S.Padmavathy Vs the Secretary to Government

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P. NO. 16386 OF 2011
AND
M.P.NO.1 OF 2011

¶6

S. Padmavathy

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

 -vs-

¶9

1. The Secretary to Government,
Tamilnadu Housing & Urban
Development Board,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.

¶10

2. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board,
No.5, Kamarajar Salai,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

¶11

3. The Estate Officer - 4,
Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board,
Teynampet,
Chennai - 600 018.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in impugned
order dated 15.09.2010 made in G.O.Ms.No.198 passed by the first
respondent, quash the same and further direct the respondents to
fix the government rate for the petitioners' allotted land at
Tilak Street, Ramakrishnapuram, T.Nagar, Chennai-17 at the
guideline value prevailed in the year 1993.

¶14

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

¶15

 For Petitioner: Mr.P.Srinivasan
For Respondents: Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
 Government Advocate for R1

¶16

: Mr.S.Prabhu for R2 & R3

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The order, dated 15.09.2010, passed by the first
respondent, rejecting the appeal submitted by the petitioner, is
under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

¶19

2.Admittedly, the petitioner was allotted with a land
measuring 200 sq.ft. under Ramakrishnapuram Scheme by the Tamil
Nadu Slum Clearance Board. The grievance of the writ petitioner
is that the order of allotment was issued by the respondents in
proceedings dated 22.02.1993. The fact remains that the
petitioner was in occupation of the said portion of the land
even prior to the allotment. However, free patta was not
granted in favour of the petitioner and the land was taken over
by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and an allotment order
was passed in favour of the petitioner in the said proceedings
dated 22.02.1993.

¶20

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that
the allotment was granted considering the entitlement of the
petitioner and therefore, the land cost must be fixed based on
the date of allotment. Contrarily, the respondents have fixed
the land cost of the year 2003 when a request was made by the
petitioner to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner.
Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ
petition.

¶21

4.The contention of the petitioner is that the land cost
was fixed in a different manner in respect of the similarly
placed persons, who got allotment in the adjoining places. Thus,
the petitioner alone has been discriminated by the respondents
and therefore, a direction is to be issued to accept the land
cost of the year 1993 during the period in which the allotment
order was passed by the respondents in favour of the petitioner.

¶22

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

¶23

5.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner solicited
the attention of this Court with reference to the allotment made
in the year 1994 in favour of the third parties. Further, he
has relied on the sale deed executed in favour of some other
third parties in the year 2008. Relying on the said documents,
it is contended that the land cost of the year 1993 must be
fixed as far as the petitioner is concerned and the exorbitant
land cost and the interest imposed subsequently are untenable.
These grounds in the appeal filed by the petitioner were not
even considered by the first respondent Government.

¶24

6.Per contra, the learned Government Counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
objected the contentions by stating that it is true that an
allotment order was passed in favour of the petitioner and an
extent of 200 sq.ft. of land was allotted in the name of the
petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is in possession and
enjoyment of the said portion of the allotted land and there was
no request made during the relevant point of time for the
execution of sale deed and the petitioner continued as an
allottee. When an application was filed by the petitioner to
execute the sale deed, then, the authorities determined the land
cost and communicated the same, enabling the petitioner to pay
the land cost for the purpose of execution of the sale deed.
The land cost fixed was Rs.1,318/- per sq.ft., that was the
guideline value of the year 2002. It is further contended that
an extent of 1662.5 sq.ft. of land was allotted in total in
favour of four persons and 215 sq.ft. of pathway was also
allotted for the exclusive usage of the four allottees.

¶25

7.It is contended by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
that the site inspection to the petitioner's residence in
Chennai, T.Nagar, Ramakrishnapuram Scheme, Plot No.1, was made
and it was reported that Mrs.Padmavathy, W/o.Sambandam, has
expired and presently, their legal heirs Mr.Loganathan,
Mr.Yuvaraj and Mr.Sathyanarayanan are residing in the plot. The
Board is not sure if there are any other legal heirs other than
the persons stated above. The consideration amount for Plot No.1
is a sum of Rs.5,47,959/-, which was collected by the Board
towards the principal amount. However, the allottee has not
paid the interest amount of Rs.20,16,780/- calculated up to
February, 2021, and the said interest amount is to be collected.
It is contented that the legal heirs, who are now residing

¶26

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

¶27

therein, did not approach the Board with relevant documents
regarding their residence in the allotted plot. Thus, the Board
has to execute sale deed only after making the entire payment as
demanded.

¶28

8.The Board states that, as per the Government Order in
G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 30.01.2002, the consideration amount was
determined for the plot as per the Government guideline value
fixed. The original allotment order was issued merely stating
that 200 sq.ft of land was alloted in favour of the petitioner.
However, the land cost or other conditions are not stipulated in
the allotment order. The allotment order itself was issued by
way of concession taking into account that the petitioner was
residing in that land prior to taking over of the land by the
Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. Thus, the petitioner is not
entitled for the relief as such sought for in the writ petition.

¶29

9.This Court is of the considered opinion that,
admittedly, the petitioner is not a title holder of the land.
Admittedly, the petitioner is an allottee. The order of the
allotment issued in the proceedings dated 22.02.1993 states that
the allotment of 200 sq.ft. of land is granted. The land cost
was not determined during the relevant point of time.
Admittedly, the petitioner was in occupation of the said land
even prior to the allotment. This being the factum, the question
of determination of land cost would arise only when a demand is
made for the execution of the sale deed, by the Slum Clearance
Board. Mere allotment would not confer any right of title or
otherwise. The petitioner also had not approached the competent
authorities for execution of sale deed during the relevant point
of time or in the near future. However, the demand for
execution of sale deed was made belatedly. This being the
factum, the respondents have fixed the land cost when a request
is made by the allottee for execution of sale deed. In the
present case, a sum of Rs.1,318/- was fixed as the cost for one
sq.ft. and this Court is of the considered opinion the said cost
in respect of a property situated in a prime locality in
T.Nagar, cannot be interfered with by this Court.

¶30

10.It is contended that the principal amount has already
been deposited by the allottee. Now, the learned counsel for
the petitioner made a request for waiver of interest. The
interest accrued on account of various reasons. The allotment

¶31

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

¶32

was made in the year 1993, request for execution of sale deed
was belatedly made by the allottee and thereafter, the issues
were pending, and the writ petition was filed in the year 2011,
and now, it is taken up for final hearing after a lapse of about
nine years. On account of these reasons, the interest
accumulated. However, the Courts are bound to ascertain the
rights of the persons and mere delay cannot be a ground to waive
the interest. The delay occurred at various stages at the
instance of the parties.

¶33

11.Under these circumstances, this Court cannot interfere
with the principal land cost already determined and paid by the
allottee. Once the principal land cost is confirmed, there is
no reason to interfere with the other consequential actions
proceeded with. In this view of the matter, this Court is not
inclined to grant the relief as such sought for in the present
writ petition.

¶34

Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)

¶37

// True Copy //

¶38

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶39

sp/mkn

¶40

To

¶41

1. The Secretary to Government,
Tamil Nadu Housing & Urban
Development Board,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.

¶42

2. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,
No.5, Kamarajar Salai,
Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005.

¶43

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

¶44

3. The Estate Officer - 4,
Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,
Teynampet,
Chennai - 600 018.
+1cc to Mr.S.Prabhu, Advocate, S.R.No.54054
W.P. No. 16386 of 2011

¶45

PL(CO)
RLP(12/11/2021)

¶46

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

S.Padmavathy v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Padmavathy v. the Secretary to Government

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

R. Ramasamy Vs the District Collector

M/s.Sri Sakthi & Co., Vs State of Tamilnadu

M/S. S B M Concrete Blocks, Vs Union of India

S.Ganesh Vs The Revenue Officer

P.Nagarajan, Vs the Executive Officer

T.v.Amasalingam Vs The District Collector