Tamil Nadu Housing Board and House Owners Welfare Association vs The Tamil Nadu Housing Board

K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner is a registration Association comprising of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Allottees and its Registration No. is 73 of 94. In the present writ petition, they are seeking to quash the proceedings of the first respondent Tamil Nadu Housing Board (for short ''TNHB'') dated 09.12.2003 and for a consequential direction to direct the TNHB to execute the sale deed in favour of the respective allottees.

The Association earlier filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 190190 of 1997 before the Principal Bench of this Court directing the respondents from demanding either additional or final costs towards land and development in respect of the houses allotted under the SMT scheme at araikudi without furnishing the details and basis for the claim.

After the admission of the writ petition, the Board informed the Court that they have already furnished the details. Hence the said writ petition was dismissed as infractuous by an order dated 28.08.2003. It was stated by the respondent TNHB vide their letter dated 07.02.2000, the final cost arrived at for the "Karaikudi Kazhanivasal Project" was as follows:

Land Acquisition cost Rs. 74.91 Lakhs Development charges Rs. 34.89 Lakhs Capitalisation of interest Rs. 6.11 laksh ----------------- Total Rs. 115.91 Lakhs ----------------- No of plots allotted 185 Nos. Cost worked out for each plot valued Rs. 40,500/- Development charges Rs. 18,860/- Interest Rs. 3,340/- ------------ Total Rs. 62,700/- ------------- Extent of the each plot 2400 Sq.ft

The petitioner was also informed by the TNHB by a letter dated 9.12.2003 regarding this fact and the material portion of the order reads as follows:

The Government poramboke land was taken for implementing the Police Housing Scheme in Karaikudi Kazhanivasal. After implementing Police Housing Scheme, in the balance land available, a Housing Scheme to the public has been implemented by Housing Board for which area the guideline value has been adopted.

Aggrieved by the said action of the respondent TNHB, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. An interim stay was also granted on 13.04.2004. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter affidavit dated 30.04.2005 has been filed justifying the fixation of the revised costs. Para 15 from the said counter may be usefully extracted hereunder:

Regarding Para No. 9(v), it is submitted that in this case though no Land Acquisition Proceedings is pending, the cost has been finalized taking into account the prevailing Guideline Value. The land was allotted by the District Revenue Officer/Ramnad in the year 1983 to the then TNPHC Limited. After construction of houses to police personnel, the Board has executed two schemes. In the first phase 179 houses and in the second phase 61 houses. As and when the Board execute scheme in Government land the guideline value is adopted. Accordingly, in this case also the Guideline value is adopted by the Board. In the circumstances explained, there is no arbitrary or exorbitant fixation of land cost done by the Board. Originally the land was allotted to construct houses for police personnels. After construction of houses to police personnel the Board executed the schemes. If the Government insist for payment of higher land cost for the land in which Board schemes have been executed the Board has to make payment of the same. Therefore, the guideline value has been taken into account.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner was not able to explain the right of the petitioner Association to come forward to challenge the said issue on behalf of all allottees and also the further right of the Allottees to question the final cost fixed by TNBH that too in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The learned Counsel for TNHB submitted that most of the allottees are willing to pay the amount fixed by TNHB and get the sale deed executed in their favour at an early date. It was the Association which was preventing the allottees from doing so on the strength of the interim order obtained by them.

The learned Counsel for TNHB also drew the attention of this Court to para:16 of the lease-cum-sale agreement signed between the allottees and the Board and a copy of it was made available in the typed set. Para:16 of Lease-cum-Sale Agreement reads as follows:

Until such time as the lessor finally determines the purchase price and the incidental charges of the property or is enabled to do so and finally determines the purchase price of the property, the lessee shall pay the lessor, subject to Clause 2 and supra, a sum of Rs. 1,060/- (Rupees One Thousand and Sixty Only) per month as provision instalment towards the purchase price of the property, such payments being made on or before the 10th day of each month.

However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kanpur Development Authority Vs. Smt. Sheela Devi and Others etc., . In para:20 of the said judgment, it is held as follows:

We are of the view that each case is to be decided in the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the scheme published/framed and the terms and conditions mentioned in the brochure and/or in the prescribed form of application in the matter of escalation/determination of cost of house/flat. However, cases where there is a limit for fixing the escalation of cost, normally the price of house or flat cannot exceed the limits so fixed. The determination of cost of house/flat or escalation of cost cannot be arbitrary or erratic. The Authority has to broadly satisfy by placing material on record to justify the escalation of cost of a house/flat. Whether the delay was caused by the allottee or the Authority itself is also a factor which has a bearing in determination of the cost of house/flat. The unforeseen cause or the reason beyond control of the Authority in a given case may be another factor to be kept in view.

In the present case, the respondent TNHB has clearly explained the circumstances under which the revised cost was made and coupled with the fact that the petitioner had entered into an agreement agreeing for a revision, the judgment relied on by the learned Counsel has no application to the present case on hand.

The learned Counsel also relied upon a Division Bench of this Court in K.V. Krishnan Vs. The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and The Executive Engineer, Administrative Officer, Tirunelveli Housing Unit, . In paragraph 14 of he said judgment, it is held as follows:

It is evident that the statutory bodies which are engaged in the task of formulating housing schemes and allotting the same to the members of the public have a duty to satisfy the Court, when called upon, that their action was neither arbitrary nor illegal. The fixation of the price for the plots or the houses allotted by them is no exception to this rule. If it is found, after a scrutiny of the data placed before the Court by such a body, that the price fixed by it or the price sought to be revised is a result of arbitrary and illegal action, such action is amenable to correction by this Court.

In the light of the data furnished by TNHB, and the fact that the members of the petitioner Association are having contractual obligations with TNHB, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected M.P.s are also dismissed.