LexTAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS. versus S. GANESAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1530 : 2025 INSC 889 Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. by its Managing Director and Ors. v. S. Ganesan (Civil Appeal No. 9631 of 2025) 21 July 2025 [Dipankar Datta* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was justified in directing the sale deed of the plot to be executed in favour of the respondent subject to the fulfilment of the condition stated. Headnotes† Public Property – Occupied by the respondent for over three decades despite defaults in making the balance payment therefor – Long-drawn litigation – High Court directed the sale deed of the plot to be executed in favour of the respondent on payment of Rs.3 crore in three monthly instalments despite noting that the market value of the property was around Rs.4.86 crore – Interference with: Held: Respondent has been in occupation of the plot for over 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 – He has been utterly lackadaisical while dealing with the appellant-Board, the High Court as well as this Court – Respondent was given sufficient indulgence by the High Court to make the balance payment for the Plot however, he did not avail of the opportunity so granted and has shown continued apathy and indifference with regard to compliance of judicial orders requiring payment to be made – Notwithstanding non-compliance of this Court’s order dtd.19.05.2025, the right of the respondent to make payment now stands conclusively closed even in terms of the impugned judgment – The Board, being the custodian of public property, holds it in trust for the public and is under a duty to take decisions regarding it which serves the broader public interest best – Indulgences granted to the respondent resulted in loss of revenue * Author [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1531 Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. by its Managing Director and Ors. v. S. Ganesan to the public exchequer on account of inflation in market value of the property from 1986 till date – Respondent to vacate the Plot and deliver possession of the Plot to the Board. [Paras 28, 29, 32, 33] List of Keywords Tamil Nadu Housing Board; Public Property; Plot; Prime Commercial Plot; Auction; Allotment; Failure to make initial deposit; Allotment cancelled; Defaulter; Chronic defaulter; Defaults in making the balance payment; Custodian of public property; Regular Allotment Order; Re-auction; Public interest; Cancellation order revoked; Direction to execute sale deed; Public auction; Loss of revenue to the public exchequer; Inflation in market value of the property; Sufficient indulgence; Lackadaisical attitude; Apathy and indifference with regard to compliance of judicial orders; Plot to be vacated; Possession of plot to be delivered. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9631 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 28.01.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in WA No. 1347 of 2022 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellants: Ms. G. Indira, P Gandepan, Ms. Amrita Kumari, Ms. Anjali Singh, Ms. Deepa Rathore, Ms. Raniba Pangnila. Adv. for the Respondent: S. Gowthaman. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court 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, 1 Board, hereafter 1532 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports 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 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 add
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.