S SHANMUGHANATHAN Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD ANNA NAGAR DIVISION MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is as follows: ?

(2.) ON application from the petitioner for allotment of a residential plot in the City of Madras, the Government passed an order in G.O.Ms. No 1429 dated 15-9-1987 allot ting one residential plot in Anna Nagar, Madras-40 to the petitioner on Hire Purchase basis subject to the approval of the M.M.D.A. and subject to the terms and conditions prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. In pursuance of the allotment order the respondent allotted Plot No. 591-A2 in Anna Nagar measuring 1 ground and 2235 sq.ft. subject to certain conditions. The important conditions are that the total cost of the plot would be Rs. 1,54,334.00 at the rate of Rs. 80 000 per ground 1/3rd of the cost of the plot i.e. Rs. 51,112, should be paid at the first instance as initial deposit within three weeks from the date of receipt of the allotment order and the balance of the amount should be paid in monthly instalments at Rs. 2422 for a period spread over for five >ears with interest at 13 per cent per annua. The petitioner was requested to apply in the prescribed application. The Regular allotment order was issued on 29-9-1987. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 51,112 on 29-9-1987 itself. The plot was banded over to the petitioner on 8-10 1987. It seems the petitioner made an application to the respondent for a ?No Objection certificate? for permission to put up a residential building in the plot, complying with all the building regulations and the Development Control Rules of the M M.D.A. ON 281 88 the respondent granted the ?No objection Certificate? permitting the petitioner to put up one residential building in the site allotted to him and directed the petitioner to apply for the licence for the building from the local body and planning permission from the M.M.D.A. A planning permit was issued by the Corporation of Madras on 21 -4-1989 permitting the petitioner to construct the building according to the plan. ON the strength of the proceedings it seems the petitioner put up a building in the plot in accordance with the approved plan and is also paying property tax to the Corporation at Madras from 9-12-1989 onwards. At this stage the respondent issued a notice dated 28-11-1989 cancelling the allotment and ordering resumption of possession of the plot. The ground taken in the order of cancellation of the plot was that originally the plot was earmarked for Market complex as per the lay-out approved by the Planning Authorities and it was converted irregularly into one for residential purpose. The Government cancelled the allotment of plots by G.O.Ms. No. 1048, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 31-10-89, one of which is offered to the petitioner in view of the aforesaid reasons. This was challenged in W P. No. 15597/89. Srinivasan, J. by a common order in a batch of writ petitions, dated 29-1-90 set aside the order of cancellation on the ground that the learned Advocate-General appearing for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board conceded that no notice was issued to the writ petitioners and such orders of cancellation were not sustainable. The learned Judge, however, made it clear that it is open to the Housing Board to issue notice to the writ petitioners and after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners pass final orders. The learned Judge observed thus:

(3.) I have considered the arguments of Mr. G. Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S. Doraisamy, learned counsel for the respondents. The short point which falls for consideration in this case is as to whether the respondent is to be directed to execute the sale deed and whether a writ of mandamus to issue. The facts as narracted above are not in dispute. As on date, the allotment made by the respondent is in force, except the general order of cancellation made by the Government behind the back of the petitioner in October, 1989. On an earlier occasion relying upon the Government order passed in October. 1989 the allotment was cancelled and Srinivasan, J set aside the order of cancellation and directed the respondent after giving on opportunity to the petitioner, to decide the issue Subsequently the show cause notice, as stated above, has been withdrawn. So as matters stand today, the petitioner having obtained on order of allotment from the respondent has constructed a residential building after com plying with all the formalities with the Corporation of Madras as well as M M.D. A. The petitioner has also paid 2/3rd of the consideration and has to pay the balance of a sum of Rs 53,000 and the petitioner is willing to pay the amount in accordance with the conditions of allotment. So inspite of many repeated requests made by the petitioner the respondent is keeping mum. Whether it is right is the question? In my view, the respondent cannot drag on for ever like this. It is the bounden duty of the respondent to receive the balance of the amount from the petitioner and execute the sale deed in accordance with the order of allotment. The order cancelling the allotment by the Government in October, 1989 has been done without issue of notice to the petitioner and others. As such I am not able to agree with Mr. Doraisamy, learned counsel for the respondent, that the order passed in October, 1989 by the Government is preventing the respondents from executing the sale deed. That is an order which has got to be ignored as it has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Even otherwise, once the allotment order has been made by the respondent and on the basis of the allotment the petitioner has constructed the building, it is not correct to cancel the order of allotment. Even in the counter affidavit it is not clear when an inspection was made and what was the condition of the site at the time when inspection was made. The contentions raised in the counter with regard to construction of the building by the petitioner are very vague and I am not able to agree with the contentions raised in the counter affidavit with regard to the conditions of the site when inspection was made. But that is not the point here. Here is a case where the building has been constructed and the petitioner wants the sale deed from the respondent, a Statutory body and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board is bound to execute the sale deed. It is not fair on the part of a instrumentality of the State to delay the execution of the sale deed when the petitioner has complied with the conditions of the order of allotment of the plot. I do not think the respondent can have any objection to execute the sale deed in law as well as on merits. In my view, it is sought to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Express News Papers Private Lid. v. Union of India 1 The Supreme Court in that case was considering the construction of the building complex by the Express News Papers Private Limited. Acting upon the grant of permission by Sikandar Bakht the then Minister for Works and Housing, the petitioner constructed the New Express Building with an increased FAR of 360 and a double basement in conformity with the permission granted by the lessor i.e. Union of India, Ministry of Works and Housing with the concurrence of the Vice-Chairman, Dalhi Development Authority on the amalgamation of Plots Nos. 9 and 10 as ordered by the Vice-Chairman by his order dated 21st October, 1978 as on ?Special Appeal? as envisaged in the Master Plan having been directed, the lessor is clearly precluded from contending that the order of the Master was illegal, improper or invalid by application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.