Madras High Court
S.Nirmala Devi vs Mr.P.K.Vairamuthu on 15 November, 2021
Cont.P.No.1423 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.11.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Cont.P.No.1423 of 2017
&
Cont.P.No.742 of 2021
Cont.P.No.1423 of 2017 :
S.Nirmala Devi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Mr.P.K.Vairamuthu,
The Chairman,
Tamilnadu Housing Board
No.331, Anna Salai,
Nandanam,
Chennai - 600033
2.Mr.K.Nandhagopal
The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Housing Unit, Erode,
III-Floor, Office Cum Shopping Complex
Surampatti Four Road,
Erode 638 009 ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1423 of 2017
Cont.P.No.742 of 2021:
L.Manickasundaram ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Mr.P.K.Vairamuthu,
The Chairman,
Tamilnadu Housing Board
No.331, Anna Salai,
Nandanam,
Chennai - 600033
2.Mr.K.Nandhagopal
The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer,
Tamilnadu Housing Board,
Housing Unit, Erode,
III-Floor, Office Cum Shopping Complex
Surampatti Four Road,
Erode 638009 ... Respondents
Prayer in Cont.P.No.1423 of 2017 : Memorandum of Contempt
Petition is filed under section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to
punish the respondents for their willful disobedience of the orders of
this Court passed in W.P.No.8552 of 2013 dated 25.04.2016.
Prayer in Cont.P.No.742 of 2021: Memorandum of Contempt
Petition is filed under section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to
punish the respondents for their willful disobedience of the order
dated non-compliance of the order dated 12.04.2016 made in
W.P.No.6657 of 2013 passed by the Honourable Court and pass such
further or other suitable order as this Honourable court deems fir and
proper in the circumstance of the case and thus render justice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1423 of 2017
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar
(in Cont.P.No.1423 of 2017)
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy
(in Cont.P.No.742 of 2021)
For Respondents : Mr.R.Bharathkumar
(in both Contempt Petitions)
COMMON ORDER
The above Contempt Petitions are filed to punish the
respondents for their wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this
Court on 25.04.2016 and 12.04.2016 in W.P.No.8552 of 2013 and
W.P.6657 of 2013 respectively.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended
that the Writ Petitions were allowed as prayed for. The impugned
order dated 31.03.2013 challenged in the Writ Petitions is quashed
and the respondents are directed to allot the plot in accordance with
the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.Nos.1317 to 1320 of 2000. However, the respondents Housing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1423 of 2017
Board allotted plot in favour of the petitioner by fixing the plot cost
on the higher side, which is not in accordance with the order passed
by this Court. In other words, it is contended that exorbitant rate is
fixed as plot cost, despite the fact that this Court has directed the
respondents to fix the price at which the Housing Board has alloted
commercial plots in respect of the other persons.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention
of this Court with reference to the value which prevailed during the
relevant point of time and that value was not accepted by the Housing
Board, which is violation of the orders of this Court and thus the
respondents are to be punished.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench which was confirmed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and based on the said Judgment of
the Hon'ble Division Bench, the prevailing guidelines value ought to
have been fixed as plot cost and thus the respondents have committed
an error and had intentionally and wilfully violated the orders of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1423 of 2017
Court. The father of the petitioner in Cont.P.No.742 of 2021 was a
party before the Hon'ble Division Bench and before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the plot itself was allotted in favour of the
petitioner after the demise of his father Mr.C.Lakshmanan. In the
year 2013, while fixing the plot cost the respondents have not
followed the directions issued by this Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Tamil
Nadu Housing Board objected the contentions raised on behalf of the
petitioners by stating that the Housing Board has scrupulously
followed the order passed by this Court. The Writ Petitions filed by
the petitioners were allowed based on the directions issued by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.1317 to
1320 of 2000. The plot cost was fixed as per the directions issued by
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and the petitioners by
relying on the previous guidelines value insisting the Housing Board
to fix the plot cost. However, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board fixed
the plot cost with reference to the cost fixed in respect of similarly
placed person in the another Writ Petition namely, Mr.Manoharan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1423 of 2017
who had accepted the plot and sale deed was executed by the Tamil
Nadu Housing Board.
6. This apart, the Court has not considered the plot cost
fixed in respect of the other persons in the year 2000 and therefore the
petitioners cannot go back and rely on the guidelines which were not
applicable to the commercial plot which was allotted in favour of the
petitioners. Thus, the respondents have not committed any contempt
of Court and they have implemented the orders with reference to the
directions issued and therefore the Contempt Petition has to be
rejected.
7. Let us now consider the directions issued by this Court.
This Court has allowed the Writ Petitions in pursuance of the
Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the Writ Appeal
Nos.1317 to 1320 of 2000. The concluding paragraph of the
Judgment is clear that the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for, the
impugned order is quashed and the respondents are directed to allot
plot in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Division
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1423 of 2017
Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.1317 to 1320 of 2000. Thus, the allotment
of plot and cost to be fixed must be done in accordance with the
directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the Writ Appeals.
8. Therefore, this Court has to look into the directions issued
by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and the operating portion
of the said Judgement reads as follows:-
" Accordingly, the following order is passed:-
"The judgment under challenge in each
Writ appeal quashing the order impugned in the
Writ Petition is confirmed. However, the mandamus
issued to allot a residential/commercial plot is
modified directing the Housing Board to allot a
commercial pot in Sampath Nagar Phase I/Phase II
Scheme to each of the Writ Petitioners, within a
period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. As far as the payment of the price for
the plot to be allotted is concerned, since even at the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1423 of 2017
earliest stage when the acquisition proceedings
were commenced, the land owners were informed
that they must pay the prevailing price and since
much water had flown under the bridge from then
onwards and the fact that the learned Single Judge
allowed the Writ Petitions on 25.04.2000,
19.06.2000 and 30.06.2000, we are of the
considered opinion that ends of justice would be met
if the Housing Board is directed to fix the price at
which the Housing Board had allotted commercial
plots to other people in Sampath Nagar Phase I or
Phase II Scheme as the case may be during the
period from January 2000 to June 2000. Once a
provisional allotment is made by the Housing Board
and a demand is made for the price payable for
such allotment, each of the allottee would pay the
amount demanded within the time fixed by the
Housing Board or by three equal bi-monthly
installments to the Housing Board and on payment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1423 of 2017
of the entire sum only, the Housing Board will
execute the sale deed"
5. The writ appeals are disposed of
accordingly. No costs.
9. A perusal of the Judgement passed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench reveals that the mandamus issued to allot a residential
/ commercial plot by learned Single Judge is modified directing the
Housing Board to allot a commercial plot in Sampath Nagar Phase I
or Phase II scheme to each of the Writ Petitioner within a period of 30
days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. With reference
to the fixation of cost, the Hon'ble Division Bench held that “we are
of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the
Housing Board is directed to fix the price at which the Housing
Board had allotted commercial plots to other people in Sampath
Nagar, Phase I or Phase II, scheme as the case may be during the
period from January 2000 to July 2000”.
10. Thus, it is unambiguous that the Hon'ble Division Bench
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1423 of 2017
directed the Housing Board to allot the commercial plot to the
petitioner and fixed the price at which the Housing Board had alloted
commercial plot to the other people in Sampath Nagar, Phase I or
Phase II scheme as the case may be, during the period from January
2000 to July 2000.
11. In this context, the respondent Housing Board contended
that the ex-land owners Tlv.L.Manickasundaram, K.Chellappan
Gounder, S.Krishnasamy and S.Palanisamy have filed Writ Petitions
on various dates in W.P.Nos.19151/1992 & 19951/1992, 20566/1992
& 16413/1993 challenging the Executive Engineer & Administrative
Officer, Erode Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Erode
Letter No.A3/335574/89 etc., and to direct the respondent to allot
either a residential or a commercial plot in Sampath Nagar, Phase-I,
Erode. The said Writ Petitions were allowed on 25.04.2000,
19.06.2000 and 30.06.2000. Against the orders, the Housing Board
has filed appeals in Writ Appeal Nos.1317 to 1320/2000 and the same
appeal was disposed with directions on 12.06.2007, which was
discussed in the afore mentioned paragraphs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1423 of 2017
12. The Special Leave Petition filed by the Housing Board
was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 21.02.2012. Thus, as per
the Writ Appeal Common Judgement, the Board has fixed the price (1
½ times cost + Simple interest) at which Housing Board had alloted
commercial plots to other people in Sampath Nagar Phase-1 & II in
the year 2000 and informed to the legal heirs of the ex-land owners
(i.e),
(i) C.Chandrasekaran S/o K.Chellappan Gounder.
(ii) L.Manickaasundaram S/o C.Lakshmanan.
(iii) K.Manoharan and K.Baskaran S/o S.Krishnasamy.
(iv) S.Nirmala Devi, D/o. S.Palanisamy.
13. It is further contented that the Tvl.K.Manoharan and
K.Baskaran have paid the cost informed to the commercial Plot No.R-
46 of Sampath Nagar and received the sale deed, whereas,
Tlv.C.Chandrasekaran and L.Manickasundaram had not accepted the
price as informed by the Executive Engineer & Administrative
Officer, Erode Housing Unit, Erode and they have challenged the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1423 of 2017
Letter No.R9/4623-A/91 dated 30.01.2013 in a separate Writ
Petitions, W.P.Nos.6175 of 2013 and 6657 of 2013 to direct the
respondents to allot housing plots in accordance with the directions of
the Hon'be Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.1317 to
1320 of 2000 dated 12.06.2007.
14. The Housing Board had also relied on the directions
issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench and reiterated that based on the
directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the
plot cost was fixed at in respect of the similarly placed persons who
was allotted with the commercial plot at Sampath Nagar scheme.
15. This Court is of the considered opinion that the earlier
Writ Petitions were filed prior to the year 2000 and the Hon'ble
Division Bench had passed a Common Judgement in Writ Appeals
the year 2007. The subsequent Writ Petitions in the present case were
filed in the year 2013 on allotment of commercial plot in the name of
the petitioner Mrs.S.Nirmala Devi. The High Court while allowing
the Writ Petition has not considered the rate to be fixed and the rate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1423 of 2017
fixed in respect of the other allottees during the relevant point of time
in the year 2000. The High Court quashed the impugned order and
directed the respondents to allot the plots in accordance with the
directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the Judgement
dated 12.06.2007.
16. As per the Judgement of the Hon'ble Division Bench, the
plot was alloted in favour of the petitioner and land cost was also
fixed. It is reiterated that the land cost fixed in respect of the other
allottees in the year 2000 was alone fixed for the petitioners. The
other two allottees who also filed a Writ Petitions along with the
petitioners had paid the land cost and executed the sale deed.
17. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Housing
Board has not committed any contempt of Court wilfully and
wantonly. Contrarily, they have followed the fixation as they have
done in respect of the other allottees during the year 2000 and thus
the petitioners could not able to prove that the respondents have
committed contempt of Court wilfully and wantonly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1423 of 2017
18. Accordingly, the Contempt Petitions stand dismissed.
No costs.
15.11.2021
kan/shr
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes
To
1.Mr.P.K.Vairamuthu,
The Chairman,
Tamilnadu Housing Board
No.331, Anna Salai,
Nandanam,
Chennai - 600033
2.Mr.K.Nandhagopal
The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer,
Tamilnadu Housing Board,
Housing Unit, Erode,
III-Floor, Office Cum Shopping Complex
Surampatti Four Road,
Erode 638009
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1423 of 2017
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kan/shr
Cont.P.No.1423 of 2017
& Cont.P.No.742 of 2021
15.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
