Madras High Court
The Pondicherry Housing Board ... vs The Government Of Puducherry on 26 August, 2022
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.No.32872 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.08.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.32872 of 2012
The Pondicherry Housing Board Employees Union
Represented by its President, P.Iswarane
Anna Nagar,
Housing Board Office Complex,
Nellithope, Pondicherry – 5. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Government of Puducherry,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
(Housing), Puducherry – 5.
2.The Pondicherry Housing Board,
Represented by its Secretary,
Anna Nagar, Nellithope,
Puducherry – 5.
3.Subramanian ...Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the second respondent,
pertaining to the 118th Board Meeting and in particular, resolutions No.15 and 19 dated
02.11.2012, and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/26
W.P.No.32872 of 2012
For Petitioner : M/s.Sunny Sheen for
M/s.V.Raghavachari
For Respondents : Mrs.V.Usha
Additional Government Pleader
(Pondicherry) for R1
Mr.T.P.Manoharan Senior counsel for
T.M.Naveen for R2.
Mr.Poovendra Perumal for R3.
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the resolution Nos.15 and 19 dated 02.11.2012 that was passed in the 118th Board meeting of the Pondicherry Housing Board and to declare the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.
2.The petitioner is a registered union which espouses cause of the employees of the Puducherry Housing Board. The union has approached this Court with a grievance that the Housing Board has virtually sold plots at a throw-away price to the encroachers who were occupying the property and who claimed themselves to be distressed purchasers. According to the petitioner union, the Board approved a proposal in the 116th Board meeting and two resolutions that were passed by the Board have been made a subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition. Resolution No.15 pertains to the reinstatement of an employee who was the brain behind the illegal sale of the plots belonging to the Housing Board. Resolution No.19 was a resolution that was passed in the meeting whereby it was decided to convert the property into a layout https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012 and to sell them as plots to persons who have encroached upon the property at a throw-away price when the market value was much higher on the relevant date. The petitioner union has questioned the right and power of the Chairman to have reviewed his earlier orders and also the overall power of the Board in selling the property at a throw-away price to the encroachers even without inviting applications and allotting the plots through a public auction. Accordingly the petitioner union has sought for a declaration to declare resolution Nos.15 and 19 as illegal and without jurisdiction.
3.The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit. This counter affidavit virtually supports the cause taken up by the petitioner union. The sequence of events as pleaded in the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder:-
7.I respectfully state that A)after the publication of the notification U/s.4 (1) of the L.A.Act on 30.12.1987 and the declaration U/s.6 of the L.A.Act on 11.08.1988 and during the pendency of W.P.No.10136/1998 filed by the land owner Trust, in a malafide attempt to somehow or other delay and defeat the land acquisition proceedings, the Trustees of the land owner trust had been creating sale deeds from 25.08.1989 to 02.04.1993, selling 98 portions in the acquired land in favour of 98 persons and some of such illegal purchasers had also been creating sale deeds, selling those portions to others. By order dated 25.07.1991, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to reject all the objections and claims made by the land owner trust and dismiss the said W.P. and confirmed the land acquisition proceedings. Hence, all https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012 the said subsequent sales are illegal and would neither i)convey any title or possession on the purchasers or the persons claiming through them nor ii)confer any legal right on them to seek even for a preferential right for allotment of the plot/houses/flats in the housing scheme to be implemented by the Board on the acquired land.
B)Even then, some of such illegal purchasers had been referring to such illegal purchases made by them, making false and vexatious claims and filing W.P.No.20540/1993, W.P.No.21033/1995, O.S.No.103/1994 & A.S.No.84/1994 one after another and attempting to defeat the land acquisition proceedings. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to reject all their claims and dismiss all those W.P.'s and the Civil Courts had dismissed the O.S. & A.S. and those orders and judgments & decrees had become final and binding on them and also on all the other similarly placed illegal purchasers. Hence, all of them are barred and estopped from re-agitating the same claims once again in any form and before any forum.
8.I respectfully state that inspite of the above dismissals and bar and estoppel, three of the above illegal purchasers viz.Sivamathi Azhagan, V.Saroja & Harikrishnan had once again referred to their illegal purchases, made the same false and vexatious claims and filed W.P.Nos.9454, 9455, 9456/1998 before this Hon'ble Court, praying for a direction to the Board to allot the specific plots purchased by them to them. By order dated 27.09.1999, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to hold that the said prayers cannot be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to only observe that if the scheme of the Board permits to provide or permits it to allot plots, it is open to it to consider the representation https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012 to be given by those three Writ petitioners and consider the possibility or feasibility for allotting a plot to them on merits in accordance with law. I state that in view of the facts, reasons and position of law stated in para-7 above, the Board and its Chairman has no power, authority or jurisdiction to allot plots/houses/flats in its Housing scheme to any person/persons out of turn without following the procedures. Further, even if such out of turn allotments are made to the said three Writ petitioners/illegal purchasers, the Board has to make allotments to the remaining 95 illegal purchasers also and such a course would be illegal, completely frustrate the Housing scheme and cause huge loss to the public money. Hence, the Board was not able to make out of turn allotments to them.
9. I respectfully state that even thereafter, one of the illegal purchaser/Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.9454/1998 viz. Sivamathi Azhahan had once again referred to the illegal purchasers made by them, made the same false and vexatious claims and filed a suit in O.S.No.56/2001 before the Court of the I Additional District Munsif at Puducherry, against the Board, praying for an indirect relief Viz, a decree for permanent injunction, restraining the Board from interfering with his alleged possession of the portion illegally purchased by him and for mandatory injunction to restore his alleged compound wall. On the face it, the said suit is also false, vexatious and unmaintainable and hence, the Board has filed I.A.No.6583/2006, praying to reject the plaint. By order dated 09.06.2007, the Court of the I Additional District Munsif has allowed the said I.A. and rejected the plaint. Consequently, by judgment and decree dated 09.06.2007, it has also closed the suit in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012 O.S.No.56/2001 filed by them. Against the order made in I.A.No.6183/2006, the said Sivamathi Azahan had filed C.M.A.No.20 of 2008 and against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.56 of 2001, he had filed A.S.No.33/2008 before the Court of the Principal Sub-Judge at Puducherry. On 10.10.2011, the Court of the Principal Sub-Judge had dismissed both C.M.A.No.20/2008 and A.S.No.33 of 2008 and the same had also become final and binding on the said Sivamathi Azahan and also on all the other similarly placed illegal purchasers. Therefore, all of them are barred and estopped from re- agitating the same claims once again and insist the Board to allot plots in the Housing Scheme to each of them out of turn in violation of the procedures.
10.I respectfully state that A)the 98 illegal purchasers and the persons claiming through them i.e.in total 137 illegal purchasers have formed an unregistered Association viz. “Murungappakkam Kaviyarasu Bharathiyar Nagar Manai Vangiyor Nalavahvu Sangam” (hereinafter called as “the Association of subsequent illegal purchasers”). Thereafter, in the name of the said Association, they had once again made the same claim i.e.refer to the illegal purchases of portions of the acquired land made by them and seek to allot the said portions to each of them. As stated above, the Board is an instrumentality of the state and further, either its Board of Members or its Chairman has no power, authority or jurisdiction to allot plots/houses/flats to any person or group of persons out of turn in violation of the procedures. If they do so, such allotments would be illegal, invalid and not binding on the Board. Further the persons getting such out of turn https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012 allotments are deemed to have knowledge of such violations, illegality and invalidity.
B)Inspite of the same, in the Board meeting held on 28.04.2000, the then Secretary of the Board has informed the demand of the above Association and information given to them regarding the allotment of developed plots measuring 20ft X 50 ft., its cost etc. However, the Chairman has referred to the order of this Hon'ble Court made in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board relating to the utilisation of the land acquired under the L.A.Act etc., and the said order would apply to the Board also. Thereafter, considering the demand of the above Association for allotment of 50% to them and 50% for the Housing Scheme, it was resolved to conduct a demand survey and submit a report in the next board meeting. In the next board meeting held on 12.02.2011, a proposal was made to allot 50% of the acquired land to the members of the above association. But, it was found that if such proposal is implemented, the open space earmarked on the said western side for eventual emergencies like fire accidents etc., cannot be provided. Hence, a suggestion was made for drawing a revised layout on the western side and thereafter, a decision could be taken. Consequently, no decision was taken in the said meeting. C)But, it was incorrectly proceeded that a decision was taken in the Board meeting held on 12.02.2001 and referring to such decision, a notification dated 08.03.2001 was issued relating to allotment of 50% of the acquired land on the western side to the persons who made applications under lot system, the size of the plot, the price etc. Again, making reference to the decisions taken in the Board meeting held on 12.02.2001 and in the meeting of the then Chairman of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012 Board with the members of the above association on 27.03.2001, a similar notification dated 30.03.2001 was also issued. As stated above, the Board of Members and the then Chairman had no power, authority or jurisdiction to take any such decisions and publish such notifications. In fact, no final decision was taken in the meeting held on 12.02.2001 and no record relating to the decision taken by the then Chairman on 27.03.2001 was available in the Board. Hence, such decisions and notifications were nullity, void, illegal, invalid, not binding on the Board and unenforceable. Due to various reasons, the then Board or Members and the Chairman were also not able to proceed further.
D)Again, in September 2009, ie.after about 9 years, the members of the above association had met the then Chairman and once again, made the same demand to allot the plots to them in the Housing scheme to be implemented in the acquired land. Without any power, authority or jurisdiction, this Chairman had decided to allot the plots in the said Housing Scheme out of turn between the members of the above Association by way of lot and a news item was also published to that effect in the Tamil Daily “Malai Malai” dated 30.09.2009. Further, the said Chairman had also constituted a price fixation committee. But the said Committee was not able to fix any price and no approval was granted either by the said Chairman or the Board of Members. Hence, this decision and the publication of news item were also nullity, void, illegal, invalid, not binding on the Board and unenforceable. Even otherwise, a complaint was given by the Employees Association, pointing out the irregularities in the above decision of the said Chairman to allot plots out of turn without https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012 following the procedures. Immediately, the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Department, Government of Puducherry has initiated action against the said Chairman of the Board. The Superintendent of Police has collected all the files relating to all the above actions for investigation and proceeding with the same. Hence, this decision was also not proceeded further.
11.I respectfully state that the Board has acquired the land in the year 1988 for implementation of a Housing Scheme and allot the plots/flats to the eligible persons in the general public in accordance with the procedures. However, the subsequent illegal purchasers and the above association formed by them have been making one malafide and illegal attempt after another to get allotment of plots out of turn, that too, for a meager sale consideration of Rs.67/- per sq.ft.(against the present market value of Rs.1500/- per sq.ft.) and prevented the Board from implementing the Housing Scheme in the acquired land till September 2009 i.e.for the past 25 years. Due to such long delay, as the Board is borrowing loans from the HUDCO for implementing the schemes and paying interests for the same, it has incurred a very huge loss. In fact, for sometime, it had been borrowing loans from the HUDCO and paying even salaries to its officers and employees.
12.I respectfully state that in the above circumstances, the Price Fixation Committee of the Board in its proceedings held on 02.09.2011 has decided as follows:
i)The board had earlier decided to dispose the lands to the distressed purchasers when the board was financially sound and a potential land bank was available.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012
ii)Presently the Board is facing a severe financial crisis and left with the minimum lands, which are suitable for immediate implementation of housing schemes. The lands are available only at Vazhaikulam and Murungapakkam area.
iii)Considering the welfare of the Board on the grounds that the Board presently does not possess any potential area for implementation of housing schemes, except the lands at Murungapakkam and further there is minimum possibility of acquiring lands for Puducherry Housing Board at present due to the Board's financial crisis, it was decided by the Committee to place the issue in the Board for obtaining approval for construction of flats at the said land at Murungappakkam. It was suggested by the Chairman that it is not advisable to sell the very few properties held by the Board and further retaining the land for implementation of scheme will uplift the Board and make it survive higher.
iv)Further, the Chairman directed the Executive Engineer, PHB to check the feasibility of implementing Housing Schemes at the said area and to prepare necessary proposal for implementation of the same to place it before the Board.
v)Further, it was decided by the Committee that the distressed purchasers may be assured of one flat for each family in the proposed scheme to be implemented at the Murungapakkam lands. The Committee had unanimously agreed to place the subject in the Board for arriving at a firm decision.
I state that the Board was taking actions to place the above decisions before its Board of Members for its consideration and final decision, including on the decision No.(v) and based on such final https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012 decisions, to implement the Housing Scheme and allot the flats therein in accordance with the procedures to the eligible persons among the general public at the earliest.
13.I respectfully state that at that stage, once again, the above unregistered Association formed by the subsequent illegal purchasers of the acquired land, has incorrectly claimed that the Board has taken decisions on 12.02.2001 & 27.03.2001 and filed the W.P.No.6577 of 2012, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Board to implement the said decisions and allot plots to them. I state that the petitioner has not produced even copies of such decisions along with the W.P. As stated above, no final decision was taken in the Board meeting held on 12.02.2001 and no Board meeting was held on 27.03.2001. The Board has filed its counter affidavit dated 01.10.2012 to the said W.P. and the W.P. is pending disposal.
14.I respectfully state that while being so, A)Once again, the above unregistered Association formed by the subsequent illegal purchasers, has given a representation dated 06.09.2012 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Puducherry, referring to the subsequent illegal purchasers of the acquired land made by its members, the above decision taken by the price fixation committee of the Board on 02.09.2011 and requesting to give plots to its members etc. The Hon'ble Chief Minister has forwarded the said representation to the Chairman of the Board on 06.09.2012. Further, the said unregistered Association has also given a representation dated 06.09.2012 to the Minister for Local Administration, Government of Puducherry, making the same request. By note bearing No.1500/LAM/2012 dated 06.09.2012, the Minister for local https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012 administration has also forwarded the said representation to the Chairman of the Board and directing the Board to examine the said request in detail and the matter may be taken in the ensuing Board meeting for favourable consideration.
B)In the above circumstances, the Board has placed the request made by the above unregistered Association for allotment of plots in the acquired land at Murungampakkam to its members as Agenda No.19 in the 118th Board meeting held at 4 P.M. on 02.11.2012. The Board of Members have considered all the above facts and events and passed a resolution as follows:
“Therefore, the Board of the PHB has approved and to send a proposal to the Government, high-lighting all the factors for considering the request of the above Murungampakkam Kaviyarasu Bharathiyar Nagar Manai Vangiyor Nalavahvu Sangam to allot one plot (size 20 X 50) to each member. The price for the plot will be fixed by Government by considering the prevailing rate applicable in Government and issue suitable G.O.” C) At this stage, the petitioner has filed the above WP, praying for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the above resolution also as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction. Therefore, the Board has not forwarded the above resolution to the Government of Puducherry. In fact, the Accountant General (Audit) has sent an audit slip to the Board, stating that the lands of the Board cannot be sold less than the guideline value fixed by the Government and sought a reply from the Board. The guideline value in force for the said land is Rs.1000/- per sq.ft., and its market value is Rs.1500/- per sq.ft. Hence, to the said audit slip also, the Board has sent a reply stating that the Board will https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012 fix the price only as per the directions of the Government of Puducherry.
4.When the Writ Petition was taken up for final hearing, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Puducherry Housing Board brought to the notice of this Court the subsequent events that had taken place during the pendency of this Writ Petition. On going through the chronology of events, it is seen that pursuant to the resolution that was passed in the 118th Board meeting, a scrutinization committee was constituted in the 124th Board meeting held on 07.10.2014 and a notification was issued on 21.12.2015 to identify, allot and sell one plot measuring 1000sqft., to the eligible distressed purchasers (encroachers) on the terms and conditions enumerated under the notification. Accordingly intimations were sent to 133 distressed purchasers to appear before the Board and to surrender all the original documents in their possession. Thereafter, in the 130th Board meeting held on 05.02.2016, the reports submitted by the scrutinization committee was considered and it was found that out of 133 distressed purchasers identified, 76 persons fulfilled the guidelines and terms and conditions of the notification. 22 persons partially fulfilled the guidelines and terms and conditions of notification and another 22 persons did not fulfill any of the guidelines and terms and conditions of the notification. 13 persons did not even appear before the scrutinization committee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012
5.After the above exercise was completed, the committee conducted a lot on 24.02.1016 and constituted a Board. Thereafter, an addendum was made to G.O.Ms.No.04/2016 and it was decided that the sale can be made to the distressed purchasers at the rate of Rs.720/- per sqft., and it can be made subject to the final orders to be passed in this Writ Petition. This was placed before the Board for final decision.
6.The Board in its 131st meeting passed a resolution and confirmed the allocation of plots to 76 beneficiaries and also addendum to the G.O. was accepted.
The Board also took note of the Writ Petition filed by the union before this Court and the objections raised by them to the effect that the land acquired by the Board cannot be sold in favour of the encroachers and that it cannot be sold for a throw-away price when the property can fetch a substantial revenue to the Board.
7.Thereafter, steps were taken to once again call for certain other details from the distressed purchasers and it was placed before the Board in its 137 th Board meeting. The decisions that were taken in the said meeting was placed before the Government. This process was going on and deliberations took place even in the subsequent meetings and ultimately in the 147th Board meeting that was held on 07.08.2020, the Board considered the issue regarding those distressed purchasers who did not remit the amount that was fixed. The entire matter was there upon placed before the Law Department for an opinion and it was decided to place the issue https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012 regarding the 18 distressed purchasers who did not pay the consideration, before the Council of Ministers and get their approval and thereafter to place the same before the lieutenant Government, Puducherry. It was also made clear by the Law Department that any decision that is taken in the matter shall be subject to the outcome of the pending Writ Petition No.32872 of 2012.
8.By virtue of all the above happenings, out of the total of 106 plots, sale deeds were executed for 58 plots in favour of the distressed purchasers by fixing the sale consideration at the rate of Rs.720/- per sqft. Even in the sale deed that was executed in their favour, it was specifically mentioned that the purchasers will be liable to pay the difference in the sale consideration, if any, in future payable by them as per the orders to be made by this Court in W.P.No.32872 of 2012. It was also made clear in the sale deed that if this Court fixes any higher sale consideration, the purchaser is liable to pay the difference in sale consideration within a period of three months failing which it will be left open to the Board to recover the amount from the purchasers by enforcing first charge over the plot.
9.It was also brought to the notice of this Court that the remaining 48 plots out of 106 plots continues to be under the control of the Housing Board and the same is yet to be sold. The attention of this Court was also drawn to the fact that the distressed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012 purchasers made repeated attempts to sell the plots at a market rate and those documents which were presented for registration, was refused to be registered and as a result, the plot that was sold in favour of the distressed purchasers was not permitted to be further sold to any third party by not registering those documents.
10.Heard M/s.Sunny Sheen for M/s.V.Raghavachari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.V.Usha, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry) for the first respondent, Mr.T.P.Manoharan for Mr.T.M.Naveen, the learned Senior counsel for the second respondent and Mr.Poovendra Perumal, the learned counsel for the third respondent.
11.The Writ Petition came up for final hearing on 16.08.2022 and this Court passed the following order:-
The subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition pertains to the resolution Nos.15 and 19 that were passed in the Board meeting on 02.11.2012.
2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent submitted that he is concerned with resolution No.15 whereby the 3rd respondent was reinstated into service pursuant to the resolution passed by the Board. It was further submitted that the 3rd respondent has already retired from service in the year 2013 itself. Therefore, insofar as resolution No.15 is concerned, this Writ Petition has become https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012 infructuous.
3.That leaves resolution No.19 alone be taken into consideration.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent seeks for some time to take instructions and appraise the further developments in this Writ Petition. Post this Writ Petition for hearing on 25.08.2022.
12.Even though the present Writ Petition challenged two resolutions, resolution No.15 which pertains to the reinstatement of the third respondent into service, has now become infructuous, since the third respondent has already retired from service in the year 2013 itself. Therefore, it will suffice if this Court focuses on resolution No.19 that was passed by the Board and which authorized the Board to sell the plots in favour of the so called distressed purchasers.
13.The counter affidavit filed by the second respondent which was extracted Supra clearly provides the details of the sequence of events whereby encroachers in the property that belonged to the Housing Board were making all attempts and were knocking the doors of all the Courts to somehow or the other squat in the property and not permit the Housing Board to deal with the property. All the litigations that were instituted in various names to justify the encroachment, ended in a dismissal. Inspite of the same, some of the persons / Associations who were occupying the property managed to pull strings and unfortunately the Board fell to the trap and decided to convert the property into a layout and sell the plots each measuring 1000sqft. While https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012 taking this decision, the Board decided to sell the plot to the distressed purchasers who were none other than encroachers, at the rate of Rs.720/- per sqft. Thus, the sale happened at this rate in the year 2017. Whereas, it is clear from the counter affidavit that even as on February 2013, the market value of the property per square feet was more than 1500 per sqft., and the guideline value was 1000 per sqft. It is totally inconceivable as to how the Housing Board had fixed the rate at Rs.720/- per sqft in the year 2017, when the rates would have definitely gone up from the prevailing rates in the year 2013. This by itself is an indicator that there is more than what meets the eye in the present case and some vested interest has obviously pulled strings and made the Housing Board suffer a huge loss. The learned Senior counsel who was appearing for the Housing Board submitted that the Housing Board is virtually in penury and they are not even in a position to pay the salaries to their staff. Under such circumstances, to sell the plots in favour of the encroachers at a throw-away price smacks with illegality.
14.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court, the following judgments:-
a)New India Public School and Others Vs. HUDA and others reported in [(1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 510]
b)Sachidanand Pandey and another Vs. State of West Bengal and Others https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012 reported in [(1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 295].
c)Divya Manufacturing Company (P) Ltd, Tirupati Wollen Mills Shramik Sangharsha Samity and another Vs. Union Bank of India and others Official Liquidator and others reported in [(2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 69).
d)Aggarwal & Modi Enterprises (P) Ltd and another Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council reported in [(2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 75]
e)Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd., Vs. State of West Bengal and another reported in [(1975) 1 Supreme Court Cases 70].
f)Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in [(2011) 5 Supreme Court Cases 29].
15.By relying upon the above judgments, it was submitted that the instrumentality of a state cannot give a largesse to any person according to their whims and fancies and in a case of this nature, it has been reiterated more than once by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there must be transparency in the entire process and a property belonging to the instrumentality of the state can be sold only by inviting applications and by conducting a public auction. It is not necessary for this Court to extract the relevant portions from the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and unnecessarily burden this order, since the law is too well settled and it will suffice to take note of the above judgments.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012
16.Even though the Puducherry Housing Board Act, 1973 gives power to the Housing Board to dispose of its property under Section 62 of the Act, such power should be exercised in a transparent manner by inviting applications from the general public and it must be ensured that the Housing Board earns the maximum revenue by sale of the property. Just because the Board has the power to dispose of the property, that does not mean that they can dispose it of according to their whims and fancies without following a proper procedure. This is exactly what has been deprecated by the Apex Court and this Court in a catena of decisions.
17.It is not known as to how the Board after being aware of the fact that the encroachers failed before all the forums, can accommodate them in the property encroached by them by selling it in their favour for pittance. The resolution No.19 which authorized the Board to sell the plots is an illegality on the face of it and the Board never had the power to take such a decision totally against the interest of the Board and its employees. That apart, a public property has been sold to encroachers at a rate which is totally inconceivable and ridiculous. Without any hesitation, the resolution passed by the Board has to be interfered by this Court and such illegality cannot be permitted to continue any more.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012
18.The only saving grace in the present case is that even while the sale deed was executed in favour of the encroachers, they were specifically put on notice that the sale will be subject to the final result in the Writ Petition. Therefore, there is no requirement for this Court to issue notices to those persons in whose favour the sale deed was executed by the Housing Board. The purchasers of the plot are very well aware that the sale made in their favour will be subject to the result of the Writ Petition and they consciously took such a risk while purchasing the plot.
19.In view of the above discussion, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to interfere with resolution No.19 passed in the 118th Board meeting held by the Puducherry Housing Board and the same is declared to be unlawful and illegal.
20.This Court has to now deal with the future course of action to be adopted by the Housing Board. Hence, while allowing this Writ Petition, this Court is inclined to issue the following directions:-
a)Even though this Court has interfered with the decision taken by the Board to sell the plots in favour of the encroachers, in order to maintain a balance and in order to afford an opportunity to those persons who have purchased the plots, this Court is inclined to safeguard the right of the purchasers by imposing certain conditions.
b)The second respondent is directed to fix the market value of the plots as on July 2017 and issue a notice to all those persons in whose favour the plots have been https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012 sold to remit the sale consideration as per the market value after giving credit to the amount already paid by them at the rate of Rs.720/- per sqft. This Court has already found at paragraph No.13 of this order that the market value of the plot even during February 2017 was more than Rs.1500/- per sqft., and hence this Court expects that correct market value as on July 2017 will be fixed.
c)The above process should be completed by the second respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
d)Immediately after the receipt of the notice, the purchasers of the plot shall pay the difference in the sale consideration within a period of three months as was agreed when the sale deed was executed in their favour.
e)If the purchaser fails to remit the difference in sale consideration within a period of three months, it is left open to the second respondent/Board to initiate action for the eviction of the concerned purchaser and bring up the property for sale through open auction.
f)In so far as the remaining 48 plots which are yet to be sold, the second respondent is directed to immediately call for applications and conduct a public auction and the plots shall be sold at the prevailing market value. The entire exercise shall be done in a transparent manner and;
g)Till the entire process is completed, the concerned District Registrar, Puducherry shall not entertain any documents for registration pertaining to the subject https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012 property situated at T.S.No.22/1 & 22/2Pt, Ward “N”, Block No.12 & R.S.No.144/2Pt, (Cadastre No.471) at No.44, Murungapakkam Revenue Village, Mudaliarpet Firka, Puducherry. A copy of this order shall also be marked to the District Registrar, Puducherry.
21.In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
22.Post this Writ Petition under the caption “For Reporting Compliance” on 05.12.2022.
26.08.2022 ep Index:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012 To
1.The Government of Puducherry, Represented by its Secretary to Government, (Housing), Puducherry – 5.
2.The Pondicherry Housing Board, Represented by its Secretary, Anna Nagar, Nellithope, Puducherry – 5.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 24/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012 N.ANAND VENKATESH.J., ep W.P.No.32872 of 2012 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 25/26 W.P.No.32872 of 2012 26.08.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 26/26