Case Note & Summary
The case involves intra-court appeals by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board (now Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board) against a common order of a single judge in two writ petitions concerning the allotment and subsequent alienation of four plots at Kolathur, Chennai. The writ petitions were filed by G.Parvathy (mother of original allottee G.Gangadharan) and K.Amutha (sister), seeking cancellation of sale deeds and settlement deeds executed in violation of allotment conditions, and for allotment of the plots to the legal heirs of late Govindan. The single judge allowed the petitions in part, cancelling the impugned deeds and also directing the Board to allot Plot Nos. 49 and 53 to V.Sakunthala, who was neither an allottee nor had a sale deed in her favour. The Board appealed, contending that the circular dated 12.01.2022 relaxing the ten-year alienation restriction had only prospective effect and could not validate past illegal alienations. It also challenged the direction to allot plots to Sakunthala as she had no legal right under the scheme. The respondents argued that the circular removed the bar on alienation, making the transactions valid. The Division Bench noted that plot numbers 48, 49, 53, and 54 were originally allotted or proposed to be allotted to G.Gangadharan and V.Sakunthala. Gangadharan paid the land cost and received sale deeds for plots 48 and 54, while Sakunthala never received any sale deed. The sale deeds contained a condition prohibiting alienation for ten years, with the Board empowered to cancel the allotment and resume possession upon violation. It was undisputed that alienations and settlements had taken place in violation of this condition. The court held that the circular dated 12.01.2022 operated prospectively and could not be applied retrospectively to save alienations already made. Conditions in the allotment order, once agreed upon, are binding. As a result, the cancellations ordered by the single judge (paragraphs 18(i) and (ii) of the impugned order) were upheld. However, the direction to allot plots 49 and 53 to Sakunthala (paragraph 18(iii)) was set aside because she lacked any right, having neither been an allottee nor paid the land cost. The Board was empowered to resume the properties following due process. The appeals were allowed in part and no costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Government Allotments - Binding Nature of Conditions - Conditions in Allotment Order and Sale Deed - No specific Act - Allottee accepted condition of no alienation for ten years; Board can cancel for violation; circular dated 12.01.2022 only prospective and does not validate past violations; Held alienations in violation are illegal and Board can resume possession (Paras 3,5,8-9,11-12). B) Circulars and Retrospectivity - Prospective Operation of Administrative Circulars - Circular Relaxing Alienation Condition - No specific Act - Circular relaxed ten-year restriction for future allotments but cannot apply retrospectively; agreements are binding; Held circular does not save prior alienations (Paras 7-9). C) Judicial Review of Allotment Decisions - Directions Against Public Bodies - No Allotment Without Entitlement - No specific Act - Writ court directed Board to allot plots to person who was neither allottee nor paid land cost; direction infirm and contrary to facts and scheme; Held direction set aside (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether circular dated 12.01.2022 can retrospectively validate alienations done in violation of allotment conditions; Whether the writ Court could direct allotment of plots to a person who was neither an allottee nor had paid land cost
Final Decision
Writ appeals allowed in part. The direction in paragraph 18(iii) of the impugned common order (to allot Plot Nos.49 & 53 and execute sale deeds in favour of V.Sakunthala) was set aside. The remaining reliefs (cancellation of sale deeds and settlement deeds) were confirmed. The Board was empowered to resume properties by due process. No costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Conditions in allotment order are binding
- Circular has prospective effect
- Alienation in violation of conditions is illegal
- Court cannot direct allotment to non-allottee
