S. Kousalya vs The Divisional Accountant, The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, The Manager - Service and Sales and The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board

K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner is an allotee of HIG Twin Type House inNo.M9 at Kolathur Housing Scheme. The Petitioner, pursuant to

the list of defaulters announced by the 2nd Respondent in ""Dinamalar"" in December 2007, has paid the default amount. The Petitioner, on an

understanding that the excess amount has been collected, resorted to get information under the Right to Information Act. Pursuant to her request,

the Public Information Officer attached to Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Anna Nagar Division gave reply dated 22.1.2009 stating that what was

published in the Newspaper was only tentative cost. Subsequently, when the terms were prepared up to January 2009, it was found that the

Petitioner has to pay Rs. 48,172/-in excess of the amount already paid and therefore the Petitioner was directed to pay the said amount on or

before January 2009. Challenging the said communication dated 22.1.2009, the Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. He seeks to set aside the

order and also seeks for refund of Rs. 19,480/-collected from the Petitioner in excess of thenorms prescribed under G.O. No. 174, Housing and

Urban Development dated 7.2.1991.

When the matter came up on 23.4.2009, this Court directed the Standing Counsel to take notice. Subsequently, the Writ Petition was admitted

on 9.6.2009. Pending the Writ Petition, the Petitioner sought for a direction to register and release the sale deed on payment of the amount of Rs.

48,172/-in respect of the allotment made to her. This Court by an order dated 9.6.2009directed the Petitioner to pay the said amount and

pursuant to paying the amount, the 2nd Respondent, namely the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer of Tamil Nadu Housing Board

Anna Nagar Division was directed to execute the sale deed.

It now transpires that the Petitioner had paid the said amount on 19.6.2009 and sale deed has been executed on 10.7.2009. While executing

the Sale Deed, the Petitioner gave an undertaking in the form of affidavit signed in a stamp paper duly attested by a Notary Public that the cost of

the house allotted to her has been accepted by her and she will not make any further claim and ask for refund.

With reference to the working sheet of the cost and the application of the Government Order, it is stated in the counter affidavit dated ''nil''

(March 2011) that based upon G.O. Ms. No. 174 dated 7.2.1991 interest on initialdeposit and monthly instalments were collected from

theallottee and the question of any refund does not arise. It is also stated that the Petitioner purchased the house only on hire purchase category

and even in the allotment order issued to the Petitioner on 19.3.1990, the cost indicated was Rs. 94,570/-and it was only a tentative cost and not a

final cost. But, however, the hire purchase arrangement was made into a outright purchase on the special request made by the Petitioner that she

has to get loan from the financial institution. It is also stated that No. penal interest was collected on the interest.

The Housing Board also filed an additional typed set containing the transaction of the allotment of the house. By a communication dated

20.3.1995, the Petitioner was informed of the revised cost of the house and she has not chosen to challenge the same.

Therefore, the only question to be decided notwithstanding the undertaking given by the Petitioner at the time of the execution of the Sale Deed

was whether the Petitioner�s prayer can be countenanced by this Court. In fact, when the Petitioner sought for return of the refund of the

amount, the matter was placed before the Board on3.8.2009 and the Board resolved to reject the request of the Petitioner for the refund of any

amount. The said Board Resolution was also communicated to the Petitioner by a covering letter dated 10.5.2010.

It must be noted that the Supreme Court in Shimla Development Authority Vs. Asha Rani, held that allottees were bound to pay the cost of

escalation in construction and cost of escalation of value of land, in case the court enhanced the compensation for land acquired under the Land

Acquisition Act at various stages.

The Supreme Court also in Preeta Singh, etc., Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others, held that apart from the original cost

fixed, the competent authority is entitled to demand ""additional price"" or expenses incurred towards acquisition of land either for development or

cost escalation.

In view of the fact that the Petitioner has given an undertaking not to claim refund and rejection of the claim for refund has been made by the

Board and also in the light of the original cost was only a tentative cost, this Court do not find any case is made out. The prayer made by the

Petitioner cannot be countenanced. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No. costs.