Reversed petitioner’s writ petition seeking redetermination of housing flat cost difference. Court dismissed it, holding writ courts cannot examine factual costs/profits and challenging consequential notices without impugned cost orders is not maintainable.
Writ petition dismissed; no costs; consequently connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
W.P.NO.22428 OF 2011 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2011
P.Chithirakumar
... Petitioner
Vs.
... Respondents
Prayer:
The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings Lr.No.A12/2320/2010 dated 03.06.2010 on the file of the 2nd respondent, quash the same and consequently constitute a committee of an experts to re-determine the actual difference in final land cost for the Mudichur-Tambaram scheme implemented in S.No.234/2 and fix the amount with interest from the date of the allotment on 05.12.2007 afresh to enable the petitioner to pay the balance amount after adjusting the amount paid already.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran
For Respondents : M/s.R.Bharath for Tamil Nadu Housing Board
O R D E R
The petitioner applied for a flat promoted by the respondent Tamil Nadu Housing Board under the housing scheme under MIG Group. The tentative cost of flat then was Rs.8,57,240/- and he was directed to pay a deposit of Rs.3,42,900/- which he already paid. The balance of the tentative cost of Rs.5,14,340/- was paid by him in installments over a period of 13 years with interest at the rate of 13% per annum. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued a letter dated 03.06.2010 which is impugned in this Writ Petition, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,95,920/- over and above the money already deposited towards the tentative cost. According to the petitioner, the final cost arrived at by the respondents is excessive and that the respondents being a Governmental agency has charged 25% towards profit instead of 9%. Further, along with the interests he paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. Therefore, the claim made by the 2nd respondent through the impugned letter dated 03.06.2010 is too excessive and is liable to be quashed.
appeal to Rs.1100/- per cent. The order passed by this court in A.S.No.1079 of 1995 shows that the land cost is reduced on Appeal filed by the respondent. Therefore, the contention of the respondents have not taken any action against enhancement of the land cost and the claim made by them is exorbitant are not sustainable one. Once the petitioner entered into contract to pay the final cost, it is binding upon him and he is liable to pay the cost fixed on the basis of the award.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rap/kpr
To
+1cc to Mr.N.Manokaran, Advocate, S.R.No.9357
+1cc to Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.9627
W.P.No.22428 of 2011
EV(CO) PM/08/03/2022
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Court can examine factual details regarding the calculation of profit and expenditure in fixation of final housing cost.
Whether the petitioner is maintainable to challenge only the consequential letter after the order fixing final cost was not challenged.
Whether the petitioner's agreement to pay the final cost determined after land acquisition fixes his liability.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P. Chithirakumar
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board
The Executive Engineer and The Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board
M. Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
