Case Note & Summary
The case arose from intra-court appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board against a common order of a single judge disposing of two writ petitions. The dispute centred on the allotment of four residential plots in Kolathur, Chennai, by the Board. Plot Nos. 48 and 54 were allotted to G. Gangadharan, who paid the land cost and obtained registered sale deeds. Plot Nos. 49 and 53 were proposed for V. Sakunthala, but no formal allotment or sale deed was ever executed in her favour. A key condition in Gangadharan’s sale deed prohibited alienation of the plots for ten years, with violation entitling the Board to cancel the allotment and resume possession. Despite this, settlement deeds and sale deeds were executed in favour of family members and third parties, including a settlement deed based on inheritance from Govindan, who was never an allottee. G. Parvathy (mother of Gangadharan) and K. Amutha (sister) filed W.P. No. 23304 of 2021 seeking allotment of the four plots to the legal heirs of Govindan, and W.P. No. 3209 of 2022 was filed to cancel the allegedly illegal sale and settlement deeds. The single judge, by common order dated 24.06.2024, granted three reliefs: (i) and (ii) cancelling certain alienations and settlement deeds, and (iii) directing the Board to allot Plots 49 and 53 to Sakunthala and execute sale deeds upon payment of the requisite cost. The Board appealed against this entire order, contending that a circular dated 12.01.2022, which relaxed the ten-year alienation condition, operated only prospectively and could not validate past violations, and that Sakunthala had no right to allotment as she was never an allottee. The private respondents argued that the circular permitted all sales irrespective of timing, thereby validating the deeds. The Court carefully examined the circular and held that its language unequivocally indicated prospective effect; it directed that the alienation restriction need not be incorporated in future allotment orders but did not cure prior breaches. The original conditions in the sale deed remained binding. Accordingly, the alienations and settlement deeds were illegal. As for the direction in paragraph 18(iii), the Court noted that Sakunthala had not derived any right from the Board, having never been an allottee or paid the land cost; therefore, the direction to execute a sale deed in her favour was contrary to the scheme and facts. Consequently, the appeals were allowed in part. The Court confirmed the reliefs under paragraphs 18(i) and (ii) of the writ Court order but set aside paragraph 18(iii). The Board was held empowered to resume the properties by following due process, and no costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Allotment of Government Land - Binding Nature of Allotment Conditions - Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Allotment Order/Sale Deed Conditions - Condition prohibiting alienation for ten years was agreed to by allottee; violation empowers Board to cancel allotment and resume possession; sale deeds executed in violation are illegal (Paras 2-3). B) Administrative Law - Circulars and Policy - Prospective Operation of Circular - Circular dated 12.01.2022 - Board circular relaxing condition of ten-year restriction on alienation applies only prospectively to future allotments and does not retrospectively validate past illegal alienations (Paras 8-9). C) Property Law - Rights of Non-Allottee - Entitlement to Allotment - Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Scheme - A person who is neither an allottee nor has paid land cost or obtained a sale deed has no legal right to claim allotment of plot; direction by writ Court to allot to such person is unsustainable (Paras 11-12). D) Writ Jurisdiction - Appellate Review - Scope of Intra-Court Appeal - High Court in appeal under Letters Patent can set aside a direction of single judge that is contrary to facts and scheme conditions while confirming other reliefs consistent with allotment terms (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the circular dated 12.01.2022 has retrospective effect to validate past alienations in violation of allotment conditions; whether the direction to allot plots to V. Sakunthala, who was neither an allottee nor had a sale deed, is sustainable
Final Decision
The writ appeals were allowed in part: reliefs in paragraph 18(i) and (ii) of the writ Court order confirmed; paragraph 18(iii) directing allotment of plots 49 & 53 to V. Sakunthala set aside; Board empowered to resume properties by following due process; no costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Allotment conditions in sale deed are binding
- Circular relaxing alienation condition has prospective effect
- Non-allottee not entitled to allotment
- Violation of condition empowers Board to resume property
