W.A.No.1368 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 16.06.2022 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA W.A.No.1368 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.8771of 2022 --- V.Saroja .. Appellant Vs. 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Commissioner, Ranipet Municipality, Ranipet District. 3. The Sub-Registrar, Walaja Taluk, Walaja, Ranipet District. .. Respondents Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 18.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.26747 of 2017, on the file of this Court. Page No.1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1368 of 2022 For appellant : M/s.M.Ezhilarasi For Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar, State Govt. Pleader for RR-1 to 3 JUDGMENT
(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Honourable Chief Justice)
The Writ Appeal has been filed to assail the order dated 18.02.2020
passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the Writ Petition preferred by the
petitioner to challenge the order dated 19.09.2017 passed by the second
respondent, was dismissed.
2. The learned Single Judge has elaborately referred to the previous
litigation on the issue pertaining to remittance of the sale amount on privileged
guideline value as on the date of the sale, though initially it was given as on
05.09.2011. This Court, in the earlier litigation in W.P.No.27819 of 2014, passed
an order on 17.03.2015 in the following terms:
"7. The issue which falls for consideration in this Writ Petition is regards the cost payable by the petitioner to enable him to become the owner of the property in question.
8. Admittedly, the property in question was a residential quarters allotted to the petitioner, while he was in service as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the Municipal School.
The petitioner is in occupation of the quarters from 1970 onwards. After the Municipal schools were taken over by the Government, the petitioner continued to retain the quarters
Page No.2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1368 of 2022
and applied under a Scheme framed by the Government to provide Housing to the 'Low Income Group'.
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was eligible to be considered under the said scheme. In the interregnum, the second respondent attempted to sell the property and direction was issued to vacate and hand over possession, which necessitated the petitioner to approach the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.346 of 1995, which was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.27336 of 2006, which was disposed of, by order dated 21.06.2007. In spite of the order, the second respondent issued notice calling upon the petitioner to vacate the quarter and Contempt Petition No.1061 of 2011, was filed and subsequently, orders were passed by the Government acceding to the request of the petitioner and permitting the Municipality to sell quarters in occupation of the petitioner at prevailing rates as per the orders in force. There would not have been any difficulty if the Government Order had been implemented in 2011 and sale deed executed at the rate prevailing at the relevant time, namely on the date of execution of the sale deed which would be relevant. The petitioner blames the second respondent Municipality for being negligent and not taking any action pursuant to the Government Order for nearly nine months. However, from the facts placed in the counter affidavit, it is seen that it is the petitioner who delayed the implementation of the Government Order, since he submitted a representation on 12.12.2011, soon after G.O.(3D).No.9, was issued by the Government to permit him to pay the sale consideration in monthly instalments. It was well open to the second respondent Municipality to have rejected the petitioner's request. However, they took a humanitarian approach and informed the petitioner that only after getting necessary orders from the Government, request for payment in monthly instalments can be considered. By letter dated 29.08.2013, the petitioner was informed that the permission to pay in monthly instalments cannot be granted. Therefore, the petitioner either should have challenged the order dated 29.08.2013, or should have paid the amount and registered the sale deed in his favour. He did neither, but filed one more representation on 21.01.2014, to reconsider his case. This request was rejected and intimated to the petitioner by communication dated 18.02.2014 and subsequently, by another communication, dated 09.09.2014, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. Therefore, the petitioner alone has to be blamed for causing the delay. The Government Order dated
Page No.3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1368 of 2022
05.09.2011, is explicitly clear permitting the sale of the property to the petitioner at the prevailing rates as per the orders in force and it was an one time concession and cannot be quoted as a precedent. The Government Order did not provide for payment of the sale consideration in monthly instalments. Therefore, the second respondent Municipality ought to have out rightly rejected the petitioner's request dated 12.12.2011, since it was beyond the scope of G.O.(3D).No.9. However, they thought fit to inform the petitioner that he will be intimated after getting necessary orders from the Government and the matter was pending with the second respondent from 2011 till 29.08.2013. This delay from December 2011 to August 2013, cannot be solely attributable to the Writ Petitioner, but also to the second respondent.
10. As already pointed out that the word 'prevailing rate' as mentioned in the Government Order shall connote the prevailing rate on the date of execution and registration of the sale deed. This alone would be the correct interpretation to the term otherwise, the benefit of this one time concession given to the petitioner becomes meaningless.
11. Assuming for the sake of argument, the petitioner's case has to be accepted, then it would mean that the petitioner will continue to be in possession, will not remit any rent to the Municipality, but as and when he decides to purchase the property, he would exercise his option and claim that the sale consideration should be fixed at the rate prevailing at the time of issuance of the Government Order. This cannot never be a reasonable interpretation of a Government Order, which itself is in the nature of a one time concession.
12. The petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of V.Sivakumar & Ors., vs. Inspector General of Registration, reported in (2011) 5 MLJ 30, for the proposition that the stamp duty has to be paid as per the prevailing guideline value as on the date of registration and the stamp duty is liable to be paid as on the date of registration of the instrument. The decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench fully supports the conclusion arrived at by this Court, since it has been factually found that it is the petitioner who was the reason for the delay in execution of the sale deed, since he sought for payment of the sale consideration in monthly instalments, which was not feasible of consideration by the Municipality, however, the second respondent Municipality chose to entertain that request and keep it pending for nearly
Page No.4/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1368 of 2022
two years. Therefore, to that extent, the Municipality is also to be blamed. Hence, this Court is of the view that the #prevailing rate# in the facts of the present case shall be the guideline value, which was prevailing as on 29.08.2013.
13. From the facts stated above, it is clear that the petitioner was the person, who delayed the implementation of the Government Order at the first instance, since he sought for remittance of sale consideration in monthly instalments, which was not provided under the Government Order. The second respondent Municipality is also partially to be blamed for entertaining such a request and keeping the matter pending for nearly two years i.e., till 29.08.2013, when they intimated the petitioner i.e., request is not feasible for consideration. However, the petitioner did not challenge this communication dated 29.08.2013 or the subsequent communication dated 18.02.2014, but approached this Court challenging the communication dated 09.09.2014. Thus, considering the entire facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to purchase the property, pursuant to the Government Order on payment of the sale consideration calculated at the prevailing rate as on 29.08.2013, and such remittance shall be in one single instalment.
14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and the second respondent is directed to intimate the petitioner as to the guideline value of the property as on 29.08.2013 and grant reasonable time to the petitioner to remit the amount in one single instalment together with other charges and duties if any and thereafter, the sale deed shall be executed and registered in the name of the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. "
3. After the order aforesaid in W.P.No.27819 of 2014, a Miscellaneous
Petition in M.P.No.1 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner's husband to modify the
order aforesaid.
Page No.5/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1368 of 2022
4. Despite the clarity in the order, the petitioner's husband did not pay the
sale consideration on the guideline value as on 29.08.2013, rather, calculating it
at the rate of Rs.100/- per square feet, the petitioner's husband has shown the
willingness to pay a sum of Rs.3,60,000/-. The respondents had reckoned the
guideline value at Rs.1,800/- per square feet and accordingly, demanded the
amount, which was not satisfied, rather Contempt Petition in Cont.P.No.1306 of
2016 was filed by the petitioner's husband and had been ordered to be closed on
08.08.2016, after noting the conduct of the petitioner's husband. The litigation
did not stop there, rather, the petitioner's husband then filed a sub-application in
Sub.A.No.26 of 2017 in Cont.P.No.1306 of 2016, which was closed by order
dated 14.07.2017. In the said sub-application, the required facts to address the
issue regarding the guideline value, had been narrated and are quoted
hereunder:
"This sub-application has been filed by the petitioner in the main contempt petition praying for a direction upon the second respondent to accept the payment of a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- as sale consideration at Rs.100/- per sq.ft., and to execute and register sale deed in his favour.
2. The respondent/Municipality has produced before this Court a copy of the certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Walaja Nagar dated 17.11.2016 stating that the area in question has been classified as commercial area and therefore, the guideline value is Rs.1,800/- per sq.ft., as on 29.08.2013 fixed in the order dated 08.08.2016 in Cont.P.No.1306 of 2016.
Further, the learned counsel for the second
Page No.6/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1368 of 2022
respondent has produced before this Court the sale deed executed in favour of the neighbour of the contempt petitioner dated 26.06.2015 for identical property for a sum of Rs.63,02,160/-.
3. Thus, the present attempt of the petitioner appears to be to extend the scope of the writ petition as well as the direction issued in the contempt petition. The contempt petition having already been closed, the present attempt of the contempt petitioner to reopen the same by way of this sub-application is not permissible.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, this sub-
application stands closed. However, this will not, in any way, prevent the petitioner (contempt petitioner) from moving appropriate forum for necessary relief."
5. Even thereafter, neither the petitioner, nor her husband, approached
the authorities to pay the guideline value of the year 2013, but offered the
amount at the rate of Rs.100/- per square feet, and when it was objected, the
petitioner came out with the litigation in the form of the present Writ Petition.
6. The representation to accept the guideline value of Rs.100/- per square
feet, was not accepted, inspite of the previous litigation raised by the petitioner's
husband.
7. The guideline value was found to be in a sum of Rs.1800/- per square
feet in the year 2013 and on the said value itself, the sale consideration was paid
Page No.7/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1368 of 2022
by the neighbour, as was referred in the earlier litigation by the petitioner's
husband. A sum of Rs.63,02,160/- was paid by the petitioner's neighbour on
26.06.2015. Thus, the prayer of the petitioner to accept the guideline value to be
at the rate of Rs.100/- per square feet, was not accepted by the learned Single
Judge.
8. We do not find any reason for the learned Single Judge to enter into
the controversy, when it was earlier settled in the Writ Petition preferred by the
petitioner's husband, followed by the Miscellaneous Petition and the Contempt
Petition and thereupon, even the sub-application was decided by order dated
14.07.2017, clarifying the issue in regard to the guideline value.
9. In view of the above, no reason is found to cause interference in the
order dated 19.09.2017 issued by the second respondent and assailed by the
petitioner by way of the Writ Petition.
10. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition was dismissed, finding
no merits therein and after hearing the arguments, we do not find any error in
the order of the learned Single Judge so as to cause interference therein.
Page No.8/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1368 of 2022
11. The learned Single Judge had rightly observed that once things were
settled in the previous litigation, it cannot be re-opened in the subsequent
proceedings.
12. In view of the above and finding no ground to take a view different
than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge and the view in the
previous litigation, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P. is closed.
(M.N.B., C J) (N.M.,J) 16.06.2022 Speaking Order: Yes/no cs To 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner, Ranipet Municipality, Ranipet District.
3. The Sub-Registrar, Walaja Taluk, Walaja, Ranipet District.
Page No.9/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.1368 of 2022
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE and N.MALA, J
cs
W.A.No.1368 of 2022
16.06.2022
Page No.10/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis