K MUTHUKRISHNAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has filed the present appeal against the order of the learned single Judge made in W. P. No. 17036/97 dated 27. 11. 1997, having dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground of laches.

(2.) THE appellant was an allottee of a plot in No. 287-B in Anna Nagar West Extension belonging to the second respondent. The said allotment was made by the second respondent by order dated 26. 8. 1988. Under the said order, the appellant was allotted less than half a ground of land, i. e. , 1075 sq. ft with a cost of Rs. 41,250/- and he was directed to pay one third cost amounting to a sum of Rs. 13,750/ -. Accordingly, the appellant paid the said amount and possession was handed over to him. However, without notice to the appellant, the said allotment was sought to be cancelled. The appellant filed writ petition being W. P. No. 16262 of 1989 challenging the cancellation. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge vide order dated 08. 02. 1990 on the ground that the appellant was not given any notice cancelling the allotment and all the contentions were left open. In the meanwhile, the said allotment was cancelled on the ground that the land allotted to the appellant was required for public purpose.

(3.) THE appellant sent a representation dated 06. 8. 1997 and requested the Housing Board to execute the sale deed. However, the said request was rejected and the appellant was refunded the amount paid by him by the third respondent with a covering letter dated 11. 9. 1997. It was thereafter the appellant filed the writ petition which was under appeal. In the meantime the appellant had constructed a house and was also living in the said premises paying property tax, water tax and other taxes. He was also enjoying electricity supply in the said house. Initially the writ petition filed by the appellant and the similarly placed persons were allowed on the ground that no opportunity was granted to them before cancellation. However, subsequently, certain persons (not the appellant) filed writ petitions challenging the order of the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 1048 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 31. 10. 1989, by which the Housing Board was directed to dispose of the said issue. As the said order did not give any discretion to the Housing Board, the said G. O. , came to be challenged by the said persons (not the appellant) by way of writ petitions. The Housing Board contended that the said order was issued in terms of Section 155 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act and, therefore, well within its power. The batch of writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 19. 01. 1991 by the learned single Judge wherein it was held by him that the original allotment was made by the Government to various allottees and the subsequent cancellation is illegal on the ground of promissory estoppel. The learned Judge also held that the Housing Board can enter into contract outside the purview of the Act and, therefore, the action of the Housing Board cannot be subsequently varied to the prejudice of various allottees.