Madras High Court

Parimala Devi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 June, 2023

                                                                    REV.APLC(MD)No.146 of 2021


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                           DATED : 16.06.2023

                                                 CORAM :

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
                                             and
                         THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

                                       REV.APLC(MD)No.146 of 2021
                                                   in
                                         W.A(MD)No.1599 of 2021
                                                  and
                                        CMP(MD)No.10099 of 2021

                Parimala Devi                                             ... Petitioner

                                                    vs.

                1. State of Tamil Nadu,
                Rep by its Principal Secretary to the Government,
                Housing and Urban Development,
                Fort St. George,
                Chennai-600 009.

                2. Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
                Rep by its Managing Director,
                Nandanam,
                Chennai-600 035.

                3. The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer,
                Madurai Housing Unit,
                Tamil Nadu Housing Unit,
                Madurai-625 016.                                    ... Respondents


                          PRAYER : Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read
                with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, to review the judgment
                made in W.A(MD)No.1599 of 2021 dated 19.08.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/8
                                                                                     REV.APLC(MD)No.146 of 2021


                                  For Petitioner         : Mr.Anand Gopalan for Ms.Ashwini Devi
                                  For R1                 : Mr.Ramesh Arumugam
                                                              Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
                                  For R2 & R3            : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
                                                         Additional Advocate General assisted by
                                                              Mr.A.Kannan, Standing Counsel


                                                             ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

This review is at the instance of the petitioner in

W.P(MD)No.6422 of 2021. The said writ petition was filed

challenging the order of the Housing Board dated 23.10.2020

rejecting the request of the petitioner for allotment of the land which

was originally allotted to her bearing Plot No.H2/62, Rani

Mangammal Colony at Dindigul Phase I Scheme under the

discretionary quota of the Government. The petitioner along with

several other persons, was allotted land under the discretionary

quota which was then available in the year 2004. Subsequently, the

Government by orders dated 14.08.2006, cancelled all the

allotments made under the discretionary quota. These cancellations

were subject matter of challenge in W.P(MD)Nos.10155 to 10162,

9561 to 9564, 8821, 9085 and 9086 of 2006 which were disposed of

by this Court on 02.06.2007. In and by the said order, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

REV.APLC(MD)No.146 of 2021

cancellations were set aside, thereby restoring the original allotment

orders. It is not in dispute that thereafter all the persons except the

petitioner who are petitioners before the Writ Court in W.P(MD)Nos.

10155 to 10162, 9561 to 9564, 8821, 9085 and 9086 of 2006 were

favoured with allotment and sale deeds were also executed to them

upon their approaching this Court in the year 2015. The petitioner

sent several communications requiring allotment and also expressing

her willingness to pay them consideration. One such representation

which was rejected on 23.10.2020. The said rejection was subject

matter of challenge in W.P(MD)No.6422 of 2021. The said writ

petition came to be dismissed by the Writ Court on the ground that

there was enormous delay and that there is a ban on allotment on

discretionary quota. Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged before the

Division Bench in W.A(MD)No.1599 of 2021. The Division Bench

agreed with the conclusions of the Writ Court and dismissed the writ

appeal. Hence this review.

2. We have heard Mr.Anand Gopalan, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate

General appearing for the Housing Board.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

REV.APLC(MD)No.146 of 2021

3. Mr.Anand Gopalan, learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that both the Writ Court as well as the appellate Bench

have proceeded on the footing that the petitioner is seeking a fresh

allotment which is factually incorrect. The orders of allotment made

in the year 2004 were cancelled in the year 2006. The said

cancellations were subject matter of challenge in W.P(MD)No.9085 of

2006 etc batch. The Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

had alllowed the writ petition and quashed the cancellations.

Therefore, the original allotments stood revived. What was left was

only payment of consideration and execution of sale deed.

Therefore, the subsequent ban imposed cannot be a ground to reject

the contention of the petitioner.

4. Contending contra, Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned

Additional Advocate General would submit that cancellations were

set aside as early as on 02.06.2007 and the petitioner made a

representation only in the year 2019. He would also add that there

is no error apparent on the face of the record in order to enable the

petitioner to invoke the review jurisdiction. According to Mr.Veera

Kathiravan, this is re-agitation of whole issue.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

REV.APLC(MD)No.146 of 2021

5. We are unable to agree with the submission of the

learned Additional Advocate General. The reasons are not far to

seek. As we had already pointed out, the Writ Court and the

appellate Bench have proceeded on the footing that the petitioner is

seeking a fresh allotment. The fact that what was done was

cancellation of the allotment of the petitioner in the year 2006 and

the same was quashed in the year 2007, was completely ignored and

it was dealt with as a fresh case seeking allotment. This vital aspect

would definitely amount to an error apparent on the face of the

record which would enable us to review the order. On merits, of

course, there is a delay on the part of the petitioner, but that delay

cannot be a ground to reject the claim of the petitioner, since right

has vested in her and the other allottees were favoured with the sale

deeds in the year 2016. The petitioner had approached the Housing

Board within three years from that date. Therefore, it cannot be

said that this delay will have the effect of nullifying the rights of the

petitioner which had accrued to her under the orders of this Court

made in W.P(MD)No.9085 of 2006. We are, therefore, constrained

to allow the review petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

REV.APLC(MD)No.146 of 2021

6. Now that we have allowed the review petition, we will

deal with the contention of the counsel in the appeal. The Writ Court

has proceeded on the footing that it is a new allotment and

therefore, the order of the Writ Court cannot be sustained. Once the

cancellation order is set aside, the original order of allotment stood

revived. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefits

of the original order of allotment. However, the petitioner will have

to compensate the Board for the delay. As regards the allotment

made to other persons, the Board has passed a resolution on

26.02.2016 which reads as follows:-

''9.03 jkpH;ehL tPl;Ltrjp thhpak; - xJf;fPL gphpt[ - thhpaj;jpd; gy;ntW jpl;lg; gFjpfspy; muRg; gq;fPl;od; fPH; kidfs; / tPLfs; kw;Wk; tzpf kidfs;- murhiz K:yk; xJf;fPL bra;ag;gl;lJ – rpy fhuzq;fspdhy; xJf;fPl;lhiz tHq;f tHq;f ,ayhjjhy; murhiz K:yk; ,uj;J bra;ag; gl;lJ – ePjpkd;w jPh;g;ghiz btspaplg;gl;lJ tHf;Ffs; kPz;Lk mth;fSf;nf xJf;fPL bra;tJ – bfhs;if mstpy; KobtLf;f gpnuuiz thhpaf; Tl;lj;jpd; xg;g[jYf;fhf itf;fg;gLtJ – bjhlh;ghf.

(nfhg;g[ vz; xJf;fPL gphpt[.2(1)/27380/2010)

thhpaf;Tl;lf; Fwpg;gpy; fz;l xd;gJ egh;fshd

1)jpU.H.mnrhf;

2)jpU.H.utPe;jpud;

3)jpU.M.md;gHfd;

4)jpU.K. ghyRg;gpukzpad; md; nfh.,

5)jpUkjp. rpj;uh

6)jpUkjp.M.c\h nkhfd;

7)jpUkjp.J.bly;yh

8)jpUkjp.P.;jf;\h kw;Wk;

9)jpUkjp. A.gpukpsh

MfpnahUf;F xJf;fPL bra;J murhiz btspaplg;gl;l Mz;oy; re;ij tpiy, eilKiw tpiy kw;Wk; tHpfhl;o tpiy ,tw;wpy; mjpfkhf cs;s tpiyia fzf;fpy;bfhz;L ,d;W tiu tl;o Kjyhf;fk; bra;J tpiy eph;zapj;J kW xJf;fPL bra;a thhpak; xg;g[jy; mspj;jJ.'' https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

REV.APLC(MD)No.146 of 2021

7. We find that the same methodology could be followed in

the case of the petitioner also. The sale deeds that were executed in

favour of the other persons, have also been produced and the

amount that they were paid is reflected in the said sale deeds. The

petitioner will also be required to pay the said amount as reflected in

the sale deeds in favour of the other allottees along with interest at

9% on the amount shown as consideration in the sale deed from

01.05.2016 till date of payment and upon payment of the

consideration, the Housing Board will execute the sale deeds within

30 days from the date of payment of the consideration. The

petitioner will bear the costs of the sale also.