G MANOHARAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of both parties main writ petitions themselves are taken up for disposal. Since the issue raised in these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common order. Aggrieved by the order of the Manager (Marketing and Serivice), K.K.Nagar Division, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai-83 dated 11-10-2002, requesting the petitioners to remit the amount as already intimated to them in one lump-sum, have filed the above writ petitions to quash the same and direct the respondents to forth-with dispose of their representation dated 7-7-2001.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents.

(3.) Though in the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petitions, several contentions have been raised, learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that in the absence of details, namely, break-up figures with reference to the individual allotment, they cannot be compelled to pay the entire amount in one lump-sum. By relying on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Raghunathan, V.S. v. Tamil Nadu Housing Board etc., reported in 1997 Writ L.R. 25, learned counsel contends that in the light of the direction referred to in para 7 of the decision, similar direction may be issued to the respondents for furnishing the basis on which the cost has been enhanced and other details. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Housing Board, by drawing my attention to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the very same judgment of the Division Bench, would contend that the Housing Board has every authority and jurisdiction to enhance the cost, particularly in the light of the terms of the order of allotment and also the lease-cum-sale agreement executed by the petitioner and the Housing Board. As far as the jurisdiction or authority to enhance the cost, there is no dispute that in the light of the terms of the order of allotment as well as lease cum sale agreement, the Housing Board is empowered to enhance the cost subject to furnishing those details to the allottees. This is also clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in Preeta Singh v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2201. However, as stated in the earlier part of my order, the main grievance of the petitioners is that in the absence of reason/reasons for the enhancement, break-up figures etc., to the individual allottee, they are not in a position to challenge the same either before the authority or before this Court. The said question has also been considered by the Division Bench referred to above. After accepting similar contentions, this Court directed the Housing Board to furnish the basis on which the cost has been enhanced and other details payable by the individual allottees. In such circumstances, while holding that the Housing Board has jurisdiction and authority to enhance the cost, I am also of the view that the petitioners are also equally entitled the details of the cost and the break-up figures of the amount to be payable by them. On this ground, the following directions are issued: (i) The third respondent is directed to furnish the details of the cost of enhancement, including the break-up figures payable by individual allottees within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (ii) On receipt of such details, it is for the petitioners either to pay the amount or challenge the same in the manner known to law. Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.