Madras High Court
P.Chinnasamy vs The Presiding Officer / District ... on 20 April, 2022
W.P.No.11224 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P.No.11224 of 2014
and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014
P.Chinnasamy .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer / District Judge,
Principal District Court / District Co-op.
Cases Appellate Tribunal,
Coimbatore District.
2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies (Housing),
Coimbatore Circle,
Coimbatore – 641 002.
3.Cheran Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,
Rep. by its President,
Cheran Nagar, Goundempalayam,
Coimbatore – 641 029. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the order in ARC No.337/2009/Sa.Pa dated 28.07.2010
passed by the 2nd respondent and the consequential order in
Co-op. CMA No.13/2011 dated 15.04.2013 passed by the 1st respondent and
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11224 of 2014
quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently
direct the 3rd respondent to allot one plot measuring to the extent of 5.5 cents
reserved for the petitioner in Thekkalur housing scheme or any other housing
scheme after collecting the balance amount as per the calculation and to
award costs.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sundaravadanam
For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.U.Baranidharan
Additional Government Pleader
For R3 : Ms.T.P.Savitha
ORDER
The petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition challenging
the order of the 2nd respondent dated 28.07.2010 as well as the judgment of
the 1st respondent dated 15.04.2013 and for a direction to the 3rd respondent to
allot one plot to the petitioner.
2.According to the petitioner, he was an employee of Cheran
Transport Corporation and also member of the 3rd respondent society. He
retired from service on 30.11.2012. The 3rd respondent society formed a
layout by name Thekalur Housing Plots scheme. The 3rd respondent allotted a
house site for the petitioner measuring 5 ½ cents at the approximate cost of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11224 of 2014
Rs.67,100/- excluding amenities. The said amount has to be paid by the
petitioner in 55 equal monthly installment of Rs.2,000/-. The said sum will be
deducted from the salary of the petitioner and credited to the 3rd respondent
society. While so, the 3rd respondent sent a notice dated 05.04.2004, calling
upon the petitioner to pay the balance sum of Rs.85,458/-, failing which
deduction from his salary will be stopped and turned down the request for
relieving the petitioner from the housing scheme. The 3rd respondent also
informed the petitioner that plot will be re-allotted to others and demanded
more money. The Secretary of the society wanted to grab the plot with an
intention to sell it to the third parties at higher price and pay lesser amount to
the society. Inspite of the complaint given to the 2 nd respondent by the
petitioner, the 2nd respondent has not taken any action against the Secretary of
3rd respondent society. Therefore, the petitioner issued legal notice dated
22.11.2006 to the 3rd respondent society to allot the plot to him. The 3rd
respondent sent a reply, stating that plot was not purchased for the petitioner,
since he has not paid the sum of Rs.85,458/-.
3.In view of the above, the petitioner filed ARC No.337 of 2009 before
the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent by the order dated 28.07.2010, directed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11224 of 2014
the 3rd respondent to repay the amount to the petitioner together with interest
at the rate of 12% per annum and rejected the claim of the petitioner for
allotment of the plot. Against the said order dated 28.07.2010 made in ARC
No.337 of 2009, the petitioner filed appeal before the Principal District
Court, Coimbatore in Co-op.C.M.A.No.13 of 2011. The said
Co-op.C.M.A.No.13 of 2011 was allowed in part by the judgment dated
15.04.2013 setting aside the order of the 2nd respondent in respect of refund
of the amount to the petitioner alone and confirming the order in other
aspects. Hence, the petitioner has come out with the present Writ Petition
challenging the order of the 2nd respondent dated 28.07.2010 in ARC No.337
of 2009 and judgment of the 1st respondent dated 15.04.2013 in Co-
op.C.M.A.No.13 of 2011.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
action of the 3rd respondent, order of the 2nd respondent as well as judgment
of 1st respondent are invalid and illegal. He further submitted that the
petitioner is entitled for allotment of house site as per the earlier allotment of
3rd respondent and prayed for allowing the Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11224 of 2014
5.The respondents 2 & 3 filed separate counter affidavits.
6.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents 1 & 2 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd
respondent submitted that the house site was allotted to the petitioner on
tentative cost of Rs.67,100/-. The petitioner gave an application for payment
of said amount from his Provident Fund account. But, no amount was paid
from the petitioner's Provident Fund account. Subsequently, at the request of
the petitioner, the amount of Rs.67,100/- alone was sanctioned and the
petitioner agreed to repay the same in 55 equal monthly installments of
Rs.2,000/- each. The 3rd respondent recovered the said amount from the
monthly salary of the petitioner for the period from August 2002 to February
2007 and 3rd respondent called upon the petitioner to choose the house site
and pay a sum of Rs.85,458/-, being the balance amount payable including
the amenities. Inspite of repeated reminder and demands, the petitioner did
not pay the said amount. By the letter dated 27.03.2004, the petitioner
requested the 3rd respondent to come out from the scheme due to financial
constraint and had withdrawn his claim of house sites. But, the claim of the
petitioner was rejected. Now, the petitioner has retired from service and he is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11224 of 2014
not a member of the society. Hence, he is not entitled for any allotment. The
learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 & 2 as
well as the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent further submitted
that the 2nd respondent by giving valid reason, rejected the request of the
petitioner for allotting the plot and directed the 3rd respondent to refund the
amount to the petitioner. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the Tribunal set
aside the order of the 2nd respondent in respect of refund of the amount to the
petitioner and confirmed the order in other aspects. There is no error in the
order of the 2nd respondent as well as in the judgment of the 1st respondent
and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 as well
as the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and perused the entire
materials on record.
8.From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner while
working in the Cheran Transport Corporation, became a member of 3rd
respondent society. At his request, house site was allotted at the cost of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11224 of 2014
Rs.67,100/-, being the tentative cost of the land. The final cost would be fixed
after development of land into house sites and providing amenities.
Subsequently, considering the expenses incurred in forming the lay-out, the
3rd respondent fixed the final cost and called upon the petitioner to pay a sum
of Rs.85,458/-, being the development charges and amenities. The petitioner
has not paid the said amount. On the other hand, by the letter dated
27.03.2004, the petitioner requested the 3rd respondent to relieve him from
housing scheme as he urgently requires money to pay the semester fees to his
daughter, who was studying 4th year BDS course. The petitioner, when raised
a dispute before the 2nd respondent under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu
Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, has not paid the amount of Rs.85,458/-, as
claimed by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner, after requesting the 3rd
respondent to relieve him from housing scheme as well as refund the amount
paid by him and without paying the balance amount as claimed by the 3rd
respondent, is not entitled for allotment of plot. It is the further contention of
the 3rd respondent in the counter affidavit filed by them that when the 3rd
respondent called upon the petitioner to choose the plot, the petitioner failed
to avail the said opportunity. The petitioner has not denied the said contention
of the respondents 2 & 3. Having failed to choose the plot as called upon by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11224 of 2014
the 3rd respondent, the petitioner is not entitled for allotment of plot. Both the
respondents 1 & 2 have given valid reason for rejecting the request of the
petitioner for allotment of plot and directed the 3rd respondent to refund the
amount paid by the petitioner. There is no reason to interfere with the said
order and judgment of the respondents 2 & 1 respectively.
9.For the above reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently,
the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
20.04.2022
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1.The Presiding Officer / District Judge,
Principal District Court/District Co-op.
Cases Appellate Tribunal,
Coimbatore District.
2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies (Housing),
Coimbatore Circle, Coimbatore – 641 002.
3.Cheran Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,
Rep. by its President,
Cheran Nagar, Goundempalayam,
Coimbatore – 641 029.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11224 of 2014
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
krk
W.P.No.11224 of 2014
20.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
