M.ABDUL SHUKEER Vs. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ petitions are filed by M.Abdul Shukeer, the petitioner in W.P.No.41586 of 2002, V.Kalyanasundaram, the petitioner in W.P.No.41587 of 2002 and G.Velayudham, the petitioner in W.P.No.41588 of 2002. Pending the writ petition, since V.Kalyanasundaram died, his legal representative has been impleaded as a party respondent in W.P.No.41587 of 2002. Mr.M.Abdul Shukeer, the petitioner in W.P.No.41586 of 2002 seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent, namely, the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (TANSIDCO) made in proceedings No.18900/R5/97-1 dated 13.2.2001 and quash the same with a further direction to the respondents to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the residential labour tenement bearing No.D-16, Labour Colony, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.128, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 24.3.97.

(2.) MR .V.Kalyanasundaram and Mr.G.Velayudham, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.41587 and 41588 of 2002 have filed the writ petitions for issuance of a writ of mandamus to execute the sale deeds in respect of the residential tenements bearing Nos.5 and 46, Labour Colony, Industrial Estate, K.Pudur, Madurai respectively in accordance with the G.O.Ms.No.128, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 24.3.97.

(3.) MR .V.Kalyanasundaram, the petitioner in W.P.No.41587 of 2002 was appointed in the year 1968 as Wireman in the Industrial Estate (Electricity Department) at Madurai, which is attached with the Department of Industries and Commerce of the Government of Tamil Nadu. On promotion to the post of Foreman, he retired from service in the year 1997 in the Electricity Board, Anupanadi Station, Madurai. While he was in service, residential tenements were constructed by the respondents for the benefit of the labourers in various places including Madras and Madurai. After completion of construction of the tenements, he was allotted a residential tenement bearing No.5, Labour Colony, Industrial Estate, K.Pudur, Madurai as per the proceedings of the Regional Deputy Director, Industries and Commerce, Madurai in Proceedings No.13903/D/68 dated 29.10.68. In terms of the said proceeding, he had been regularly paying the dues by having the possession and enjoyment of the labour tenement. When matters stood as above, the respondents took a decision to convey and transfer by way of sale deeds to the respective allottees in whose favour the labour tenements were already allotted as per G.O.Ms.No.128, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 24.3.97. In this connection, the respondents also by order dated 31.12.97 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.9,600.00 as the sale price for the unit in the occupation of the petitioner. In the light of the said order, the petitioner has also paid the above said sum under the receipt issued by the second respondent on 2.1.98. Subsequently, the respondents have also submitted the sale deed dated 19.11.99 to be registered in his favour and the same was presented before the Sub Registrar, Tallakulam, Madurai for registration. The Sub Registrar raised objections regarding the valuation of the property and the stamp duty payable thereon. In response to the said query, the petitioner brought to the notice of the Sub Registrar the communication dated 29.11.99 issued by the second respondent which mentioned that the stamp duty payable on the sale deed is only on the value specified thereunder and not on the market value at the time of registration. But the Sub Registrar, Tallakulam returned the original sale deed for further clarification from the Government. Under these circumstances, the petitioner and similarly placed persons made a request to the Government to clarify the position. The Government also, after considering the request, passed an order to the effect that the value of stamp duty as specified in the sale deed is the correct one and thereby directed the Sub Registrar to register the sale deed without insisting upon the market value. Subsequently, the sale deed was presented to the Sub Registrar for registration, but again it was returned for obtaining a fresh sale deed. Once again the petitioner made a request to the respondents to issue a fresh sale deed by surrendering the original sale deed to the second respondent. But so far the sale deed has not been issued by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner seeks for a mandamus to the respondents, who are bound by law, to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the legal heir of the deceased, in respect of the residential tenement bearing No.5, Labour Colony, Industrial Estate, K.Pudur, Madurai.