Housing Board appealed against dismissal of its review application challenging an undertaking to convey an alternative site for Rs.2,63,000 development charges. Holding no ground for review existed and the sale deed was executed per the writ order, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal.
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.
W.A.(MD) No.809 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
W.A.(MD) No.809 of 2018
2.The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer Madurai Special Division Tamil Nadu Housing Board Madurai-652 010 ... Appellants
-vs-
2.The Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George Chennai-600 009 ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 11.10.2013, passed in Rev.Appln.(MD) No.20 of 2013 in M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010 in W.P.(MD) No.3174 of 2008, on the file of this Court.
Page 1 of 7
W.A.(MD) No.809 of 2018
For Appellants : Mr.A.Kannan For Respondents : No appearance for R1 Ms.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader for R2
J U D G M E N T
[Judgment of the Court was made by RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.]
This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 11.10.2013, passed in Rev.Appln.(MD) No.20 of 2013 in W.P.(MD) No.3174 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, this Court has dismissed the review application filed by the appellant – Housing Board.
2. Heard Mr.A.Kannan, learned counsel for the appellant –
Housing Board and Ms.D.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent. There is no representation for the first respondent / writ petitioner.
3. From the records, we find that the first respondent / writ petitioner filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.3174 of 2008 challenging the acquisition proceedings made by the appellant – Housing Board. Though in
_____________ Page 2 of 7_
W.A.(MD) No.809 of 2018
the original counter affidavit, it was stated by the second appellant that the amount of Rs.8,96,200/- was towards the market value of the land, in the additional affidavit dated 27.11.2009 filed subsequently, he had clarified that they are prepared to execute necessary sale deed in favour of the first respondent / writ petitioner, if he pays development charges to the tune of Rs.2,63,000/- and pursuant to the same, the first respondent / writ petitioner had agreed to pay the said amount. After recording the undertaking given by the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madurai / second appellant herein that they will provide alternative site and also execute sale deed, on payment of necessary charges, the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 30.11.2009. Subsequently, the appellant – Housing Board filed the review application in Rev.Aplw(MD) No.20 of 2013, seeking to review the order passed in the said writ petition, on the ground that the the second appellant had filed the undertaking in the writ petition without the consent of the first appellant herein.
4. This Court, by order dated 11.10.2013, dismissed the review application. The operative portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:
“4.Admittedly, the affidavit was filed by the second petitioner / third respondent before this Court and based
Page 3 of 7
W.A.(MD) No.809 of 2018
on the averments made in the affidavit, the order came to be passed. For filing such affidavit, whether the second petitioner / third respondent is to get proper approval from the first petitioner / second respondent or not, is not a matter of consideration before this Court. The Court acted only as per the affidavit filed before the Court. In such view of the matter, if any, default had been committed by the second petitioner / third respondent, it is for the petitioners to work out their remedy by way of an appeal. There is no error apparent in the order passed by this Court in the writ petition. In view of the same, I do not find any valid ground to review the order.”
5. Keeping the principles governing the criteria for entertaining review applications in mind, we find that the present point agitated by the appellant – Housing Board does not fall under anyone of the principles to review the order passed in the writ petition. Factual finding appears to have been given by the learned Single Judge in Paragraph No.5 of the order passed in the writ petition, wherein the undertaking given by the appellant – Housing Board has also been recorded. For easy reference, Paragraph No.6 of the order passed passed in the writ petition is extracted hereunder:
“6. In view of the above, without going into the other merits of the writ petition, the writ petition is disposed
Page 4 of 7
W.A.(MD) No.809 of 2018
of recording the above statements made on the either side, with a liberty to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,63,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and with a further direction to the 3rd respondent to execute necessary sale deed in favour of the petitioner within a further period of eight weeks from the date of payment. It is further directed that in respect of the land of the petitioner, on the very same day, at the cost of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner shall execute a sale deed in favour of the 3rd respondent. No order as to costs. Connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2008 is closed.”
6. Taking into consideration the fact that based upon the factual position, as extracted above, the writ petition has been disposed of and pursuant to the orders passed in the writ petition, the appellant – Housing Board is also said to have executed a sale deed on payment of Rs.2,63,000/towards development charges, we are of the view that now, it is not open to the appellant – Housing Board, by way of a review application, to seek for enhancement of development charges. We find no error or infirmity in the order passed by this Court in the review application.
Page 5 of 7
W.A.(MD) No.809 of 2018
7. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[T.K.R., J.] [N.S., J.] 04.11.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No
krk
To: The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
Page 6 of 7
W.A.(MD) No.809 of 2018
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
krk
W.A.(MD) No.809 of 2018
04.11.2024
_____________ Page 7 of 7_
1 issue framed by the court
Could the Housing Board, through a review application, seek to withdraw an undertaking recorded in a disposed writ petition and enhance development charges?
The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board
The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer Madurai Special Division Tamil Nadu Housing Board
P.Kamal Abdul Nazar
The Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department Government of Tamil Nadu
RMT.Teekaa Raman
N.Senthilkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
