Supreme Court of India
Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. By Its … vs S.Ganesan on 21 July, 2025
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 889
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9631/2025
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No. 12187/2025]
TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS. … APPELLANTS
VS.
S. GANESAN … RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The first appellant1 invited sealed bids for disposal of Prime Commercial Plot No.
PC-16 at Razaak Garden Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 6001062. An open
auction was conducted on 23rd September, 1986. The respondent participated in
such auction and offered a bid of Rs. 4,78,921/-. He emerged as the highest
bidder and was declared as such.
3. Vide letter No. AS 1/11364/1986 dated 23rd December, 1986, the Board
communicated acceptance of the respondent’s offer for the Plot with a request to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SWETA BALODI
Date: 2025.07.24
17:12:42 IST
Reason:
1
Board, hereafter
2
Plot, hereafter
1
him to pay Rs. 1,19,731/- towards 25% as the initial deposit within 15 days from
date of receipt thereof to enable it issue the Regular Allotment Order.
4. Due to the respondent’s failure to make the initial deposit as aforesaid, the said
allotment was cancelled vide order dated 01st June, 1987.
5. The respondent thereafter made several representations to the Board to permit
him to pay the arrears, which was ultimately allowed, as a special case, vide
letter No. AR2/11364/86 dated 22nd November, 1993. It was stipulated therein
that in addition to the initial deposit amount, the respondent must also pay Rs.
1,01,772/- towards 12% interest on the initial deposit for the period from 23rd
December, 1986 to 31st December, 1993 (85 months) as well as Rs. 5000/-
towards revocation fee on or before 31st December, 1993.
6. Since the respondent had remitted a sum of Rs. 1,19,731/- towards the initial
deposit and Rs. 5000/- towards revocation fee, the Board revoked the
cancellation order vide letter dated 04th February, 1994. This letter admittedly
does not speak about payment of the interest amount.
7. On 28th February, 1994, the Board issued a Regular Allotment Order in favour of
the respondent. He was granted permission to pay the balance amount of Rs.
3,57,191/- on “Hire Purchase Scheme” in monthly instalments of Rs. 8260/- over
a period of 5 years. Clause 4 thereof stipulated consequences of default, including
eviction.
8. Pursuant to the allotment order, the respondent took over possession of the Plot
on 22nd March, 1994 and thereafter, on 12th December, 1997, requested the
Board to inform the balance amount to be paid. The Board vide letter No.
B1/11364/86 dated 27th February, 1998 inadvertently informed the respondent
that he was required to pay Rs. 77,300/- towards the balance cost of the Plot
2
with interest and penal interest as on 31st March, 1998. This amount was duly
paid by the respondent along with interest and penal interest on 24th March,
1998. On 7th November, 2001, the respondent requested the Board to execute
the sale deed in his favour.
9. In due course of time, the Board upon scrutiny of its records detected the error.
Upon preparation of a new working sheet, it found that the respondent was liable
to pay Rs. 15,26,023/- as of December, 2002. A letter to this effect was sent to
the respondent on 16th December, 2002 and the earlier letter dated 27th
February, 1998 was withdrawn.
10. Since the respondent did not pay Rs. 15,26,023/-, the Sites and Services
Committee resolved to cancel the allotment vide resolution No. 24/2004 dated
30th July, 2004. Cancellation was communicated to the respondent vide letter
dated 17th August, 2004.
11. Accepting the request of the respondent, the Board communicated its willingness
to revoke the cancellation of allotment subject to the respondent undertaking
that the pending dues amounting to Rs.20,77,911/- would be cleared. On 19th
November, 2004, the respondent sent a letter undertaking to pay the due amount
of Rs. 20,77,911/- within the next 10 days. As this letter was received by the
Board belatedly, the amount due was recalculated till December, 2004 which was
duly sent to the respondent. The respondent thereafter sent a letter to the second
appellant (Executive Engineer of the Board) that the amount due up to 31st
December, 2004 would be remitted within 10 days from 10 th December, 2004.
On 20th May, 2005, the respondent sent a letter indicating that the order to remit
the payment was not received by the respondent and hence, requested for the
issuance of an order for accepting the money.
3
12. Since the respondent submitted his undertaking letter belatedly, the second
appellant directed the respondent on 8th September, 2005 to surrender the Plot
to the Board.
13. Aggrieved by the letters dated 17th August, 2004 and 8th September, 2005, the
respondent instituted WP No. 30373/2005 before the High Court of Judicature at
Madras3. Vide two interim orders, the High Court granted an interim stay and
injunction as well as a direction to the respondent to make payment of Rs.
21,07,348/- to the second appellant.
14. On 03rd October, 2005, the respondent handed over a Pay Order for a sum of Rs.
21,07,348/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Purasawakkam Branch, Chennai.
Ten days later, the second appellant sent a letter to the respondent and returned
the Pay Order to the respondent in view of the fact that a petition for vacating
stay had been filed and the order of the High Court was awaited.
15. While the respondent sought registration of sale deed on 12 th July, 2010, the
Board sent a letter, on 21st July, 2010, requesting the respondent to withdraw
the case filed by him on condition that if the balance amount is paid, the sale
deed would be registered. On 30th July, 2010, the respondent accordingly
withdrew WP No. 30373/2005 with liberty to file a fresh petition.
16. Aggrieved by the inaction of the Board in executing the sale deed even after the
withdrawal of WP No. 30373/2005, the respondent instituted WP No. 5531/2012
before the High Court challenging the same letters dated 17th August, 2004 and
08th September, 2005 issued by the Board.
3
High Court, hereafter
4
17. The High Court disposed of the said writ petition on 24th February, 2020. The
order dated 8th September, 2005 was quashed and the matter remanded to the
Board for consideration afresh.
18. After exchange of certain correspondence, the respondent made a representation
on 2nd June, 2020 before the Board. He agreed to pay simple interest of 12% and
to pay the amount due and thereafter register the sale deed. No payment was,
however, made.
19. On fresh consideration, the appellant confirmed the cancellation of allotment on
20th October, 2020 and resolved to sell the Plot by way of re-auction.
20. Crestfallen, the respondent once again approached the High Court by instituting
WP No. 16149/2020. It was dismissed vide order dated 30th November, 2021
holding the respondent to be a chronic defaulter. The Board was directed to
refund the amount to the respondent with simple interest, if not refunded earlier,
after statutory deduction, within a period of four weeks. It was also permitted to
sell the Plot through public auction, with the respondent being allowed to
participate.
21. Dissatisfied with the order of dismissal, the respondent carried the same in an
appeal [WA No. 1347/2022] before a Division Bench of the High Court.
22. The Division Bench of the High Court vide the impugned judgment and order
dated 28th January, 2025 allowed the writ appeal and thereby set aside the order
of the Single Judge. Despite noting the statement of the learned Advocate
General that the market value of the property is now around Rs. 4.86 crore, the
respondent was permitted to pay a sum of Rs. 3 crore in three monthly
instalments and upon payment thereof, the sale deed was directed to be executed
in favour of the respondent. The Board assails this order in this appeal.
5
23. Notably, the respondent did not challenge the self-same judgment and order
dated 28th January, 2025; hence, he accepted the same.
24. When the special leave petition was listed before a coordinate bench [of which
one of us (Dipankar Datta, J.) was a member] on 19th May, 2025, this Court
directed that the special leave petition be listed on 21st July, 2025. The order also
required the respondent, in the meanwhile, to tender the amount of Rs. 3 (three)
crore. The appellants were directed to receive the same without prejudice to their
rights and contentions in the special leave petition.
25. Obviously, such an opportunity was given to the respondent to test his bona fides.
26. When the petition is listed before us today, learned counsel for the respective
parties have advanced arguments. We have heard them at some length.
27. Payment, as directed, has not been made by the respondent. On his behalf, Mr.
Mukherjee, learned senior counsel has fervently prayed for an extension of time
to comply with the order dated 19th May, 2025. This, despite the respondent
having been given upwards of two months to comply with the said order.
28. At the outset, we need to take serious exception to the conduct of the respondent.
He has shown an utterly lackadaisical attitude while dealing with the Board, the
High Court as well as this Court. The facts reveal that the respondent has been
given sufficient indulgence by the High Court to make the balance payment for
the Plot. The respondent has, however, not availed of the opportunity so granted.
We do not intend to continue to give leeway to the respondent who has shown
continued apathy and indifference with regard to compliance of judicial orders
requiring payment to be made.
29. The Plot, being a public property, its management should prioritize the greater
public good. The Board, being the custodian of public property, holds it in trust
6
for the public and is under a duty to take decisions regarding it which serves the
broader public interest best. It is to be kept in mind that any auction process by
any public authority should be above reproach, guided by the principles of
transparency, fairness, and reasonableness. The Board is right in stating that the
indulgences granted to the respondent has resulted in loss of revenue to the
public exchequer on account of inflation in market value of the property from
1986 till date.
30. We also do not approve the decision of the High Court in placing the blame on
the Board. True it is, the Board had committed an error in stating that the balance
amount owed by the respondent was Rs. 77,300/- instead of the actual figure.
However, immediately upon payment of the said amount by the respondent, the
Board scrutinised the records and presented the correct figure in a little more
than a year. Moreover, the respondent could not have in good conscience
believed that the remaining amount was only about Rs. 77,000/- when the
original transaction was for Rs. 4,78,921/- and he had admittedly only paid a
fraction of the said amount. His conduct seriously calls into question his bona
fides. Be that as it may, pursuant to the said correction by the Board, the
respondent himself undertook to pay the said balance amount. We fail to see how
the Board can then be considered to be in the wrong in the instant case.
31. Despite such disapproval as above, it is significant to note that even after the
Division Bench had granted the respondent opportunity to clear the amount of
Rs. 3 crore in three equal monthly instalments, only the first instalment was paid
within time whereafter permission of the Board was sought by him to pay the
remaining two instalments at one go. Although the Board had returned the
instalment payment citing its intention to approach this Court, nothing prevented
7
the respondent to show his bona fides by crediting the Board’s account with the
balance Rs. 2 crore within the time stipulated notwithstanding the Board’s
intention to move this Court. In our considered opinion, given the respondent’s
failure to adhere to previous commitments, his offer to pay the balance sum not
in two instalments but in a single instalment was too unrealistic to be taken
seriously and be deemed practicable.
32. We, therefore, intend to put an end to this long-drawn litigation, especially
considering that the genesis of this dispute originated almost 4 (four) decades
ago, in the year 1986. The state of this public property has been in a limbo since
then. The respondent has been in occupation of the Plot for a little in excess of 3
(three) decades having paid only Rs. 1,97,031/- (Rs. 1,19,731/- given as initial
deposit and Rs. 77,300/- later on) despite he having offered the bid of Rs.
4,78,921/- in 1986. It is now high time that he quits and delivers possession of
the Plot to the Board.
33. In these circumstances, notwithstanding non-compliance of this Court’s order
dated 19th May, 2025, the right of the respondent to make payment now stands
conclusively closed even in terms of the impugned judgment and order of the
High Court. While we do not propose to fasten the respondent with the liability to
make payment of any further sum, we grant him time to vacate the Plot within 4
(four) months from date. In default thereof, the Board shall not only be free to
dislodge the respondent with the assistance of police force, but may also recover
Rs. 2,81,890/-, being the balance of Rs. 4,78, 921/-, together with simple
interest @ 6% per annum from the date the respondent was put in possession
till he continues in possession of the Plot, as arrears of land revenue. After
obtaining possession of the Plot together with any structure thereon, the Board
8
may proceed to conduct a re-auction or take any other course of action, as
permitted by law, to further public interest.
34. The appeal stands allowed on the above terms. No costs.
35. Pending applications, if any, stand closed.
………………………………J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
………………………………J.
(N.V. ANJARIA)
NEW DELHI
JULY 21, 2025
9
