Madras High Court
The Member Secretary vs T.D.Sadasivam on 2 August, 2021
W.A.No.1174 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A.No.1174 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.7451 of 2021
The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. .. Appellant
Vs
1.T.D.Sadasivam
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar, Selaiyur,
Chennai - 600 073. .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 09.01.2020 made in W.P.No.16917 of 2015.
For Appellant : Mr.P.S.Ganesh
For Respondents : Ms.Nalini Chidambaram, Sr.Counsel
for Ms.C.Uma for R1
Page 1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1174 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
The issue involved in this appeal is with respect to the fixation of
the guide line value payable by the first respondent.
2. The erstwhile municipality by name, Selaiyur-Tambaram
Municipality, by inadvertence laid the road on the first respondent's
property. Having noted the aforesaid mistake, the Government passed
an order in G.O.Ms.No.382, Housing and Urban Development (UDI.1)
Department, dated 05.05.1994 asking the first respondent to give the
entire land in Survey No.132/1B, in exchange, it is agreed to give him
the children play area earmarked for public purpose by releasing it.
The first respondent was further directed to pay for the excess extent
of three grounds.
3. As the first respondent had already sold the other land
situated in Rajammal Nagar, he was not in a position to gift an extent
of 2 grounds and 622 sq.ft. in Survey No.132/1B in compliance of the
Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.382, Housing and Urban
Development (UDI.1) Department, dated 05.05.1994 with specific
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1174 of 2021
reference to the first condition. Therefore, he sought for modification
of the Government Order to pay the market value for the remaining
portion of the land at Rajammal Nagar since he sold it to a third party
as mentioned above.
4. The aforesaid request of the first respondent was agreed upon
by the Government, namely, the second respondent before us, by
issuing another Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.142, Housing and
Urban Development (UDI.1) Department, dated 26.09.2014 amending
G.O.Ms.No.382, Housing and Urban Development (UDI.1) Department,
dated 05.05.1994.
5. In the modified Government Order dated 26.09.2014, the
request of the first respondent to fix the guideline value as in the year
1985 was taken note of and rejected while fixing the present guideline
value. Accordingly, the prevailing guideline value for the balance
extent of 3533 sq.ft at Rajammal Nagar was directed to be taken note
of. The first respondent expressed his desire to make the said payment
by letter dated 15.10.2014 just within a month of the Government
Order aforesaid. Unfortunately, the guideline value underwent change
with effect from 01.10.2014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1174 of 2021
6. The appellant demanded the guideline value as per the
modified guideline value which has come into force with effect from
01.10.2014 while the first respondent seeks to make the payment as
per the guideline value existed on the date of the Government Order
passed on 26.09.2014. The second respondent concurred with the
views of the appellant stating that the prevailing guideline value would
mean the guideline value as existed on 01.10.2014 and not on the
date of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.142, Housing and Urban
Development (UDI.1) Department, dated 26.09.2014. This was put to
challenge before the learned Single Judge, who, by a detailed order,
allowed the writ petition holding that G.O.Ms.No.142, Housing and
Urban Development (UDI.1) Department, dated 26.09.2014 does not
define the word 'prevailing' and the only interpretation which can be
given to the said word is the value existing at a particular time.
Therefore, the date of the Government Order would be the date to be
reckoned. The word 'guideline' as defined in the dictionary is also to be
related to the date of the Government Order. Therefore, any other
interpretation cannot be given and if the said contention is acceptable
then it would only mean the date of actual payment. The following is
the operative portion of the order of the learned Single Judge:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1174 of 2021
"13.G.O.Ms.No.142 dated 26.09.2014 also does
not define the word 'prevailing'. Applying the
golden rule of interpretation, the ordinary meaning
of the term 'prevailing' will have to be applied. The
ordinary meaning of the term 'prevailing' is
'existing at a particular time; current.' Under the
earlier G.O.Ms.No.382 dated 05.05.1994, the
petitioner was directed to pay the land cost at
1985 guideline value but whereas in
G.O.Ms.No.142 dated 26.09.2014, the petitioner
was directed to pay at the prevailing guideline
value. The intention of the Government as seen
from G.O.Ms.No.142 dated 26.09.2014 is to
collect from the petitioner, the sale consideration
from 3533 sq.ft in Rajammal Nagar on the
guideline value applicable as on the date of G.O.
and not the guideline value applicable in the year
1985 when by mistake the Government laid a road
in the petitioner's absolute property at Rajammal
Nagar. In plain and unambiguous language, the
Government has made it clear in G.O.Ms.No.142
dated 26.09.2014 that the petitioner shall pay the
sale consideration for the balance extent of 3533
sq.ft. in Rajammal Nagar on the guideline value
applicable as on the date of G.O. i.e., on
26.09.2014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1174 of 2021
16. The judgment relied upon by the learned
standing counsel for the second respondent in the
case of Chennai Metropolitan Development
Authority and Ors. vs. Prestige Estates Project
Ltd., reported in MANU/SC/0988/2019 referred to
supra is not applicable to the facts of the instant
case. Since that case involves planning permission
for premium FSI for a building complex. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court held in that judgment, the
payment will have to be made for the planning
permit only on the date of sanctioning of the
planning permit. The case on hand, does not
involve any planning permit and further
G.O.Ms.No.142 dated 26.09.2014 which is the
subject matter of interpretation in this writ
petition in clear and unambiguous terms has
directed the petitioner to make the payment only
in accordance with the guideline value applicable
as on the date of G.O.Ms.No.142 dated
26.09.2014. Therefore, the aforesaid decision
relied upon by the learned standing counsel for
the second respondent is not applicable to the
case on hand.
18. Further, in the case on hand, the petitioner
was always ready and willing to comply with the
requirements under G.O.Ms.No.142 dated
26.09.2014. Immediately after G.O.Ms.No.142
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1174 of 2021
dated 26.09.2014, the petitioner sent a letter to
the second respondent dated 15.10.2014
undertaking to make the payment as per the
prevailing guideline value and also called upon the
second respondent to issue a demand notice to
enable the petitioner to make the payment. The
second respondent by its letter dated 22.12.2014
to the third respondent had also requested the
third respondent to furnish the guideline value for
the property. A reminder letter was also sent by
the petitioner on 07.01.2015 to the second
respondent calling upon them to obtain the
guideline value from the third respondent at the
earliest to enable the petitioner to make the
payment in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.142. Once
again on 12.01.2015, the second respondent has
requested the third respondent to furnish the
guideline value for the subject property. One more
reminder was sent by the petitioner on
16.02.2015 to the second respondent to obtain
the guideline value from the third respondent to
enable the petitioner to make the payment as
required under G.O.Ms.No.142. Even in the reply
dated 11.03.2015 sent by the second respondent,
they have not furnished the guideline value for the
subject property to the petitioner. In the same
reply for the first time, the second respondent has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1174 of 2021
indirectly intimated the petitioner that he has to
pay the guideline value prevailing as on the date
of the said letter and not on the guideline value
applicable on the date of G.O.Ms.No.142 which is
dated 26.09.2014. Immediately, the petitioner
also replied to the second respondent stating that
he is liable to make the payment only in
accordance with the guideline value prevailing on
the date of G.O.Ms.No.142 ie., on 26.09.2014. If
"prevailing guideline value" is found in
G.O.Ms.No.142 dated 26.09.2014 is interpreted to
mean the guideline value applicable as on the date
of actual payment, it will lead to absurdity and
arbitrariness."
Challenging the aforesaid order, the present appeal has been filed.
7. Mr.P.S.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that it is not as if the appellant seeks the valuation
prevailing on the date of actual payment but on the date on which the
first respondent expressed his readiness. In support of his contention,
reliance has been made on the following decisions: (i) State of Kerala
and Others vs Palakkad Heritage Hotel reported in (2017) 13 SCC 672,
(ii) State of Haryana vs Manoj Kumar reported in (2010) 4 SCC 350,
(iii) V.Sivakumar v. IG of Registration reported in 2011 (5) MLJ 30 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1174 of 2021
(iv) Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and another v
Prestige Estates Project Ltd., (C.A.Nos.5642-5643 of 2019 dated
29.07.2019)
8.Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first
respondent submitted that the Government Order passed in
G.O.Ms.No.142, Housing and Urban Development (UDI.1) Department,
dated 26.09.2014 itself discusses the said aspect and decides it in para
3 while rejecting the request made by the first respondent that the
earlier date will have to be reckoned. The subsequent letter cannot
clarify the Government Order passed and there is no legal sanction
attached to it. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the judgments
relied upon are not applicable to the case on hand.
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties
and after perusing the order of the learned Single Judge, we do not
find any reason to interfere with the order passed. The only question
for consideration is the date to be reckoned for the guideline value
which would be the basis for fixing the amount payable by the first
respondent. According to the first respondent, the right having been
accrued on 26.09.2014 and the said date will have to be reckoned and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1174 of 2021
since the subsequent date - 01.10.2014 when the revised guideline
value has come into being.
10. We find considerable force in the submission made by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent. It is the
Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.142, Housing and Urban
Development (UDI.1) Department, dated 26.09.2014 which gives the
right. It is not as if the first respondent was not diligent in making the
payment. The first respondent has addressed a letter to the appellant
and therefore, there is no question of offer and acceptance which
comes into play. The Government Order seals the rights and liabilities
of the parties. The question is what flows from the said Government
Order. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant is with respect to the inter se rights and liabilities
between the authority and an individual. This is not the case which we
are dealing with. Changing of the guideline value has got no rationale
to the Government Order passed. In fact, in the Government Order,
the request made by the first respondent was rejected and thereafter
the prevailing market value was directed to be paid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1174 of 2021
11. In such view of the matter, we are of the view that the order
of the learned Single Judge is perfectly in order. To put it on the
converse, can it be said that the first respondent is entitled to pay
lesser amount if the guideline value with effect from 01.10.2014 is
reduced. In our considered view, it cannot be done. Therefore, looking
from any perspective, we are not in a position to accept the contention
of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. After all, the first
respondent accepted the Government Order and the right has accrued
in his favour the moment it is passed. The clarification letter dated
18.05.2015 by the second respondent, in our considered view, has
rightly been not accepted by the learned Single Judge. A clarification
by way of letter cannot override the Government Order passed which
would enure to the benefit of the first respondent. Thus, the
judgments relied upon do not have any application to the case which
we are dealing with. We do not find any merit in this appeal as the
learned single Judge has considered the relevant materials while
dismissing the writ petition.
12. In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed and the order
of the learned Single Judge is confirmed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1174 of 2021
13. Taking note of the fact that the demand has already been
raised by the appellant in tune with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge and the same has also been paid, the consequential
registration will have to be done within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(M.M.S., J.) (S.K., J.)
02.08.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/ssm
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Housing and Urban Development,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar, Selaiyur,
Chennai - 600 073.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1174 of 2021
M.M.SUNDRESH,J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL,J.
mmi
W.A.No.1174 of 2021
02.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
