The court directed the Housing Board to reassess penal interest charges, emphasizing the need for fairness in interest calculations for the petitioner.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order, dated 19.07.2023 passed by the first respondent - the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, with reference to the order No. Allotment 2(5)/11169/2023 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to waive and refund the interest of Rs.24,17,780/- paid towards the allotment of residential plot in Plot No.104 and Rs.24,17,780/- paid towards the allotment of residential plot in Plot No.105 in Villupuram Maharajapuram Housing Scheme to the petitioner.

2. The brief factual background from which this Writ Petition arises is that the land belonging to the petitioner's father was acquired for the purposes of the respondent board. The total extent of the acquired land is said to be 9,737 sq. ft. The petitioner's father had received compensation and approached the jurisdictional Sub-Court to enhance that compensation. While this case was pending, a compromise was reached, in which the petitioner's father agreed to withdraw the enhancement petition in exchange for an allotment of these plots by the Housing Board. Consequently, the Housing Board allotted a plot by order dated 04.05.2007 in the name of the petitioner's mother, given that the petitioner's father had since passed away. The cost of the plot and related details were included in the communication issued in 2007. Subsequently, a communication dated 09.04.2008 provided calculations regarding the plots, and an amount of Rs.7,21,600/- was directed to be paid as the price. The installments and interest rate of 18% were also specified in that communication. However, by the time this communication was issued on 09.04.2008, the petitioner's mother

3. Subsequently, by communication dated 22.12.2009, the petitioner was directed to produce certain documents regarding the allotment. In 2010, another communication was sent requesting additional documents. A letter dated 29.10.2010 was issued by the Housing Board reminding the petitioner to comply with the earlier correspondence. Another letter was sent on 21.12.2010, followed by yet another communication on 29.12.2010. Ultimately, the petitioner responded via communication dated 07.09.2011, submitting the necessary documents. The requested documents were then provided by the petitioner on 03.10.2011. Afterwards, the petitioner began making representations to the respondents to obtain the allotment in his name. A representation was made on 10.02.2012. In response to this representation, a communication was issued by the Assistant Secretary (Allotments) to the Executive Engineer on 28.01.2013, indicating that the file was long pending and requesting immediate action. A further reminder was issued on 13.06.2013.

4. The petitioner made a representation on 02.08.2013. Again, permission from the board was sought for allotting the plots in the petitioner's name through a communication dated 17.09.2013. A reminder was subsequently issued by the Assistant Secretary on 20.12.2013. Finally, on 09.06.2014, permission was granted, and the name change was approved by the order dated 02.07.2014. Following this, the Assistant Secretary was informed via communication dated 07.07.2014. In light of this, only on 02.07.2014, the petitioner was informed by the Executive Engineer that the allotment was changed in his name and that he was required to make the applications in his name. It is also mentioned in the said communication that he will be informed as to the amounts that have to be paid by him. Accordingly, he was informed by the communication, dated 03.08.2015 to pay the sum of Rs.18,16,942/-. The amount was not immediately paid. A further communication was also issued on 15.05.2017 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.20,78,487/-. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not immediately comply with the requests.

5. The petitioner approached this Court through W.P.No.21972 of 2017. He contends that due t