T. Munusamy Vs Ashok Dongra The Managing Director and Aurunagiri S. The Executive Engineer

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

M. Jaichandren, J.@mdashThis contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the Respondents for having committed contempt of Court by their willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on20.12.2004, in W.P. No. 3516 of 2001.

2. The Petitioner is one of the ex-owners, whose properties had been acquired for the Ambattur neighbourhood Housing Scheme. The Petitioner had sought for an allotment of a house site in his favour, under the Ex-owners category, as similarly placed persons had been allotted plots under the Nulambur and Mugappair west housing schemes. However, the request of the Petitioner had been turned down stating that, in terms of the prevailing policy, there was No. possibility of allotting a plot in favour of the Petitioner, as prayed for by him. Therefore, the Petitioner had been constrained to file a writ petition before this Court, in W.P. No. 3516 of 2001, praying for a direction to the authorities of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to allot one H.I.G. Plot at the Nulambur Housing Scheme, under the ex-owners category.

3. At the stage of the hearing of the writ petition, Mr. D. Veerasekaran, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Housing Board, had stated, on instructions, that the Respondent Tamil Nadu Housing Board was prepared to allotone H.I.G. plot in favour of the Petitioner, subject to the price of the plot being fixed, as on the date of the issuance of the allotment order.

4. Based on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Tamil Nadu Housing Board, this Court, by its order, dated 20.12.2004, made in W.P. No. 3516 of 2001, had directed the Respondents in the said writ petition to allot one H.I.G. Plot, as prayed for by the Petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, subject to the usual terms and conditions prevailing as on the said date.

5. In spite of the order passed by this Court, on20.12.2004, the Respondents had failed to allot an H.I.G. Plot to the Petitioner, as directed by this Court. Instead, a review application in Review Application No. 27 of 2009, had been filed before this Court, belatedly, praying that this Court may be pleased to review its earlier order, dated 20.12.2004. However, this Court, by its order, dated16.3.2011, had dismissed the review application stating that No. new grounds had been made out therein for this Court to invoke its review jurisdiction.

6. In the meanwhile, the present contempt petition has been filed by the Petitioner stating that the Respondents had committed contempt of Court by wilfully disobeying the order passed by this Court, on 20.12.2004, made in W.P. No. 3516 of 2001.

7. During the hearing of the contempt petition, the Respondents had been directed by this Court to examine the possibility of allotting a vacant housing board plot, if any, under the Nolambur Phase II-Housing Scheme or under any other scheme prevailing at present.

8. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second Respondent stating that two plots, bearing plot Nos. 315 and316 in Nolambur Phase-II Scheme, are available, as there were No. takers for the said plots. The cost of the plots, worked out by the Respondents, as it prevailed in the year,2004, along with the appropriate interest that would accrue on the said cost, had been shown in the affidavit. It is seen that the cost per ground would be around Rs. 29,72,000/-. The details of the cost, as shown in the affidavit, are as follows:

(Board''s Memo No. C4/23334/2006, dated 6.10.2007)

9. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner had submitted that the Petitioner would pay the costs of the plots, along with the interest accrued there on, as stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the second Respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order to be passed by this Court.

10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, as well as the Respondents, and in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the second Respondent to allot the plots bearing Nos. 315 and 316 of the Nolambur Phase-II Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, at the cost, as shown in paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed by the second Respondent. The second Respondent is being directed to allot both the plots bearing Nos. 315 and 316 of the Nolambur Phase-II Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, to the Petitioner, which are adjacent to each other, in view of the fact that the total extent of both the plots would be about 3680 sq. ft., as each of the plots has an extent of about 1,840 sq. ft. If the Petitioner had been allotted an H.I.G. Plot, as directed by this Court, by its order, dated 20.12.2004, made in W.P. No. 3516 of 2001, he would have been allotted a plot having an area of 3,800sq.ft., approximately. Further, the plots in question had remained with the Respondent Housing Board, till date, as there were No. takers, due to certain inherent defects in them. As such, there would be No. real loss to the Respondent Housing Board if the allotment of the plots is made in favour of the Petitioner.

11. The interest to be paid by the Petitioner on the actual cost of the plots would be calculated till the date of the final payment to be made by the Petitioner. On the Petitioner paying the entire amount due to be paid by him, as shown in the affidavit, the Respondents shall allot the plots to the Petitioner, within a period of four weeks there after. However, if the Petitioner fails to pay the amounts due from him, as stipulated above, it would be open to the Respondent Tamil Nadu Housing Board to cancel the allotment made in favour of the Petitioner, as per the rules applicable to such allotment and by following the procedures established by law.

12. This Court had passed this order, in spite of the inherent limitations of its contempt jurisdiction, only with the view to meet the ends of justice, as the Petitioner had been subjected to grave hardship and mental agony in pursuing his remedies before this Court, and by taking into account the fact that, in spite of a favourable order having been passed by this Court, by its order, dated20.12.2004, made in W.P. No. 3516 of 2001, the Petitioner had been prevented from enjoying the benefits of the said order, till date.

13. In such circumstances, since, No. further orders are necessary, the contempt petition stands closed. No costs.