Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1102 (MAD)

G. Dhanalakshmi v. Executive Engineer & Admin

2016-03-14

B.RAJENDRAN

body2016
Order 1. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the additional claim along with interest with regard to the earlier allotment to the Housing Board for plots. 2. According to the petitioners, the original demand only at the rate of Rs.186.70 per Sq.ft has already been paid and they also acknowledged the receipt of the same and suddenly, now they come forward with the alleged increase on the ground of Audit objection, which they are not entitled to. Therefore, the petitioners in both cases challenge the impugned order dated 18.01.2016. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent brought to the notice of this Court that even earlier by proceedings No.C3/022119/2014 dated 29.10.2014, they have fixed the final cost for the land at the rate of Rs.200/-. The persons ought to have been charged at Rs.200/-. By mistake, they have fixed the cost only at Rs.186.70/- per Sq.ft. In fact, the same was also intimated to all the allottees, pursuant to which, final notice has been issued. Unfortunately, the mistake which crept earlier, was rectified later and already totally, 103 allottments were made in the Scheme and 40 persons have already paid day-by-day and now, the petitioners alone have come forward with the present writ petitions, alleging the said mistake. 4. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. On a careful perusal of the entire order, it is seen that the petitioners were allotted under the MIG scheme. According to them, the original cost of the land of Rs,2,71,300/- was paid. But, in the impugned order itself, they referred to the price fixation at Rs.200/- by virtue of the order dated 29.10.2014. Therefore, they only contended that in the order, the balance amount was sought to be paid and there is no discrepancy at all. In the order dated 29.10.2014, the resolution of the Board in its Res.No.6.02 dated 20.10.2014 has been referred to and it is extracted hereunder: (“Tamil”) 6. The selling price of the plots at Rs.4,48,000/- was fixed by the Board which is a concession scheme was provided and in the order, it has been very clearly stated that the expenditure of the scheme should not exceed the costs of ground itself Rs.4,48,000/- and even the difference is Rs.19,300/-. The selling price of the plots at Rs.4,48,000/- was fixed by the Board which is a concession scheme was provided and in the order, it has been very clearly stated that the expenditure of the scheme should not exceed the costs of ground itself Rs.4,48,000/- and even the difference is Rs.19,300/-. Therefore, the petitioners got housing plots by the Government at a concession rate and no one can object and there is not at all a discrepancy in the final costs arrived at in the Board Meeting. 7. Hence, I do not find any find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.