Inordinate delay and failure to comply with conditions of revocation despite multiple opportunities justify dismissal of property allotment claims

This writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent assails the order dated 12.6.2024 passed in W.P.No.24299 of 2022, whereby the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

2. Brief facts are that the appellant was issued allotment order for Plot No.2/386 valued at Rs.83,400/- payable in 60 months by equated monthly installments at Rs.862/-. The appellant paid a sum of Rs.52,085/- Thereafter, the appellant had committed default and the allotment order was cancelled on 17.8.2010. The appellant made an application for revocation of the cancellation of allotment order. The request of the appellant was considered and cancellation of allotment order was revoked vide communication dated 17.4.2013, on condition that the cost of the plot fixed at Rs.2,07,365/- with penalty at 50% on fixed cost as per the Revocation Committee Order is paid. However, the appellant has failed to comply with the said condition. After an inordinate delay of about 12 years, the appellant has made a representation and the same was rejected on 23.3.2022. Being aggrieved, the appellant had filed the writ petition.

3. Learned Single observed that the first allotment was cancelled on 17.8.2010. Thereafter, application for revocation of cancellation of allotment was considered subject to payment of certain amount, which the appellant has failed to comply. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition, the appellant was again granted one chance to make payment as per the present guideline value with interest from the date of arrears. In case the appellant makes payment, the fifth respondent was directed to accept the same and execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the grounds raised in the writ petition, particularly, the fact that deprivation of the right to property by the authority without following due process of law amounts to gross violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Further, order of the fifth respondent is a non-speaking order. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board submits that in spite of several opportunities granted to the appellant at various point of time, the appellant had failed to deposit the amount. Moreover, the appellant has not disclosed valid reason for not approaching this Court within the time. The writ petition has been filed after 14 years of the cancellation of the allotment order.

6. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.

7. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, came to the conclusion that there is inordinate delay in complying with the conditions stipulated in the revocation order. Moreover, it is observed that after several years thereafter, the appellant sent a representation to the authorities once again seeking revocation of the order of cancellation and that was rejected by the impugned order in the writ petition. Even after granting one chance to pay the present guideline value of the subject property, the appellant has failed to pay the same and has preferred this appeal.

8. We, therefore, find that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The writ appeal is bereft of substance and, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.