Judgment 1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by the first respondent, dated 09.09.2014, and to permit the petitioner to remit the sale amount as per the prevailing guideline value as on 05.09.2011 in respect of the residential premises in question. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the school established by the second respondent Municipality. Subsequently, the school was taken over by the Government and the petitioner became an employee under the Education Department. When the petitioner was functioning as Secondary Grade Teacher, he was allotted a residential quarters by the second respondent Municipality on rental basis on 01.06.1970. In terms of the scheme announced by the Government called 'Low Income Group Housing Scheme', the Government permitted the residential quarters belonging to the Municipality to be sold to the occupant by fixing the prevailing guideline value fixed by the Registering Authority. The scheme stipulated a condition that the beneficiaries should not own any residence and their income should not exceed Rs.6000/- per annum. Though such scheme was in vogue, the second respondent Municipality attempted to sell the property to third parties and directed the petitioner to vacate the quarters. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed an Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.346 of 1995. Subsequently, the Application was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.27336 of 2006, in which a direction was issued to the Government to consider the claim made by the petitioner within a period of three months. Pursuant thereto, the Government vide G.O.(3D)No.9, dated 05.09.2011, directed the second respondent to sell quarters to the petitioner at the prevailing rate as per the orders in force treating the petitioner's case as a special case and not to be quoted as a precedent. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner would state that the guideline value prevailing on the date of issuance of G.O.(3D)No.9, is Rs.900/- per sq.ft. The petitioner would further submit that though Government order was passed on 05.09.2011, the second respondent did not take any immediate action and only on 16.04.2012, they addressed the Sub-Registrar, Walajah, to furnish a guideline value, who in-turn furnished the same by proceedings, dated 19.04.2012. The petitioner would further submit that though Government order was passed on 05.09.2011, the second respondent did not take any immediate action and only on 16.04.2012, they addressed the Sub-Registrar, Walajah, to furnish a guideline value, who in-turn furnished the same by proceedings, dated 19.04.2012. The petitioner would further state that no further action was taken by the second respondent in spite of repeated representations and ultimately, by proceedings dated 09.09.2014, called upon the petitioner to remit the sale consideration calculated at the rate of Rs.1800/- per sq.ft. This order is impugned in this Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after reiterating the facts, submitted that the guideline value prevailing as on the date of the Government Order i.e., 05.09.2011 has to be adopted, since the Government Order specifically states that the second respondent shall sell the quarters to the petitioner at the prevailing rates as per the orders in force. Therefore, it is submitted that the prevailing rate can be only the rate which was prevailing on the date of the Government Order, which is Rs.900/- per Sq.ft. Further, it is submitted that the delay of almost nine months from the date of the Government Order till 16.04.2012, remains unexplained. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that though the Government granted permission to sell the quarters vide G.O.(3D)No.9, dated 05.09.2011, however, the petitioner was not willing to pay the sale consideration and get the sale deed registered, but he requested the second respondent by letter dated 12.12.2011, to receive the sale consideration in monthly instalments. The second respondent is said to have considered the said request and intimated the petitioner that the Government will be addressed and after getting necessary orders, request will be considered. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed by letter dated 29.08.2013, that the second respondent will follow the terms and conditions of the Government Order and therefore, the petitioner was directed to remit a sum of Rs.17,25,724/-. Once again, the petitioner submitted a letter for reconsideration, by letter dated 21.01.2014, and the second respondent by letter dated 18.02.2014, directed the petitioner to remit the amount as intimated. The petitioner did not abide by the direction and therefore, another communication was sent on 09.09.2014, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. 6. Once again, the petitioner submitted a letter for reconsideration, by letter dated 21.01.2014, and the second respondent by letter dated 18.02.2014, directed the petitioner to remit the amount as intimated. The petitioner did not abide by the direction and therefore, another communication was sent on 09.09.2014, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. 6. Heard Mr.P.Rajendran learned counsel for Mr.S.Vijayan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Gunasekaran learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 7. The issue which falls for consideration in this Writ Petition is regards the cost payable by the petitioner to enable him to become the owner of the property in question. 8. Admittedly, the property in question was a residential quarters allotted to the petitioner, while he was in service as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the Municipal School. The petitioner is in occupation of the quarters from 1970 onwards. After the Municipal schools were taken over by the Government, the petitioner continued to retain the quarters and applied under a Scheme framed by the Government to provide Housing to the 'Low Income Group'. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was eligible to be considered under the said scheme. In the interregnum, the second respondent attempted to sell the property and direction was issued to vacate and hand over possession, which necessitated the petitioner to approach the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.346 of 1995, which was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.27336 of 2006, which was disposed of, by order dated 21.06.2007. In spite of the order, the second respondent issued notice calling upon the petitioner to vacate the quarter and Contempt Petition No.1061 of 2011, was filed and subsequently, orders were passed by the Government acceding to the request of the petitioner and permitting the Municipality to sell quarters in occupation of the petitioner at prevailing rates as per the orders in force. There would not have been any difficulty if the Government Order had been implemented in 2011 and sale deed executed at the rate prevailing at the relevant time, namely on the date of execution of the sale deed which would be relevant. The petitioner blames the second respondent Municipality for being negligent and not taking any action pursuant to the Government Order for nearly nine months. The petitioner blames the second respondent Municipality for being negligent and not taking any action pursuant to the Government Order for nearly nine months. However, from the facts placed in the counter affidavit, it is seen that it is the petitioner who delayed the implementation of the Government Order, since he submitted a representation on 12.12.2011, soon after G.O.(3D).No.9, was issued by the Government to permit him to pay the sale consideration in monthly instalments. It was well open to the second respondent Municipality to have rejected the petitioner's request. However, they took a humanitarian approach and informed the petitioner that only after getting necessary orders from the Government, request for payment in monthly instalments can be considered. By letter dated 29.08.2013, the petitioner was informed that the permission to pay in monthly instalments cannot be granted. Therefore, the petitioner either should have challenged the order dated 29.08.2013, or should have paid the amount and registered the sale deed in his favour. He did neither, but filed one more representation on 21.01.2014, to reconsider his case. This request was rejected and intimated to the petitioner by communication dated 18.02.2014 and subsequently, by another communication, dated 09.09.2014, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. Therefore, the petitioner alone has to be blamed for causing the delay. The Government Order dated 05.09.2011, is explicitly clear permitting the sale of the property to the petitioner at the prevailing rates as per the orders in force and it was an one time concession and cannot be quoted as a precedent. The Government Order did not provide for payment of the sale consideration in monthly instalments. Therefore, the second respondent Municipality ought to have out rightly rejected the petitioner's request dated 12.12.2011, since it was beyond the scope of G.O.(3D).No.9. However, they thought fit to inform the petitioner that he will be intimated after getting necessary orders from the Government and the matter was pending with the second respondent from 2011 till 29.08.2013. This delay from December 2011 to August 2013, cannot be solely attributable to the Writ Petitioner, but also to the second respondent. 10. As already pointed out that the word 'prevailing rate' as mentioned in the Government Order shall connote the prevailing rate on the date of execution and registration of the sale deed. This delay from December 2011 to August 2013, cannot be solely attributable to the Writ Petitioner, but also to the second respondent. 10. As already pointed out that the word 'prevailing rate' as mentioned in the Government Order shall connote the prevailing rate on the date of execution and registration of the sale deed. This alone would be the correct interpretation to the term otherwise, the benefit of this one time concession given to the petitioner becomes meaningless. 11. Assuming for the sake of argument, the petitioner's case has to be accepted, then it would mean that the petitioner will continue to be in possession, will not remit any rent to the Municipality, but as and when he decides to purchase the property, he would exercise his option and claim that the sale consideration should be fixed at the rate prevailing at the time of issuance of the Government Order. This cannot never be a reasonable interpretation of a Government Order, which itself is in the nature of a one time concession. 12. The petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of V.Sivakumar & Ors., vs. Inspector General of Registration, reported in (2011) 5 MLJ 30 , for the proposition that the stamp duty has to be paid as per the prevailing guideline value as on the date of registration and the stamp duty is liable to be paid as on the date of registration of the instrument. The decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench fully supports the conclusion arrived at by this Court, since it has been factually found that it is the petitioner who was the reason for the delay in execution of the sale deed, since he sought for payment of the sale consideration in monthly instalments, which was not feasible of consideration by the Municipality, however, the second respondent Municipality chose to entertain that request and keep it pending for nearly two years. Therefore, to that extent, the Municipality is also to be blamed. Hence, this Court is of the view that the “prevailing rate” in the facts of the present case shall be the guideline value, which was prevailing as on 29.08.2013. 13. Therefore, to that extent, the Municipality is also to be blamed. Hence, this Court is of the view that the “prevailing rate” in the facts of the present case shall be the guideline value, which was prevailing as on 29.08.2013. 13. From the facts stated above, it is clear that the petitioner was the person, who delayed the implementation of the Government Order at the first instance, since he sought for remittance of sale consideration in monthly instalments, which was not provided under the Government Order. The second respondent Municipality is also partially to be blamed for entertaining such a request and keeping the matter pending for nearly two years i.e., till 29.08.2013, when they intimated the petitioner i.e., request is not feasible for consideration. However, the petitioner did not challenge this communication dated 29.08.2013 or the subsequent communication dated 18.02.2014, but approached this Court challenging the communication dated 09.09.2014. Thus, considering the entire facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to purchase the property, pursuant to the Government Order on payment of the sale consideration calculated at the “prevailing rate” as on 29.08.2013, and such remittance shall be in one single instalment. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and the second respondent is directed to intimate the petitioner as to the guideline value of the property as on 29.08.2013 and grant reasonable time to the petitioner to remit the amount in one single instalment together with other charges and duties if any and thereafter, the sale deed shall be executed and registered in the name of the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.