State administrative bodies must communicate a clearly quantified payment demand based strictly on applicable regulations and statutory provisions when restoring allotment orders, ensuring procedural fairness for the allottee while retaining legal options for recovery upon default.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

The instant writ appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 27.11.2024.

2.The writ petition was filed challenging the order of the appellant cancelling the allotment order. The writ petitioner participated in the open auction conducted by the Housing Board with regard to Public Purpose Site No.1 and he became the successful bidder for a sum of Rs.96,46,000/-. Later, the confirmation of allotment order was issued on 13.05.2015 with a direction to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.33,76,000/- on or before 08.06.2015 and another sum of Rs.48,23,000/- on or before 29.06.2015. According to the petitioner, he has paid a sum of Rs.32,60,000/- up to 31.03.2015. Later, since the condition has not been complied, the allotment order has been cancelled. The writ petitioner once again had given a representation dated 29.02.2016 seeking revocation of cancellation of allotment order. The said representation was considered by the Housing Board and by an order dated 23.10.2018, the Board had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.90,79,750/- within a period of two months. Without complying with the said condition, the writ petitioner challenged the communication dated 23.10.2018 by filing the writ petition.

3.Before the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner took a categorical stand that he was ready and willing to comply with the conditions imposed by the Housing Board and to pay the amount demanded. Taking note of the said submission, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing the writ petitioner to remit the amount payable together with applicable interest. Aggrieved by the said order, the Housing Board has preferred the present writ appeal. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the respondent is still willing to pay the amount as may be quantified by the appellant Housing Board.

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

6.It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the site had already been allotted in favour of the respondent and that the order cancelling the allotment was passed as early as in the year 2018. The amount payable had also been determined during the said period.

7.Though the appellant has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met by directing the appellant Housing Board to recalculate the amount payable by the respondent strictly in accordance with the applicable Board Regulations, norms and statutory provisions governing such allotments. The appellant shall communicate the quantified amount to the respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

8.On such communication, the respondent shall pay the said entire amount within a period of one month thereafter. In the event of failure on the part of the respondent to remit the amount within the stipulated period, it is open to the appellant Housing Board to proceed in accordance with law, including forfeiture of the amount already deposited by the respondent.

9.With the above modification and directions, the writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.