( 2026:JHHC:5309 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5212 of 2003 ------ Kapil Deo Singh, son of late Bhupati Singh, resident of House No. MIG- H/1/40, at + P.O. Harmu Housing Colony, P.S. Argora, District: Ranchi, Jharkhand (deleted vide order dated 05.12.2006) 1. Anil Kumar Singh 2. Arvind Singh, both sons of Late Kapil Deo Singh resident of House No. M.I.G., H-1/40, At P.O- Harmu Housing Colony, P.S. Argora, District- Ranchi- 834012. (Jharkhand) (Substitution effected on ordered by the Hon’ble Court vide in order dated 05.12.2006 in I.A. No. 3001 of 2006). 2. (a) Mrs. Babita Singh w/o Late Arvind Singh 2. (b) Mr. Gautam Singh 2. (c) Mr. Bhupendra Singh, 2(b) and 2(c) are S/o of Late Arvind Singh, All resident of House No. M.I.G., H-1/40, Harmu Housing Colony, P.S. Argora, District- Ranchi- 834012. (Jharkhand) Correction made in compliance to order dated 18.01.2023 of the Hon’ble Court … … Petitioners Versus 1. Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi through the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, At & P.O.- Harmu Housing Colony, Ranchi. 2. The Revenue Officer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, At & P.O.- Harmu Housing Colony, Ranchi. 3. Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi Division, At & P.O.- Harmu Housing Colony, Ranchi. 4. Bihar State Housing Board through the Managing Director Bihar State Housing Board, Mangles Board, Patna. 5. Mrs. Haritima Singh D/o Late Kapil Deo Singh & w/o Mr. Nityanand Singh, At- Nitya Niwas, Maitri Marg, Near Gauri Enclave, Bariatu Housing Colony, P.O. & P.S.- Bariatu, Town & District-Ranchi- 834009 (Jharkhand). 6. Mrs. Meenu Singh D/o Late Kapil Deo Singh & w/o Dr. Virendra Kumar Singh, Flat No. B-6, Rajnigandha Tower, Near Gandhi Nagar, Kanke Road, P.O.- Ranchi University, P.S.- Gonda, Town & District- Ranchi- 834008 (Jharkhand) (impleaded proforma respondent nos. 5 and 6 in compliance to the order dated 17.01.2025 passed in I.A. No. 2251 of 2023. … … Proforma Respondent No. 5 and 6 --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Housing Board : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate : Mrs. Sweta Shuka, Advocate --- 23/19.02.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- ( 2026:JHHC:5309 ) 2 (a) “For issuance of a writ of or in the nature of certiorari for quashing: (i) The illegal and unlawful demand of Rs. 78,886=00 up to February, 1997 as contained in Letter No. 105 Ranchi dated 11.02.1997. (ii) The illegal and unlawful demand of Rs. 1,82,798,00 up to 31.05.2001 as contained in Letter No. 1689, Patna dated 10.04.2001. (iii) The reminder for payment as contained in Letter No. 3031 Patna dated 16.07.2001. (iv) The illegal and unlawful demand of Rs. 72,099.00 up to 31.12.2002 as contained in Letter No. 692, Ranchi dated 05.11.2002. (v) The illegal and unlawful demand of Rs. 88,025,00 upto 30.06.2003 as contained in Letter No. 136, Ranchi dated 19.05.2003. (vi) The reminder for payment of the unlawful demands as contained in Letter No. 618, Ranchi dated 02.06.2003. (b) For issuance of a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents: (i) To execute and register the final conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of House No. MIG, H-1/40 alongwith the plot of land at Harmu Housing Colony, Ranchi allotted to him. (ii) To refund Rs. 45,000.00, the amount deposited in excess by the petitioner with abundant caution to be on the right side to pay off the lawful dues, if any. (iii) To compensate the petitioner in respect of pecuniary loss caused and mental agony suffered due to inordinate delay in executing and registering the aforesaid conveyance deed in respect of the said house property in favour of the petitioner and also the cost of this litigation.” 3. During the course of argument, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 6500/- as earnest money for allotment of quarter on 23.02.1977 and an allotment letter dated 28.09.1983 was issued to the petitioner showing the tentative consideration amount of the property as Rs. 82,000/-. In terms of the allotment letter, the petitioner deposited Rs. 10,050/- within one month and became entitled for registration of hire purchase agreement and ultimately the hire purchase agreement was entered into on 02.07.1985 (Annexure-2) wherein the balance amount was shown as Rs. 65,600/- to be paid in 180 equal installments @ Rs. 685/- per month to be paid within 7 days ( 2026:JHHC:5309 ) 3 of the month, otherwise the installment per month was Rs. 787.30 per month. So far as letter of allotment is concerned, it also referred to the remaining consideration amount as Rs. 65,600/- but it stated in the allotment letter that the number of installments was 120 installments. But when the agreement was entered into, the number of monthly installments was also changed to 180. The agreement is dated 2nd of July, 1985 wherein it has been mentioned that the total tentative cost of Rs. 82,000/- and Rs. 16,400/- had been paid as initial payment and it was mentioned in the agreement that the settlee can be given delivery of possession after completing all formalities and registration. In case of default in payment of installment, the clause 8 of the agreement is as under:- 8. That interest Rate 1% (one percent) per month shall be charged on all dues either in respect of premium installments or rent for the period of defaults. Besides in case of each default the following administrative and financial charges shall be levied:- (a) For M.I.G. House/flat Rs. 10/ per default (b) For L.I.G. House/flat Rs. 5/- per default (c) For E.W.S. House/flat Rs. 2/- per default 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the agreement was entered into after a letter was issued to the petitioner to deposit the stamp etc. vide letter dated 15.01.1985. He has also submitted that the possession of the property was handed over to the petitioner on 15.03.1989. The learned counsel further submits that the Annexure-8 series reveal that different amount were demanded from the petitioner at different point of time and no calculation with respect to the demand was forwarded to the petitioner and as per the petitioner he had paid the entire amount and an amount of Rs. 45,000/- was paid lastly on 10th January, 2001. The learned counsel has submitted that repeated representations were made with regard to the different demands raised from time to time and ultimately the petitioner had no option but to file the writ petition before this court. 5. The learned counsel submits that the respondents have filed their calculation as to how they have arrived at the figures in the counter affidavit, but on the face of such calculation it appears that ( 2026:JHHC:5309 ) 4 they have calculated the interest from the date of allotment and not from the date of the agreement and such calculation is contrary to the agreement. Once the agreement is entered into and terms and conditions are fixed, the parties are bound to act as per the agreement. The learned counsel has further submitted that the rate of interest has been arbitrarily shown as normal 9.5%, penal 12% but the same is not relatable to the agreement. He has further submitted that the amount of Rs. 10,050/- which was deposited as back as on 27.10.1983 was required to be deducted at the threshold and it could not have been deducted after adding up interest on the principal amount. He submits that the deduction of the amount of Rs. 10,050/- even if Rs. 150 is deducted on miscellaneous charges, comes of Rs. 9900/- the same has to be done at appropriate stage and not at a later stage. This has a serious bearing on the calculation. The learned counsel submits that the calculation has been done in the total violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as the calculation was never handed over to the petitioner at any point of time and further on the face of the calculation, the same is not as per the agreement between the parties. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the demand raised as back as in the year 1977 has been sought to be challenged in the year 2003, although the petitioner had paid the initial amount timely as per the allotment letter, but there has been enormous delay in depositing the stamp paper and other documents and consequently the delay in execution of agreement is attributable to the petitioner and consequently the petitioner is supposed to pay interest right from the date of allotment on 28.09.1983. He has further submitted that if the mode and manner of calculation is taken into consideration, the monthly interest has been mentioned in the agreement and if it is taken on annual basis, the interest as mentioned in the calculation chart will reflect the same figure. The learned counsel submits that so far as the adjustment of Rs. 9900/- as shown in column 3 is concerned, the same is practically adjustment of Rs. 10,050 as Rs. 150 miscellaneous charges were deducted, but it is not in dispute that the said deduction ( 2026:JHHC:5309 ) 5 has been made after including the interest from 1.10.1983 to 31.10.1983 . The learned counsel submits that there is no illegality in the impugned action and the demand and therefore the writ petition be dismissed. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that though the allotment letter was issued on 28.09.1983 and the amount mentioned therein was deposited by the petitioner within the prescribed time and ultimately the agreement was entered into on 02.07.1985 with its own terms and conditions which were not identical to that of the letter of allotment. The agreement does not reveal that any interest was chargeable from the petitioner right from the date of allotment till the date of agreement, in such circumstances this court is of the considered view that the calculation sheet which has been brought on record by the respondents for the 1st time in the writ records showing calculation of interest from the date of allotment is ex-facie contrary to the agreement entered into between the parties on 2.07.1985. 8. Further the calculation of interest does not even reveal as to how the rates have been arrived at i.e. 9.5% normal and penal @ 12% and there is nothing to demonstrate that the said calculation is in terms of the agreement in view of the fact that the interest was to be calculated as per the default clause. Further there can be no dispute if an amount is paid on a particular date, the same has to be given adjustment on that date and there is no question of even adjustment of the amount after including the interest thereon. 9. This court finds that the calculation as prescribed as given in the counter affidavit is apparently not as per the agreement and the various demands as has been forwarded to the petitioner as contained in Annexure-8 series were not accompanied by any calculation. In such circumstances, this court is of the view that the entire calculation and the demand as raised against the petitioner ex-facie is not in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties and moreover such demands from time to time are in violation of principles of natural ( 2026:JHHC:5309 ) 6 justice and fair play , in as much as any party against which demand is made is entitled for its calculation as well. Consequently, the demand as raised against the petitioner through the impugned letters are hereby set aside and the respondent no. 2- Revenue Officer is directed to furnish a fresh calculation sheet to the petitioner in terms of the agreement. 10. The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent nos. 1 and 2 by filing a representation within a period of 6 months from today and the respondents shall provide fresh calculation sheet to the petitioners within 3 months thereafter in terms of the agreement after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The fresh calculation should project due adjustment of payments on the date they are deposited. If any demand arises arising out of such calculation, the counsel for the petitioner has undertaken that the same could be cleared within one month thereafter and if the differential amount is paid, appropriate steps be taken by the parties so that the required registry is also done. 11. At this stage, it is relevant to note that the original petitioner had expired on 10.08.2006 and his two sons have been substituted vide order dated 05.12.2006. Further the 2nd son of the original petitioner also expired and he has also been substituted vide order dated 18.01.2023. It is also relevant to note that the respondent no. 5 and 6 who are the daughters in the family were also issued notice in this case and they have filed an affidavit dated 21.03.2025 stating that they have no objection if the claim made in the writ petition be allowed in favour of the petitioner Anil Kumar Singh and Mrs. Babita Singh wife of late Arvind Singh. In such circumstances, apparently there can be no impediment in registering the property in the name of petitioners of the present case. 12. This writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 19.02.2026 Uploaded on 23.05.2026 Binit