The court allowed the appellant to pay Rs.3,00,00,000/- in installments for the execution of the sale deed, despite previous defaults, based on substantial payments made and current market value.

JUDGMENT :

(S.S. SUNDAR, J.)

This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.11.2021 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant in W.P.No.16149 of 2020 filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order of the 4^th respondent dated 19.10.2020 and consequential order dated 14.10.2020 passed by the 2^nd respondent and to direct the 1^st respondent to register the sale deed in favour of the appellant in respect of Plot No.PC-16, MMDA Colony, Arumbakkam, Chennai.

2.A commercial plot bearing Plot No.PC-16 at Arumbakkam Village belongs to the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board was brought to public auction. It is not in dispute that the appellant became the successful bidder in the auction conducted in the year 1986 by the 3^rd respondent and he was allotted the commercial plot for a sum of Rs.4,78,921.95. As per the terms and conditions, the appellant was directed to pay 25% of the cost of plot amounting to Rs.1,19,731/- towards initial deposit as per the provisional order of allotment dated 23.12.1986. However, due to financial constraints, it is stated by the appellant that he was unable to pay the said amount despite time was given. Therefore, the allotment was cancelled by the 2^nd respondent by order dated 01.06.1987.

3.However, the appellant submitted a representation on 27.01.1988 seeking extension of time to pay the initial deposit. The 2^nd respondent, by communication dated 22.11.1993, permitted the appellant to pay the initial deposit along with interest @ 12% p.a. and revocation fee of Rs.5,000/-. It is admitted that the appellant paid a partial amount and agreed to pay the remaining amount with interest as suggested. It is stated by the appellant that, upon partial payment, the 2^nd respondent passed an order dated 04.02.1994 revoking the order of cancellation of allotment.

4.Even after revocation of the order cancelling allotment, it is admitted that the appellant remitted only a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards interest and sought for permission to pay the remaining amount in installments. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent passed an order on 28.02.1994 permitting the appellant to pay the balance cost of the plot within a period of five years on monthly installments of Rs.8,260/- along with interest @ 12% p.a., commencing from March, 1994. It is not in dispute that the appellant has taken possession of the plot in March, 1994. The appellant deposited the balance interest on the initial deposit of Rs.71,772/- and started paying monthly installments. The appellant has constructed a house in the property.

5.Even thereafter, the appellant committed default and the appellant was directed to settle the arrears of monthly installments by an order dated 12.12.1997. By a communication dated 27.02.1998, the appellant was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.77,300/- towards balance cost with interest and penal interest charges on or before 31.03.1998. After payment of monthly installments from 01.06.1994 to 31.03.1998, i.e., a sum of Rs.7,63,403/-, the appellant by a letter dated 07.11.2001 requested the respondent to execute a sale deed in his favour in respect of the subject plot. However, a revised working sheet was prepared by the respondent and the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,26,023/- as on December, 2002. By a communication dated 17.08.2004, issued by the 2^nd respondent, the appellant was informed that the allotment was cancelled as he did not pay the entire amount in time. Subsequent representations of the appellant to reconsider were also rejected and the allotment was cancelled for the reasons stated in the earlier communication dated 17.08.2004.

6.The appellant filed a writ petition in W.P.No.30373 of 2005 challenging the same and obtained an interim order on 17.09.2005 on condition to pay a sum of Rs.21,07,348/- without prejudice to the rights of either parties. However, the 2^nd respondent directed the appellant to withdraw the writ petition for them to co