Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Since all the Writ Appeals arise out of common order and the issue involved in all these Writ Appeals is one and the same, all the Writ Appeals were taken up together and disposed of by this Common Judgment. For convenience, the parties are referred as per their array in W.A.No.1513 of 2001.

3. Brief facts are that C.I.T. Nagar was earlier developed under Open Developed Plots Scheme and later converted into Madras Urban Development Project as per G.O.Ms.No.928, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 30.09.1982. TNSCB along with the scheme at the time of formation of TNSCB, the property was handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board [in short, 'TNHB"]. Appellant was an allottee for Plot No.150, CIT Nagar, Madras-35 with an extent of 92 square metres was allotted to him by the Chairman, TNSCB in his Proceedings No.E6/23202/95 dated 31.08.1995. Case of TNHB is that Community Hall in question was constructed in the year 1956 and it is meant for public purpose. TNSCB was informed about the same and Chairman was asked to withdraw the allotment wrongfully made by TNSCB in favour of Appellant.

8. Reiterating that the property belongs to TNSCB, learned counsel for TNSCB submitted that wherever there is slum or slum area, by virtue of Section 46(1) the same is transferred to TNSCB by statutory transfer and the learned single judge did not advert to the statutory transfer under Section 46(1). It was further argued that in CIT Nagar, there was existence of "slum area" inclusive of plot No.150 and by virtue of the statutory transfer to Plot No.150 vested with the TNSCB and it allotted plot No.150 to the Appellant Rana Singh. It was further argued that when it was brought to the notice of the Board that the Appellant is not residing in plot No.150, show cause notice was issued to the Appellant calling upon him to explain as to why the allotment should not be cancelled and therefore TNSCB cannot be faulted.

25. In the writ petition, the TNSCB has also not chosen to file counter, but filed an elaborate counter in the Writ Appeal. In its counter, the TNSCB has averred that when two statutory bodies i.e., TNHB and TNSCB belonging to the same Government raise dispute as the ownership of the land, and as per Section 46(2)(a), dispute should be referred to the Government and the decision of the Government shall be final. As we pointed out earlie, in the writ petitions, the TNSCB has not chosen to file its counter. Deprecating the conduct of the Slum Clearance Board, the learned single judge imposed a cost of Rs.2,500/- on the TNSCB, which we are not inclined to interfere.

26. Based upon facts and materials, the learned single judge categorically held that the property in question is the property of TNHB. Even though a definite finding was recorded against the TNSCB and cost of Rs.2,500/- was also imposed upon the TNSCB, it has not chosen to prefer any appeal. In such circumstances, the contention of TNSCB that the matter should be referred to the Government does not merit acceptance. The learned counsel for TNSCB has drawn our attention to the show cause notice issued by the TNSCB dated 26.3.1997 and submitted that the TNSCB has taken appropriate steps to cancel the allotment and the learned single judge was not right in imposing cost of Rs.2,500/- and prayed for deletion of the costs imposed upon the TNSCB. By perusal of the counter filed by TNSCB, we find that when it was brought to the notice of TNSCB that the Appellant is not residing in plot No.150, C.I.T.Nagar and that there was only a community hall and that the Appellant has obtained allotment by making a false statement that he is residing in the said plot a show cause notice was issued to the Appellant on 26.3.1997 calling upon him to explain within seven days of receipt of show cause notice as to why the allotment made to him should not be cancelled. Without responding to the said show cause notice, the Appellant had approached the City Civil Court and filed O.S.No.4095 of 1997 challenging the show cause notice. The said suit later came to be dismissed for default. Subsequently, the Appellant had also filed writ petition in W.P.No.13668 of 1995 seeking for writ of a mandamus not to interfere with his possession and the allotment order. It was submitted that because of pendency of the suit as well as the writ petitions no further proceedings could be initiated against the Appellant consequent to the issuance of show cause notice dated 26.3.1997. Issuance of show cause notice in Na..Ka.No.19009/E6/1995 dated 26.3.1997 does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned single judge. In such view of the matter, we are of the considered view that imposing cost of Rs.2,500/- on the TNSCB is not justifiable and the same is ordered to be deleted.