S MUTHIAH Vs. CHAIRMAN SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition is directed against the order of the First Respondent, the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, by which the representation of the Petitioner dated 31.1.2008, requesting for execution of Sale Deed in respect of Plot No.20, Bharathipuram, Chennai came to be rejected on the ground that the said land is a vacant land and no school has been conducted.

(2.) IT is stated that out of a large extent of land transferred by the Corporation of Chennai, the Second Respondent herein to the First Respondent, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board has identified Plot No.20, Bharathipuram, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-30, as school area. IT is stated that the Petitioner applied for allotment of the land for running a school in the year 1996 and the First Respondent by order dated 28.3.1996 allotted the Plot No.20 which is of an extent of 1009 sq.metres at Bharathipuram, Shenoynagar, Chennai-30 at a cost of Rs.2,01,800/-. (a) IT is stated that the Petitioner paid the entire amount and took possession of entire land on 29.3.1996 and thereafter, on 3.6.1996 the First Respondent unilaterally cancelled the order and in W.P.No.7902 of 2006 that cancellation order was set aside by this Court by order dated 11.2.2204. (b) IT is stated that in the meantime, the Corporation put up "Sathunavukoodam" (Noon Meal Centre) in Plot No.20. IT is stated that the First Respondent requested the Petitioner to accept the remaining 510 sq.metres and accordingly, a sub-division plan was sent to the Corporation on 5.11.2004, excluding the portion in which the Corporation has put up the Sathunavukoodam, for approval of remaining 510 sq.metres in the said site in Plot No.20 allotted for the Petitioner and the Petitioner paid all the charges relating to sub-division and the sub-divided plot was approved by the Corporation on 22.12.2004. (c) IT was on 21.2.2005, the First Respondent re-allotted the lesser extent of 510 sq.metres in T.S. No.2 part, Block No.16, Bharathipuram, 1st Street and a Lease-cum-sale Agreement was entered into on 22.2.2005. Since the Petitioner paid full amount in respect of total area of 1009 sq. metres, it is stated that the First Respondent accepted to adjust the amount and agreed to execute the Sale Deed. (d) IT is stated that the First Respondent also gave no objection on 21.2.2005 for putting up a construction and for getting electricity connection and for sewerage connection apart from No Objection Certificate dated 01.03.2005, for raising loan on the security of the property for construction purposes. (e) IT is stated that based on the No Objection Certificates, the Petitioner applied to the Corporation for sanction of plan in the year 2006 and also applied for loan from REPCO Bank and obtained Rs.97 lakhs. IT is stated that based on the No Objection Certificate, the Petitioner created a mortgage over the property on 23.10.2006 authorising the First Respondent to deliver the original Sale Deed to REPCO Bank. IT is stated that the approval of building plan by the Corporation was under consideration. (f) IT is the case of the Petitioner that the Corporation, the Second Respondent, in its proceedings dated 30.9.2004 handed over the legal possession of nearly 137 grounds and 156 sq.ft. to the first Respondent on 21.11.2006, which included the sub-divided plot in respect of which actually the possession was given to the Petitioner in 1996. In spite of the fact that REPCO Bank wrote a letter to the First Respondent, the First Respondent failed to execute the Sale Deed and hand over the same. Since nothing has happened, the Petitioner obtained information under the Right to Information Act. IT was thereafter, under the impugned order, the First Respondent was informed to have refused to execute the Sale Deed on the ground that the plot continued to remain vacant and school building has yet to come up.

(3.) IN the Counter Affidavit filed by the Second Respondent which was subsequently impleaded as party, while it is admitted that when the Corporation sanctioned the sub-division, the same was done erroneously and the sub-division was subsequently cancelled, it is stated that the Corporation is in possession of the entire premises of Plot No.20 in which the school and a Noon Meal Centre and playground are situate. It is stated that the Corporation was the original owner of the entire property and that was handed over to the First Respondent for development of the area and inasmuch as the said portion was not developed as a school, the Corporation itself took over the same.