Madras High Court
T.Paulraj vs Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 17 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1131 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1131 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.4935 & 4937 of 2021
T.Paulraj : Appellant
Vs.
1.Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Rep. by its Chairman cum Managing Director,
Nandanam,
Chennai – 35.
2.The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Madurai Housing Unit,
Ellis Nagar, Madurai – 625 010. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
praying to set aside the order dated 23.02.2021 made in W.P.(MD)No.
3436 of 2021, on the file of this Court and allow the Writ Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Ramsundar Vijayraj
For Respondents : Mr.Mahaboob Athiff
Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/7
W.A.(MD)No.1131 of 2021
JUDGMENT
***************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
We have heard Mr.S.Ramsundar Vijayraj, learned Counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mr.Mahaboob Athiff, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondent Board.
2.This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated
23.02.2021 made in W.P.(MD)No.3436 of 2021.
3.The said writ petition was filed by the appellant to quash the
order passed by the second respondent dated 21.01.2021 and for a
consequential direction to execute sale deed in favour of the appellant in
respect of a commercial plot which was put up for public auction in the
year 2004.
4.The appellant participated in the public auction and he was
declared as the highest bidder in respect of Plot No.2 and the decision to
the said effect was taken by the Board on 05.04.2004 and it was
communicated to the appellant on 18.06.2004. The offer made by the
appellant was Rs.15,03,000/- which was accepted as the highest offer for
Plot No.2, measuring an extent of 618 sq.mts. The order dated
18.06.2004, contained a specific condition that the appellant should pay
25% of the total cost which amounts to Rs.3,75,750/- within 15 days from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1131 of 2021
the date of receipt of the order dated 18.06.2004. Admittedly, the
appellant did not comply with the said condition. The appellant after a
period of three months on 29.09.2004, remitted the balance amount of
Rs.2,25,450/- and obtained the receipt from the respondent board.
5.Armed with the said receipt from the respondent Board, the
petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.9774 of 2011, praying for a direction upon
the respondents to accept the balance payment and execute the sale deed
in favour of the appellant in respect of the said receipt. Though, such a
relief was sought for, the learned Writ Court did not grant the relief but
directed the appellant to submit a representation to the respondent
Board, which was directed to be considered. It is pointed out that in the
order dated 12.02.2015, in paragraph No.8, it has been observed by the
learned Writ Court that the allotment of the plot has not been cancelled
till the date of the order. This observation appears to be incorrect
because original allotment order is a self working order and admittedly,
25% full amount has not been remitted within the time stipulated and the
time having not been extended by the respondent Board, such remittance
beyond the period of three [3] months cannot revive the allotment which
has automatically cancelled. The property is a Government property and
the Housing Board has to distribute the property in the manner which is
most beneficial to the interest of the Board and not public interest.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1131 of 2021
6.Thereafter, the appellant has been submitting several
representations and he has issued legal notice. One Mr.S.Kabeer Ahamed,
Manager, Marketing & Service, sent a communication dated 19.08.2019,
stating that the outstanding dues is Rs.44,89,251/- as on 31.10.2019 and
the appellant was directed to pay the amount on or before 31.10.2019.
The appellant on 20.09.2019 submitted a representation addressed to the
said Manager, Marketing & Service, stating that he is ready and willing to
pay the entire money. Thereafter, there was stalemate in the matter and
the appellant has been submitting representations. In terms of the
directions issued by the Court in W.P.(MD)No.9774 of 2011, dated
12.02.2015, the representation was considered by the Board and a
decision was taken rejecting the said representation. The said order was
subject matter of challenge in W.P.(MD)No.3436 of 2021, which has been
dismissed and the appellant is before this Court.
7.Firstly, unless and until the appellant complies with the
condition imposed by the Board within the time stipulated, no right
accrues in favour of the appellant. Assuming the respondent has extended
the time for payment, it is rather doubtful as to whether the decision
taken by the Board for automatic cancellation can be revived by the
subordinate officer, who is a Marketing Executive. In the order dated
21.01.2021, which was impugned in the writ petition, it is pointed out
that an opportunity was provided to the appellant to pay the revised due
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1131 of 2021
as on 31.03.2014 and the appellant failed to remit the same. It is rather
doubtful as to how the respondent Board can grant such extension of time
and by revising the rates and without informing the public about the
availability of the plot, because if the revised rate was Rs.32,75,000/- and
had the property been put for public auction in 2014, in all probabilities,
it would have fetched more than two times the revised rate. Being the
public property, it has to be sold at the best possible rate for which public
auction is the only method and the respondents are bound to do so, more
particularly, when the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998,
has been enacted. Therefore, we are of the clear view that there is no
vested right for the appellant to seek for execution of sale deed in respect
of the said plot upon remitting the revised cost.
8.Thus, for the above reasons, we find no grounds to interfere
with the above order. However, the appellant will be entitled to
participate in the public auction as and when the respondent Board puts
up the plot for public auction. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
17.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1131 of 2021
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy
of the order that is presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
To
1.The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam,
Chennai – 35.
2.The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Madurai Housing Unit,
Ellis Nagar, Madurai – 625 010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1131 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
MR
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.1131 of 2021
17.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
