Allowed

A. Ponnusamy, v. the Registrar

Madras HC10 Sept 2014WP(MD)/11085/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Senior citizen petitioner sought writ of mandamus directing the third respondent society to execute a sale deed for an adjoining irregular plot. Accepting that other members received plots at Rs.150/sq.ft., the court directed payment of balance Rs.58,000/- within three weeks for execution of the deed. Pending arbitration suit to be withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to remit Rs.58,000/- balance consideration within three weeks; Society directed to prepare and execute sale deed within three weeks thereafter. Petitioner to withdraw pending arbit

A. Ponnusamy, Vs the Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.09.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.11085 of 2014

A.Ponnusamy

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Registrar

Cooperative Housing Society

¶12

Tamil Nadu Housing Board

¶13

Office Annexure

¶14

Nandanam, Chennai-600 035

¶15

2.The Deputy Registrar of Cooperatives Societies (Housing)

¶16

Tiruchirappalli

¶17

3.The Secretary R.786, Tiruchirappalli Cooperative House Construction Society Limited Thillai Nagar, Trichy-620 018 ... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to execute sale deed in respect of the property of an extent of 1320 sq.ft., lying on the east of Plot No.D-412, Anna Nagar, Thennur, Trichy, at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq.ft., as fixed by the resolution of the third respondent, dated 25.04.1998, by receiving the balance of sale consideration, within a time fixed.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mrs.J.Anandhavalli

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.D.Muruganantham, A.G.P. Order Reserved dated 09/09/2014

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

With the consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The petitioner, who is a senior citizen aged about 90 years, has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of

¶24

¶25

mandamus to direct the third respondent to execute sale deed in respect of the property measuring an extent of 1320 sq.ft., lying on the eastern side of Plot bearing No.D-412, Anna Nagar, Thennur, Trichy, at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq.ft., as fixed by the third respondent, under resolution dated 25.04.1998, by receiving balance of sale consideration, within a time to be stipulated by this Court.

¶26

The petitioner, who is a member of the third respondent Society, was allotted a plot bearing No.D-412, in which he has constructed a house and residing there. The plot in question is irregularly shaped, and there is an extent of land measuring about 1320 sq.ft., adjoining the petitioner's plot. There are few other plots with irregular shape and the petitioner and others made a request to the respondents to allot the irregularly shaped extent adjoining their plots in their favour. While the request was pending, one Mr.C.Chelladurai, who is an allottee of plot bearing No.D-430 secured allotment of irregularly shaped extent adjoining his plot by filing a suit in O.S.No.45 of 1991, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Trichy.

¶27

Apart from that, other persons, who are the allottees of plots bearing Nos.B77, C127, 305, C127, D399, D431 and D430 were allotted irregularly shaped extent adjoining their plots. The petitioner therefore was with a fond hope that he will also be treated on par with the other allottees and made several representations during 1990 to 1992. The third respondent sent a reply stating that whether he would be willing to pay the guideline value for the irregularly shaped extent. The petitioner immediately gave consent in writing on 03.01.1992 agreeing to pay the guideline value for the area of the irregularly shaped plot. Thereafter, steps were taken and the guideline value was determined at Rs.101/per sq.ft., and the same was intimated to the petitioner. Though the petitioner agreed to purchase the plot for a lesser rate, as given to others, he agreed to purchase the plot at Rs.101/- per sq.ft., and paid a total sum of Rs.1,40,000/- on various dates.

¶28

After the payment of initial amount of Rs.50,000/-, a resolution was passed by the third respondent Society on 25.04.1998, in which the guideline value was fixed at Rs.150/- per sq.ft. This was challenged by the petitioner by filing a suit, which was dismissed and the appeal was also dismissed on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioner raised a dispute before the second respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. The petitioner would submit that if the rate of the plot in question is calculated at Rs.150/per sq.ft., it comes to a total sum of Rs.1,98,000/- and he has already paid a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- and the balance to be paid is Rs.58,000/- and agreed to pay the guideline value at Rs.150/- per sq.ft., and also withdraw the arbitration claim suit in O.P.No.97 of 2010. With the above facts, the petitioner has approached this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court by filing this writ petition for the above said relief.

¶29

¶30

The counter affidavit filed by the third respondent does not deny any of the averments made by the petitioner. The fact regarding the payment of the plot cost to the tune of Rs.1,40,000/has been accepted. Three objections have been raised by the third respondent in the counter affidavit stating that though the respondent Society passed a resolution to sell the irregularly shaped plots to the adjoining plot owners except for two members the other sale did not materialize. Therefore, the petitioner cannot cite those cases as a precedent. The second objection is that the irregularly shaped plot is situated as a corner plot and it is nothing but a commercial plot. The third objection is that the State Government has passed G.O.D.No.224, dated 27.11.2009, constituting a price fixation committee for all categories of housing plots promoted by the Cooperative Society and therefore the petitioner has to pursue his claim in the arbitration proceedings.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

¶32

It is not in dispute that the respondent Society has allotted the irregularly shaped plots in the layout to the adjacent plot owners. The names of the beneficiaries has been given by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which has not been specifically denied by the third respondent in the counter affidavit. In fact, the third respondent would admit that in two cases, they executed sale deeds for irregularly shaped plots to the adjacent plot owners. The third respondent has already taken a decision in favour of the petitioner, accepted part payment and in the interregnum increased the rate. This was objected to by the petitioner and in spite of that objection, once again the rate was revised and this was also objected to by the petitioner and he filed a suit, which was dismissed as the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and therefore raised a dispute under Section 90 of the Cooperative Societies Act, which is pending. Now, the petitioner would state that he is willing to pay the enhanced amount. In such circumstances, the petitioner's claim having already been adjudicated, accepted and decision taken cannot be now unsettled by referring to the Government Order, which has been passed during 2009. The petitioner is entitled to be treated as that of the other plot owners, who have been granted this benefit and thought the plot in question was initially to be valued at Rs.10/- per sq.ft., increased to Rs.101/- per sq.ft., and subsequently to Rs.150/- per sq.ft., now the petitioner is willing to pay the guideline value at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq.ft. In fact, Rs.1,40,000/- has already been paid by the petitioner and the balance amount to be paid is Rs.58,000/-. The decision to sell the irregularly shaped plot in question to the petitioner remains intact. The petitioner has agitated only the fixation of cost and therefore, the third https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent cannot resile from their stand already taken.

¶33

¶34

For all the above reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to remit the balance sale consideration of Rs.58,000/- to the third respondent, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same sale deed shall be prepared, executed and registered in favour of the petitioner, after payment of the requisite registration fee if any, within a period of three weeks thereafter. The petitioner shall withdraw the arbitration claim suit in O.P.No.97 of 2010, pending before the second respondent. No costs.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)

¶37

/True Copy/

¶38

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶39

To:

¶40

1.The Registrar,

¶41

Cooperative Housing Society,

¶42

Tamil Nadu Housing Board

¶43

Office Annexure,

¶44

Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.

¶45

2.The Deputy Registrar of Cooperatives Societies (Housing), Tiruchirappalli.

¶46

3.The Secretary,

¶47

R.786, Tiruchirappalli Cooperative House Construction Society Limited, Thillai Nagar, Trichy-620 018.

¶48

+One cc to M/s.J.Anandhavalli, Advocate, SR.No.51466

¶49

krk

¶50

RL 5c- 19/9/2014

¶51

PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN W.P.(MD) No.11085 of 2014

¶52

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶53

10.09.2014

A. Ponnusamy, v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Ponnusamy, v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Kavitha Vs State Represented by

M.Jeevanandam Poosari, Vs the District Collector

M. Arumugam Vs the Superintendnet of

M.Balamurugan Vs the Home Secretary

M.I.E.T. Engineering College, Vs Director of Twon and Country

Thamayanthi Vs the District Revenue Officer