Madras High Court
C.L. Santhanam vs Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Rep. By ... on 28 June, 2002
Author: A. Kulasekaran
Bench: A. Kulasekaran
ORDER A. Kulasekaran, J.
1. Writ Petition No.15426 of 1994 is for the issue of writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to execute the sale deed relating to Plot No.1311 (now Door No.19/356, Nedunchezhian Street),General Kumaramangalam Nagar, Madras-82 in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the allotment letter Na.Ka.142/81/ / / /(North) dated 26.5.1983 on the file of the respondent.
2. W.P.No.12841 of 1997 is for the issue of writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to Proc.Na.Ka.No.3211/94/E2 dated 11.2.1994 on the file of the respondent and quash the same.
3. W.P.No.12842 of 1997 is for the issue of writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to Proc.Na.Ka. No.3211/94/E2 dated 22.4.1994 on the file of the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board - the first respondent herein and quash the same.
4. The facts involved in the writ petitions are:
The petitioner was originally allotted Plot No.1311 in General Kumaramangalam Colony, by the first respondent Board under a lease cum sale agreement in order Na.Ka.No.142/81/B(North) dated 26.5.1983. The price of the plot was fixed at Rs.1,828/- to be paid by the allottee in monthly installments at Rs.31/- for a period of five years. The said order stipulates that at the end of the payment schedule, if all the installments had been paid along with the development charges, the sale deed would be executed by the first respondent Board. Consequent to the said allotment, he has constructed a house which has been assessed to property tax by the Chennai Corporation. It is alleged by the petitioner that he has paid the entire dues to the Board as early as September 1990. The Board, by its letter dated 5.9.1990, intimated to the petitioner expressing their readiness to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner provided the necessary stamp papers for the value of Rs.3,748/- is furnished for the said purpose. After receipt of the intimation, the petitioner could not approach the respondent Board since he was hospitalised. The petitioner has filed the above said writ petition No.15426 of 1994 praying for issue of writ of mandamus to direct the respondent Board to execute the sale deed. In January 1996, the Board has filed a counter affidavit wherein it was stated that the said plot was allotted to one V. Karuppusamy who is the second respondent in W.P.Nos.12841 and 12842 of 1997 and on the same date, the allotment made to the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner has also submitted a reply affidavit disputing the averments mentioned in the counter. According to the petitioner, with great difficulty, the petitioner was able to obtain a copy of the proceedings in July 1997 relating to the allotment of the said plot to the second respondent and cancellation of the allotment of the said plot made in favour of the petitioner. Immediately, the petitioner has filed the above said two writ petitions, namely W.P.No.12841 of 1997 praying for issue of writ of certiorari to call for the proceedings of the first respondent Board made in Na.Ka.No.3211/94/E2 dated 11.2.1994 wherein the allotment made to the petitioner was cancelled and quash the said cancellation and W.P.No.12842 of 1997 praying for issue of writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to proceedings Na.Ka.No.3211/94/E2 dated 22.4.1994 wherein the Board has allotted the said plot to the second respondent and quash the same.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that without any show cause notice, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. Learned counsel has further submitted that no enquiry was conducted prior to the cancellation of allotment. Learned counsel has also submitted that no doubt the petitioner had financial transaction with the second respondent who has obtained the petitioner's signatures in blank stamp papers which should have been used by the said second respondent for getting the allotment in his favour and the petitioner has not executed any sale deed to the second respondent, as alleged. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent Board has clandestinely made the allotment in favour of the second respondent.
6. Mr K.Venkatramani, learned counsel for the first respondent Board has submitted that subsequent to the allotment made to the petitioner, the petitioner has sold the said plot to one Karuppusamy Nadar on 23.2.1994 for a sale consideration of Rs.3,65,000/-. It was brought to the notice of the respondent Board by the said Karuppusamy Nadar. Karuppusamy Nadar has applied for transfer of allotment which was considered by the Board in letter No.E2/3211/94 dated 11.2.1994 and allotment orders were issued to Karuppusamy Nadar in Proceedings No.E2/3211/94 dated 25.4.1994. Learned counsel for the Board has also submitted that as per the terms of the allotment Karuppasamy Nadar had paid the initial deposit of Rs.200/- on 1.3.1994, plot sale consideration of Rs.1,628/-, development charges of Rs.1,400/- and the maintenance charges of Rs.240/-. The plot has also been handed over to Karuppusamy Nadar who is residing there. Further, during inspection it was also found out that the petitioner was not actually residing there. To show that the subsequent allotment has been made in favour of the second respondent Karuppusamy Nadar, the learned counsel for the respondent Board has produced two files of the Board.
7. There was no representation for the second respondent Karuppusamy. The second respondent has not filed any counter also in any of the above writ petitions.
8. A perusal of the files shows that on 19.7.1993, a sale agreement was entered into between V. Karupusamy Nadar and the petitioner, petitioner's wife Vijayakumari, petitioner's sons' C.S. Rajasekaran, C.S. Seshachalam and C.S. Jaganmohan for sale of the said plot No.1311 and the house constructed thereon, for a sale consideration of Rs.3,65,000/- and a sum of Rs.51,000/- was paid as advance. It is also revealed from the reading of the said unregistered sale agreement that the petitioner and his family members agreed to execute the sale deed within six months after receipt of the balance of Rs.3,14,000/-. An unregistered sale deed dated 23.2.1994 was executed by the petitioner alone in favour of the second respondent Karuppusamy Nadar as if the entire dues have been paid. Be that as it may, it is surprised to note that the second respondent has filed an application to the respondent Board and the same was received by the Board on 4.2.1994 for transfer of allotment in his favour. In the said application, it is stated that the writ petitioner Santhanam has sold the plot allotted to him, to the second respondent as early as in 1986. On perusal of the file it is seen that as early as on 19.9.1986 the petitioner has executed an unregistered sale deed to the second respondent Karuppusamy Nadar in respect of sale of the said plot No.1311 for a consideration of Rs.90,000/-. A perusal of the file further indicates that the officials of the respondent Board made spot inspection on 4.2.1994 and found on enquiry that the petitioner has sold the said plot to the second respondent Karuppusamy Nadar and he was in possession of the same and recommended for allotment of the same to the second respondent. On 11.2.1994, the Board has passed two separate orders cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner and allotting the said plot No.1311 to the second respondent herein. From the copies of the revenue receipts of the Corporation, which are found place in the files produced by the respondent Board, it is seen that the building in plot No.1311 stands in the name of the second respondent. It is also surprising to note that so many unregistered documents, with respect to the very same property, came into existence, allegedly signed by the parties, which are, a sale deed of the year 1986 executed by the petitioner in favour of the second respondent, a sale agreement dated 19.7.1993 entered into between the second respondent and the family members of the petitioner and another sale deed dated 23.2.1994 executed by the petitioner alone in favour of the second respondent. It is clear that before passing the order of allotment in favour of the second respondent Karuppusamy, the respondent Board has deliberately failed to take note of these discrepancies. In deed, after the receipt of the application from the second respondent on 4.2.1994 for transfer of allotment, the respondent Board has passed the impugned order on 11.2.1994 very fastly, without following the mandatory procedures contemplated. Very strangely, the orders cancelling allotment made in favour of the petitioner and allotment made in favour of the second respondent, have been passed on the very same date, that too without affording opportunity to the original allottee namely the petitioner. Moreover, the respondent Board has not denied the allotment made to the petitioner, at the first instance. For the reasons stated above, both the impugned orders namely allotment in favour of the second respondent and cancellation of allotment against the petitioner are set aside. The writ petitions in W.P.Nos.12841 and 12842 of 1997 are allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.20641 and 20643 of 1997 for stay, are closed. Considering the circumstances of the case, I feel it just and necessary to remit the matter to the respondent Board for considering afresh. The first respondent shall decide the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording adequate opportunities to the parties concerned and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, untrammeled by any of the observations made above. It is made clear that the parties shall maintain statusquo till the matter is considered by the respondent Slum Clearance Board.
9. As the matter has been remitted back to the first respondent Slum Clearance Board for fresh disposal,I feel no orders are necessary in Writ Petition No.15426 of 1994 and the same is dismissed. No costs.