Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 515 (MAD)

A. Rathinam v. Tamil Nadu Housing Board

2016-02-10

B.RAJENDRAN

body2016
ORDER : The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition stating that he is allotted housing plot in MIG no was allotted to him under the discretionary quota in G.O(2D), No.194 Housing and Urban Development Department (Vee.Vaa.5) dated 27.04.2010. According to him, even though he was ready, the authorities have not taken the follow up action and without taking the follow up action or without cancelling his allotment, now they are bringing the property for public auction which under law is prohibited, according to him, as no notice has been issued to him. Hence, he challenges the publication for auction in respect of the property dated 19.01.2011 and published in Dinathanthi, dated 20.01.2011. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents would only point out that even as per the said Government order, there is a mandatory condition that he should pay the amount within 21 days from the date of allotment. Since he has not paid the amount within the stipulated time, then the order automatically gets cancelled and only pursuant to that they have now brought the property for auction. Hence, he has no locus standi to challenge the public auction. 3. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 4. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner being a social worker, he has been allotted by the Housing Board under the discretionary quota as per G.O(2D), No.194 Housing and Urban Development Department (Vee.Vaa.5) dated 27.04.2010, wherein it is clearly stated as follows: “XX XX XX” 5. Subsequent to the said Government order, on 15.06.2010 by virtue of letter No. M.H. 8/4176/10, the petitioner was informed that he has been allotted the plot and he has been directed to pay the amount and to bring the documents to be signed by the authorities concerned. Even though letter was received by him, the petitioner neither paid the amount nor initiated any steps to get the document registered. Contra, after a period of more than six months he sent a letter dated 05.01.2011 under which he only claimed that let the possession be handed over to the petitioner or if the possession is handed over, he is prepared to pay the amount. This is a representation which was given by him on 05.01.2011. Contra, after a period of more than six months he sent a letter dated 05.01.2011 under which he only claimed that let the possession be handed over to the petitioner or if the possession is handed over, he is prepared to pay the amount. This is a representation which was given by him on 05.01.2011. It is very clear that the petitioner has not paid any amount as demanded by the Housing Board for the allotment. It is very clear that as per the said Government Order, when the amount is not paid within 21 days from the date of receipt of allotment letter, the allotment itself would be cancelled. Therefore, on the failure of the petitioner depositing the amount and seeking for the registered document, it is not now open to the petitioner to come forward and say that the department has not initiated action nor taken proper steps to allot or execute documents. Contra, it is very clearly proved that he has not paid any amount and he has not taken any follow up action and the forfeiture of the very allotment itself by virtue of her non performance. Therefore, there is no impediment for the respondents Housing Board to bring the property for public auction. In this connection, it is pertinent to point out that such discretionary quota itself has now been cancelled, there is nothing wrong in the impugned publication. The petitioner can always participate in the public auction if eligible and claim the property. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.