The writ petitioner is a Trust, registered under the provisions of Indian Trust Act. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order passed by the first respondent dated 06.11.1998 and to direct the respondents to allot the land to the petitioner's trust in Hosur Neighbourhood Scheme Phase IV.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:
The petitioner submitted an application to the second respondent for allotment of a school site in the lay out promoted by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board at Hosur. The request made by the petitioner was favourably considered and by an order dated 25.10.1988, the petitioner was allotted a school site measuring 11 grounds and 2247 sq.ft. This provisional allotment forwarded a regular allotment order dated 28.11.1988, in the said regular allotment order the cost of the land, tentative cost of the building, the initial deposit payable for the plot and the monthly instalments for 10 years for the land cost were mentioned. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment the tentative building cost should be paid in one lump sum within one month from the date of allotment. Since the petitioner failed to pay the building cost as per the terms of allotment within the stipulated time, the show cause notice dated 13.04.1989 was issued calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why that allotment should not be cancelled. This show cause notice was also issued in respect of another property which was allotted to the petitioner in Krishnagiri. However, the present writ petition relates only to the land and building allotted at Hosur.
3. The petitioner submitted that their reply on 15.04.1989 and requested time for payment. Subsequently by an order dated 05.05.1989, the allotment was cancelled invoking the powers under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act. The petitioner challenged the said order of cancellation before this Court by filing writ petition No.6637/1989 the said writ petition was dismissed on 15.06.1989 after a lapse of more than 1 = years. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Government on 28.02.1991 requesting the re-allotment of school site at Hosur. Since the request was not considered, the petitioner filed the writ petition No.10470/1998 before this Court and this Court by order dated 24.07.1998 directed the Government to consider the petitioner's request. The Government by order dated 06.11.1998 rejected the request. This order of rejection is impugned in this writ petition.
4. Mr.R.Parthiban learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the correctness of the impugned order on the ground that it is a non-speaking order as no reason have been given for rejection, that apart the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has started a school near to the said land and if the land is not allotted in favour of the petitioner, it would cause grave prejudice as there are a large number of school students studing in the institution. Though in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, an allegation of malafide has been raised, the same has not been placed for consideration by the petitioner and hence has not taken. On the above grounds the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order of rejection is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside.
5. Mr.A.Vijayakumar learned counsel appearing for the Housing Board by relying upon the counter affidavit filed would contend that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner had been cancelled by invoking in powers under
Section 84 of the Act, by an order dated 05.05.1989, and the writ petition filed challenging the said order in W.P.No.6637 of 1989 was dismissed as early as on 15.06.1989 and at this stage, the question of re-allotment or reconsideration does not arise. Learned counsel would further submit that the cancellation of the allotment was done after issuance of show cause notice and after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. Therefore the order of cancellation having become final, there is no vested right with the petitioner seeking for such re-allotment. The learned counsel would further submit that the Government have issued orders regarding the allotment of school site by changing the pricing and other conditions of allotments vide G.O.Ms.No.622 dated 26.09.1994 and as per the guidelines, the site has to be disposed of by calling for tender-cum- auction and all eligible Educational Organisation including the petitioner can participate in such tender-cum-auction sale. On the above grounds, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Mr.G.Desinghu learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, by placing reliance upon on the counter affidavit filed would contend that the petitioner has no right even for consideration as observed by this Court in earlier writ petition and more particularly when the writ petition filed seeking to quash the cancellation order was dismissed by this Court on 15.06.1989. Further, it is submitted that, since the petitioner failed to pay the monthly instalment, the allotment was rightly cancelled after issuing show cause notice. Further the learned counsel would also contend that the allegation of malafide have been denied in the counter affidavit and the reasons for cancellation is borne out by records and as stated in the order dated 05.05.1989.
7. It is further submitted that the board is an autonomous body and borrowing money from various financial organisations and from Public by way of fixed deposit and the board is repaying these loans with interest and therefore the board would suffer huge revenue loss if the developed lands are not allotted and bearing this mind, the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.622, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 26.09.1994 has been issued. Therefore it is submitted that, it is open to the petitioner to participate in the tender-cum-auction and seek to purchase the land. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating that the guidelines stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.622 dated 26.09.1994 will not apply to the case of hand and the rules which were enforce at the time of allotment during 1988 alone would prevail.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
9. It is not in dispute that the order of allotment issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by order dated 05.05.1989, after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and following the procedure under
section 84 of the Act. This order was questioned by the petitioner before this Court and the said writ petition in W.P.No.6637/1989 was also dismissed on 15.06.1989. Thus, it is to be noted that the order of cancellation had attained finality.
10. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents on after 05.05.1989, no right accrues in favour of the petitioner and more particularly when such order was not interfered by this Court, when the writ petition which was filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Thus, it is to be noted that the petitioner shall be placed on the same pedestal as any other third party who desires to purchase the school site from the respondent's board. In the absence of any vested right in the petitioner, the question of re-consideration or re-allotment of the allotment which was already cancelled does not arise. Therefore on after 05.05.1989 the allotment of the said property has to be made only as per the rules of allotment which are in force as on 1989.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs.M/s.Hindstone, reported in AIR 1981 SC Page 711 has held that the rule in force on the date of disposal of the application shall apply even if there is a long delay since the making of the application.
12. In the instant case after the cancellation of the allotment of the property vests with the board, and the board shall dispose of the same only in accordance with the rule or guidelines which are prevalent and in force on the date of such further allotment. Therefore the contention raised by the petitioner that the guidelines which were in existence at the time of their allotment i.e., during 1988 alone should be followed is not tenable and an in-correct interpretation of the settled legal principle.
13. Further in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been pointed out that the Government has directed that such educational sites shall be disposed of tender cum auction and it is open to the petitioner also to participate in such tender. Hence, I find that there is no illegality in the order passed by the respondent rejecting the request for re-allotment after the original allotment was cancelled and such order of cancellation was upheld by this Court, when the writ petition was dismissed on 15.06.1989. For the above reasons, there are no merits in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs.
pbn To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.Tamil Nadu Housing Board, rep. by its Secretary 331, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035