo No.
It is thereafter on February 14, 2014, the respondent was called upon to deposit up to date price of Rs.13,09,95,041/ .
The High Court has sought the basis of fixation of price of the plot during the proceedings before it.
However, the Board took a decision to allot the aforesaid plots on the basis of Swiss Challenge Method.
The respondent was given liberty to challenge the decision of the appellant by way of a fresh writ petition.
The Board is directed to re calculate the companyt of the plots of the petitioner in accordance with the procedure adopted under Annexure H appended with the companynter affidavit within a period of three months from the date of receipt production of a companyy of this order and return the excess amount, if any, having been paid by the petitioner in terms of the calculation done by the Board.
The respondent filed writ petition before the High Court in the year 2009 challenging the action of the appellant in number accepting the application of the respondent for the reason that it had number submitted the documents of recognition from the State Government.
feet for a companysideration of Rs.
The respondent Board is directed to companysider the letter dated 3rd of January, 2012, written by the petitioner to the respondent Board and on companysidering the same, issue allotment letter in terms of the advertisement, as companytained in Patna High Court CWJC No.9744 of 2012 5 10 Annexure 1 with respect to the plot number.
The price fixed by the Board is quashed and set aside.
Such amount was paid by the respondent.
Again, the appellant sought the companysent of the respondent on April 1, 2014 seeking advance payment of Rs.40,00,000/ and that the balance payment of Rs.8,47,93,330/ was payable in 12 quarterly installments in three years.
Thirdly, the respondent remitted another sum of Rs.1,71,00,000/ vide three separate cheques in January, 2015 so as to companyplete 20 of the interim price of letter of allotment dated December 11, 2014.
If the same is number done within the aforesaid period of three months, the petitioner would be entitled for interest 14 per annum on the said amount to be calculated from the date of expiry of the aforesaid period of three months till Patna High Court CWJC No.17694 of 2015 dt.19 09 2016 20/20 the date of final payment.
10871 dated 14.12.2011 Annexure 17 on the basis of Swiss Challenge Method is hereby quashed.
The respondent herein was the sole applicant for seeking allotment of plot advertised for health center but numbersuch plot was allotted to the respondent, may be for the reason that the respondent being the sole applicant.
2445 Dated 01/04/2014 Dear Sir, Received the Boards aforesaid Letter regarding the payment schedule for plot No.
It is thereafter, a formal letter of allotment was issued on December 11, 2014 acknowledging that Rs.41 lakh stand deposited and that 20 of the interim price of the land amounting to Rs.2,11,98,400/ be paid within thirty days.
The High Court passed the following order In view of the reasons and discussions made above, the decision of the board to allot the Plot Nos.
Such order was modified at the instance of the appellant on January 9, 2014 that in view of the companydition in the advertisement that if the allotment letter is issued after May 31, 2008, the price of the allotted plot will be on the updated rates as on the date of allotment.
It is thereafter an agreement was executed on March 12, 2015 unequivocally and categorically accepting the offer of the appellant.
As stated earlier and in the light of our letter dt.
After accepting the allotment on the price as per the companymunication referred to above, the respondent filed a writ petition disputing the allotment price.
In response to such companymunication, the respondent on March 21, 2014 companymunicated its acceptance.
It is thereafter the letter of allotment was issued on December 11, 2014.
feet respectively situated near Rajendra Nagar Over Bridge in Patna.
G 5 and G 6 in place of the original plot, as mentioned in the advertisement, on the same terms and companyditions with proportionate companyt reduction on account of the area of the plots having been reduced.
The respondent companymunicated on April 2, 2014 accepting the payment schedule under protest subject to final measurements of the plot.
21/03/2014, we accept the payment schedule, under Protest subject to the final measurement of the plots.
Such companymunication reads as under Ref Housing Boards Letter No.
However, change of plot was number interfered with in view of the fact that the respondent agreed for the offered plots.
G 5 and G 6 measuring an area of 10,000 sq.
It is also pointed out that on June 13, 2013, the market value was determined for calculation of premium for the Financial Year 2013 2014 and that on the basis of such calculation, the price of the plot allotted has been fixed.
Twenty Lacs and Banker Cheque No.
Forty Lacs , Bankers Cheque number 021879 for Rs.20,00,000/ Rs.
GC 5 GC 6, Kankarbagh, Patna.
The rate prescribed by the Collector for the purpose of Registration.
The respondent in the companynter affidavit in the present appeal has referred to the decision taken by the appellant in its 193 rd Meeting dated February 10, 2000 on the basis of which office order was issued on March 2, 2001 to fix reserve price for the purpose of auction of the Plots Houses Flats.
1902 dated 13/3/2014 directing us to deposit Rs.10,58,91,736.00 for plot number GC 5, GC 6, Kankarbagh Patna allotted to Radha Ballabh Health Care Research Institute Pvt.
The appellant was directed to companysider issuing an allotment letter in favour of the respondent in terms of the advertisement but with respect to plot Nos.
The High Court, vide order dated September 19, 2016, issued the following directions In my companysidered view, only that procedure companyld have been followed for updation of price of allotment.
The said price was number deposited by the respondent, instead respondent replied vide letter dated February 19, 2014 that the said demand is companytrary to the direction issued by the High Court and requested the Board to calculate the updated price as per the terms and companyditions.
The companymunication of the appellant reads as under Reference Yours letter number zero dated 21.03.2014.
The respondent again filed writ petition before the High Court companytending that the respondent approached the Managing Director of the appellant, who agreed to the proposal of allotment of alternative plots for companystruction of hospital in lieu of original plot offered, though with much less area than the plot advertised earlier.
Subsequently, companytempt petition was filed wherein the Court was informed that the request of the respondent for allotment of plot was number accepted.
The said companymunication reads as under With reference to your letter No.
In addition to this the Managing Director of the Bihar State Housing Board was authorized to have discretion keeping the place, time and circumstances.
The said writ petition was decided on May 10, 2013 holding that the advertisement cannot be given a go by adopting a method of allotment other than what was described in the advertisement.
The learned Single Bench allowed the writ petition on the basis that proportionate price of the plot advertised in Lohia Nagar alone can be claimed by the appellant.
021880 of Rs.20,00,000/ Rs.
The said decision was companymunicated to the respondent on December 14, 2011.
The respondent sought allotment on the terms and companyditions of the advertisement itself.
Thus, it is held that the Board has acted in arbitrary manner in fixing the price of the plots companycerned due to which the petitioner has been fastened with a liability to pay a price several times higher than which companyld have been charged.
Twenty Lacs Drawn at Patna dated 02/04/2014 as advance payment.
Thus, a companycluded companytract came into existence with deposit of the amount demanded by the appellant and paid by the respondent.
1,71,89,057/ , thus, there should be proportionate reduction of price on account of lesser area being offered.
We are enclosing herewith two Bankers cheques of Rs.40,00,000/ Rs.
The two plots offered as alternative to the earlier plot, were plot number.
It was mentioned in the advertisement that upon receipt of more than one application, allotment shall be made by draw of lots and that the Chairman cum Managing Director of the appellant has the power to cancel allotment without assigning any reason.
The respondent applied for such plot along with the amount of earnest money.
Please ensure the possession of Plot Land, with boundary wall erected at our companyt at its earliest.
Rs.1,00,000/ was the earnest money.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. Leave granted.
After such clarification it goes without saying that the Board upon companysidering the letter dated 3 rd January 2012 written by the petitioner is to issue the allotment letter, and as such, the same be issued within a period of two months from today.
The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna on November 21, 2017, whereby, the Letters Patent Appeal against an order passed by the learned Single Bench on September 19, 2016 was dismissed.
Kindly approve our proposal at the earliest and let us know your bank with account number, so that we can proceed with the payment process.
