S.Manoharan v. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Housing Board Nandanam Chennai 600 035.2.The Executive Engineer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 28-9-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.No.36727 of 2006andMP Nos.1 of 2006 and 1 of 2007S.Manoharan.. Petitioner vs1.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Housing Board Nandanam Chennai 600 035.2.The Executive Engineer Tamilnadu Housing Board Phase I, Sathuvachari Vellore 632 009... Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to executethe sale deed in respect of the Plot measuring an extent of 259.52 squaremeter at Plot No.S-3 at VNHS Phase-III, Sathuvachari Village, Vellore, toand in favour of the petitioner herein.For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govi GanesanFor Respondents: Mr.N.Kannadasan Additional Advocate General for Mr.R.GirirajanORDERSeeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to execute thesale deed in respect of the plot measuring an extent of 259.52 squaremeter at Plot No.S-3 at VNHS Phase-III, Sathuvachari Village, Vellore, infavour of the petitioner, this writ petition has been brought forth.2.The affidavit in support of the petition and the counter affidavitare perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner andalso the Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 3.The case of the petitioner as could be seen, is that a plotmeasuring an extent of 259.52 Square Meter at Plot No.S-3 at VNHS Phase-III, Sathuvachari Village, Vellore, was allotted to the petitioner by thesecond respondent as per G.O.No.2D 256, dated 5.7.2002, under the SocialWelfare Category; that the plot was a commercial one; that based on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government of Tamilnadu order, the allotment order was issued on18.3.2003; that pursuant to the same, the petitioner was given possessionof the above plot after executing the necessary lease cum sale agreementwhich contains the terms and conditions of the allotment order; that healso made the initial deposit of Rs.1,19,000/- as per the conditions ofthe allotment order; that he was directed to pay a sum of Rs.21,212/-every month for a period of 36 months with interest at 13% per annumtowards the balance cost of the above said plot; that accordingly, theentire amounts have been paid; that once the payments have been madepursuant to the agreement, a duty was cast upon the respondents to executethe sale deed; that it is not in controversy that the entire saleconsideration has been paid; but, the sale deed has not been executed;that under the circumstances, a legal notice was issued on 10.7.2006; thateven then, the respondents have not done so; that on the contrary, theyhave issued a reply notice on 20.7.2006, containing untenable allegations;that according to the respondents, the final cost has not been fixed; but,it is not correct; that once the entire payments have been made as per theagreement between the parties, they are bound to execute the sale deed,but not done so, and hence, a direction has got to be issued by way of awrit.4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the avermentsfound in the affidavit, and would also further submit that in the instantcase, it is not in controversy that the entire payment has been made; thatwhen a notice was issued, there was a reply stating that the final costhas got to be fixed; that the final cost if to be fixed as per thestipulations of the conditions, there should have been a claim forenhancement of compensation from the land owners; that in this case, it isnot so; that it is nothing but evasion on the part of the respondents innot doing so, and hence, a direction as requested by the petitioner,becomes necessary. 5.Contrarily, the learned Additional Advocate General would submitthat it is true that the allotment was made; that even a reading of theallotment order would clearly reveal that the final cost has to be fixed;that it is also true that he has made payments; but, the final cost hasnot been fixed for which purpose, the Department has addressed acommunication to the Governments, and the orders are awaited; that onlythen, the final cost would be fixed; that on fixation of the final cost,a demand could be made, and the petitioner has to make payment; that atthis stage, no question of execution of the sale deed would arise; thatunder the circumstances, the writ petition itself is premature, and it hasgot to be dismissed. 6.The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.7.It is not in controversy that a plot was allotted in favour of thepetitioner as referred to in the petition, under the Social WelfareCategory. The allotment order is also perused, which would speak thatafter the payment of the initial deposit, he has to make a payment ofRs.21,212/- every month for a period of 36 months with interest at 13% perannum towards the balance cost of the above said plot. It is also not incontroversy that the entire payment has been made. The only contentionput forth by the petitioner's Counsel is that once the entire payment has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been made, there is no question of fixation of any balance ofconsideration that would arise; and that even the reading of the allotmentorder would clearly reveal that re-fixation would arise only if any claimfor enhancement of compensation is pending. According to him, it is notthe case of the first respondent department that it was pending so. Insuch circumstances, this Court is unable to countenance the same. Thevery reading of the allotment order would clearly reveal that the re-fixation has got to be done. What was recovered from him was not thefinal cost. Now, the final cost is yet to be fixed. It is also broughtto the notice of the Court by the learned Additional Advocate General thatfor the purpose of fixation of the final cost, the Government has beenaddressed by the department, and they are awaiting the orders. Under thecircumstances, it would be fit and proper to issue a direction to therespondents to fix the final cost within a period of twelve weeks herefromand make a demand whereby the payment has got to be made by thepetitioner. Accordingly, a direction is issued. The petitioner is alsodirected to make payment of the same within a period of eight weekstherefrom. On being performed, there cannot be any impediment for thedepartment to execute the sale deed as expeditiously as possiblepreferably within a period of twelve weeks therefrom. Accordingly, thiswrit petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs areclosed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarnsv/To:1.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Housing Board Nandanam Chennai 600 035.2.The Executive Engineer Tamilnadu Housing Board Phase I, Sathuvachari Vellore 632 009.1 cc To Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, Advocate, SR.60669.1 cc To Mr.R.Girirajan, Advocate, SR.60502.WP No.36727 of 2006TEJ(CO)RVL 05.10.2007