NMOZHI Vs. TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is for a direction against the respondents to restore the allotment of Plot No.981, MIG Category, in Madhavaram Scheme in favour of the petitioner and execute the sale deed on collection of the amount payable by the petitioner.

(2.) 2.1. It is stated that the third respondent has allotted on 17.10.2001 a residential Plot No.430, MIG category, under Madhavaram Scheme and she was directed to pay the initial amount of ` 85,750/- along with the first instalment of Rs.10,000/- and also execute the lease-cum-agreement. She was directed to pay another amount of Rs.5,000/- towards maintenance charge and the same was paid on 5.3.2002. 2.2. It is stated that, on 4.11.2003, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,35,750/- on or before 30.11.2003, exclusive of the initial amount paid to the tune of Rs.58,000/-. It is stated that on the ground that Plot No.430 was already allotted to somebody else, an undertaking was obtained from the petitioner to cancel the said allotment and on receipt of another amount of Rs.45,000/-, another Plot No.981 was allotted to the petitioner, agreeing to adjust the amount already paid. 2.3. There was a further confusion caused by the third respondent on 9.1.2004 stating that the original Plot No.430 has been re-allotted to the petitioner and directing her to pay Rs.3,57,750/-. It was in those circumstances, on 26.3.2004, the petitioner has given a letter to return the entire amount of Rs.63,000/- paid by her and that was not complied with. 2.4. It is stated that, in the meantime, the previous allottee of Plot No.430, one Subaidha has filed W.P.No.37913 of 2003 and there was an order of injunction granted by this Court on 24.12.2003 and therefore, the petitioner has requested to return the amount. However, the third respondent by letter dated 9.1.2004 directed the petitioner to pay the balance amount in respect of the disputed Plot No.430. 2.5. It is stated that the petitioner has approached the District Consumer Forum, North Chennai by filing O.P.No.393 of 2004 and in these circumstances, the present writ petition is filed for a direction to allot Plot No.981.

(3.) HOWEVER, by a letter dated 6.12.2001, the petitioner has requested the third respondent to allot MIG Plot No.981 and there are records to show that in respect of Plot No.981 she has paid an amount of ` 5,000/-, as it is acknowledged by the third respondent, who has stated that the same has been received by taking note of the representation of the petitioner to allot Plot No.981 instead of Plot No.430. By letter dated 23.12.2002, the third respondent has acknowledged that instead of Plot No.430, Plot No.981 has been allotted to the petitioner. The contents of the said letter, which are relevant, is extracted as follows: "TAMIL" The reason for extracting the said contents is that it is the case of the counsel for the respondents, Mr.A.Vijayakumar that the said letter cannot be taken as a letter of allotment of Plot No.981. A reading of the said letter would make it abundantly clear that this has been an order of acceptance for allotment of Plot No.981 to the petitioner.