TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS.versusS. GANESAN

                 [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1530 : 2025 INSC 889

               Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. by its
                    Managing Director and Ors.
                                v.
                           S. Ganesan
                       (Civil Appeal No. 9631 of 2025)
                                  21 July 2025
                [Dipankar Datta* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High
       Court was justified in directing the sale deed of the plot to be
       executed in favour of the respondent subject to the fulfilment of
       the condition stated.

                                   Headnotes†
       Public Property – Occupied by the respondent for over three
       decades despite defaults in making the balance payment
       therefor – Long-drawn litigation – High Court directed the sale
       deed of the plot to be executed in favour of the respondent on
       payment of Rs.3 crore in three monthly instalments despite
       noting that the market value of the property was around Rs.4.86
       crore – Interference with:
       Held: Respondent has been in occupation of the plot for over three
       decades having paid only Rs.1,97,031/- (Rs.1,19,731/- given as
       initial deposit and Rs.77,300/- later on) despite he having offered
       the bid of Rs.4,78,921/- in 1986 – He has been utterly lackadaisical
       while dealing with the appellant-Board, the High Court as well as
       this Court – Respondent was given sufficient indulgence by the High
       Court to make the balance payment for the Plot however, he did
       not avail of the opportunity so granted and has shown continued
       apathy and indifference with regard to compliance of judicial orders
       requiring payment to be made – Notwithstanding non-compliance
       of this Court’s order dtd.19.05.2025, the right of the respondent to
       make payment now stands conclusively closed even in terms of
       the impugned judgment – The Board, being the custodian of public
       property, holds it in trust for the public and is under a duty to take
       decisions regarding it which serves the broader public interest best –
       Indulgences granted to the respondent resulted in loss of revenue

* Author
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                              1531

    Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. by its Managing Director and Ors. v.
                              S. Ganesan

       to the public exchequer on account of inflation in market value of
       the property from 1986 till date – Respondent to vacate the Plot and
       deliver possession of the Plot to the Board. [Paras 28, 29, 32, 33]

                                   List of Keywords
       Tamil Nadu Housing Board; Public Property; Plot; Prime Commercial
       Plot; Auction; Allotment; Failure to make initial deposit; Allotment
       cancelled; Defaulter; Chronic defaulter; Defaults in making
       the balance payment; Custodian of public property; Regular
       Allotment Order; Re-auction; Public interest; Cancellation order
       revoked; Direction to execute sale deed; Public auction; Loss of
       revenue to the public exchequer; Inflation in market value of the
       property; Sufficient indulgence; Lackadaisical attitude; Apathy and
       indifference with regard to compliance of judicial orders; Plot to
       be vacated; Possession of plot to be delivered.

                                  Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9631 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 28.01.2025 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Madras in WA No. 1347 of 2022

                                Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellants:
       Ms. G. Indira, P Gandepan, Ms. Amrita Kumari, Ms. Anjali Singh,
       Ms. Deepa Rathore, Ms. Raniba Pangnila.
       Adv. for the Respondent:
       S. Gowthaman.

                         Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                      Judgment

       Dipankar Datta, J.

1.     Leave granted.
2.     The first appellant 1 invited sealed bids for disposal of Prime
       Commercial Plot No. PC-16 at Razaak Garden Road, Arumbakkam,


1     Board, hereafter
1532                                                           [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       Chennai - 600106 2. An open auction was conducted on 23 rd
       September, 1986. The respondent participated in such auction and
       offered a bid of Rs. 4,78,921/-. He emerged as the highest bidder
       and was declared as such.
3.     Vide letter No. AS 1/11364/1986 dated 23rd December, 1986, the
       Board communicated acceptance of the respondent’s offer for the
       Plot with a request to him to pay Rs. 1,19,731/- towards 25% as the
       initial deposit within 15 days from date of receipt thereof to enable
       it issue the Regular Allotment Order.
4.     Due to the respondent’s failure to make the initial deposit as aforesaid,
       the said allotment was cancelled vide order dated 01st June, 1987.
5.     The respondent thereafter made several representations to the
       Board to permit him to pay the arrears, which was ultimately
       allowed, as a special case, vide letter No. AR2/11364/86 dated 22nd
       November, 1993. It was stipulated therein that in addition to the
       initial deposit amount, the respondent must also pay Rs. 1,01,772/-
       towards 12% interest on the initial deposit for the period from 23rd
       December, 1986 to 31st December, 1993 (85 months) as well as
       Rs. 5000/- towards revocation fee on or before 31st December, 1993.
6.     Since the respondent had remitted a sum of Rs. 1,19,731/- towards
       the initial deposit and Rs. 5000/- towards revocation fee, the Board
       revoked the cancellation order vide letter dated 04th February, 1994.
       This letter admittedly does not speak about payment of the interest
       amount.
7.     On 28th February, 1994, the Board issued a Regular Allotment Order
       in favour of the respondent. He was granted permission to pay the
       balance amount of Rs. 3,57,191/- on “Hire Purchase Scheme” in
       monthly instalments of Rs. 8260/- over a period of 5 years. Clause
       4 thereof stipulated consequences of default, including eviction.
8.     Pursuant to the allotment order, the respondent took over possession
       of the Plot on 22nd March, 1994 and thereafter, on 12th December, 1997,
       requested the Board to inform the balance amount to be paid.
       The Board vide letter No. B1/11364/86 dated 27th February, 1998
       inadvertently informed the respondent that he was required to pay



2    Plot, hereafter
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                        1533

    Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. by its Managing Director and Ors. v.
                              S. Ganesan

       Rs. 77,300/- towards the balance cost of the Plot with interest and
       penal interest as on 31st March, 1998. This amount was duly paid by
       the respondent along with interest and penal interest on 24th March,
       1998. On 7th November, 2001, the respondent requested the Board
       to execute the sale deed in his favour.
9.     In due course of time, the Board upon scrutiny of its records detected
       the error. Upon preparation of a new working sheet, it found that the
       respondent was liable to pay Rs. 15,26,023/- as of December, 2002.
       A letter to this effect was sent to the respondent on 16th December,
       2002 and the earlier letter dated 27th February, 1998 was withdrawn.
10. Since the respondent did not pay Rs. 15,26,023/-, the Sites and
    Services Committee resolved to cancel the allotment vide resolution
    No. 24/2004 dated 30th July, 2004. Cancellation was communicated
    to the respondent vide letter dated 17th August, 2004.
11. Accepting the request of the respondent, the Board communicated
    its willingness to revoke the cancellation of allotment subject to
    the respondent undertaking that the pending dues amounting
    to Rs.20,77,911/- would be cleared. On 19th November, 2004,
    the respondent sent a letter undertaking to pay the due amount
    of Rs. 20,77,911/- within the next 10 days. As this letter was
    received by the Board belatedly, the amount due was recalculated
    till December, 2004 which was duly sent to the respondent.
    The respondent thereafter sent a letter to the second appellant
    (Executive Engineer of the Board) that the amount due up to
    31st December, 2004 would be remitted within 10 days from 10th
    December, 2004. On 20th May, 2005, the respondent sent a letter
    indicating that the order to remit the payment was not received by
    the respondent and hence, requested for the issuance of an order
    for accepting the money.
12. Since the respondent submitted his undertaking letter belatedly, the
    second appellant directed the respondent on 8th September, 2005
    to surrender the Plot to the Board.
13. Aggrieved by the letters dated 17 th August, 2004 and 8 th
    September, 2005, the respondent instituted WP No. 30373/2005
    before the High Court of Judicature at Madras3. Vide two interim
    orders, the High Court granted an interim stay and injunction as well


3     High Court, hereafter
1534                                                     [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     as a direction to the respondent to make payment of Rs. 21,07,348/-
     to the second appellant.
14. On 03rd October, 2005, the respondent handed over a Pay Order
    for a sum of Rs. 21,07,348/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank,
    Purasawakkam Branch, Chennai. Ten days later, the second appellant
    sent a letter to the respondent and returned the Pay Order to the
    respondent in view of the fact that a petition for vacating stay had
    been filed and the order of the High Court was awaited.
15. While the respondent sought registration of sale deed on 12th July,
    2010, the Board sent a letter, on 21st July, 2010, requesting the
    respondent to withdraw the case filed by him on condition that if the
    balance amount is paid, the sale deed would be registered. On 30th
    July, 2010, the respondent accordingly withdrew WP No. 30373/2005
    with liberty to file a fresh petition.
16. Aggrieved by the inaction of the Board in executing the sale deed
    even after the withdrawal of WP No. 30373/2005, the respondent
    instituted WP No. 5531/2012 before the High Court challenging the
    same letters dated 17th August, 2004 and 08th September, 2005
    issued by the Board.
17. The High Court disposed of the said writ petition on 24th February,
    2020. The order dated 8th September, 2005 was quashed and the
    matter remanded to the Board for consideration afresh.
18. After exchange of certain correspondence, the respondent made a
    representation on 2nd June, 2020 before the Board. He agreed to
    pay simple interest of 12% and to pay the amount due and thereafter
    register the sale deed. No payment was, however, made.
19. On fresh consideration, the appellant confirmed the cancellation of
    allotment on 20th October, 2020 and resolved to sell the Plot by way
    of re-auction.
20. Crestfallen, the respondent once again approached the High
    Court by instituting WP No. 16149/2020. It was dismissed vide
    order dated 30th November, 2021 holding the respondent to be a
    chronic defaulter. The Board was directed to refund the amount to
    the respondent with simple interest, if not refunded earlier, after
    statutory deduction, within a period of four weeks. It was also
    permitted to sell the Plot through public auction, with the respondent
    being allowed to participate.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                     1535

 Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. by its Managing Director and Ors. v.
                           S. Ganesan

21. Dissatisfied with the order of dismissal, the respondent carried the
    same in an appeal [WA No. 1347/2022] before a Division Bench of
    the High Court.
22. The Division Bench of the High Court vide the impugned judgment
    and order dated 28th January, 2025 allowed the writ appeal and
    thereby set aside the order of the Single Judge. Despite noting the
    statement of the learned Advocate General that the market value
    of the property is now around Rs. 4.86 crore, the respondent was
    permitted to pay a sum of Rs. 3 crore in three monthly instalments and
    upon payment thereof, the sale deed was directed to be executed in
    favour of the respondent. The Board assails this order in this appeal.
23. Notably, the respondent did not challenge the self-same judgment
    and order dated 28th January, 2025; hence, he accepted the same.
24. When the special leave petition was listed before a coordinate
    bench [of which one of us (Dipankar Datta, J.) was a member] on
    19th May, 2025, this Court directed that the special leave petition be
    listed on 21st July, 2025. The order also required the respondent,
    in the meanwhile, to tender the amount of Rs. 3 (three) crore. The
    appellants were directed to receive the same without prejudice to
    their rights and contentions in the special leave petition.
25. Obviously, such an opportunity was given to the respondent to test
    his bona fides.
26. When the petition is listed before us today, learned counsel for the
    respective parties have advanced arguments. We have heard them
    at some length.
27. Payment, as directed, has not been made by the respondent. On his
    behalf, Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior counsel has fervently prayed
    for an extension of time to comply with the order dated 19th May,
    2025. This, despite the respondent having been given upwards of
    two months to comply with the said order.
28. At the outset, we need to take serious exception to the conduct of
    the respondent. He has shown an utterly lackadaisical attitude while
    dealing with the Board, the High Court as well as this Court. The
    facts reveal that the respondent has been given sufficient indulgence
    by the High Court to make the balance payment for the Plot. The
    respondent has, however, not availed of the opportunity so granted.
1536                                                       [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     We do not intend to continue to give leeway to the respondent who has
     shown continued apathy and indifference with regard to compliance
     of judicial orders requiring payment to be made.
29. The Plot, being a public property, its management should prioritize
    the greater public good. The Board, being the custodian of public
    property, holds it in trust for the public and is under a duty to take
    decisions regarding it which serves the broader public interest best. It
    is to be kept in mind that any auction process by any public authority
    should be above reproach, guided by the principles of transparency,
    fairness, and reasonableness. The Board is right in stating that the
    indulgences granted to the respondent has resulted in loss of revenue
    to the public exchequer on account of inflation in market value of
    the property from 1986 till date.
30. We also do not approve the decision of the High Court in placing the
    blame on the Board. True it is, the Board had committed an error
    in stating that the balance amount owed by the respondent was
    Rs. 77,300/- instead of the actual figure. However, immediately upon
    payment of the said amount by the respondent, the Board scrutinised
    the records and presented the correct figure in a little more than a
    year. Moreover, the respondent could not have in good conscience
    believed that the remaining amount was only about Rs. 77,000/- when
    the original transaction was for Rs. 4,78,921/- and he had admittedly
    only paid a fraction of the said amount. His conduct seriously calls
    into question his bona fides. Be that as it may, pursuant to the said
    correction by the Board, the respondent himself undertook to pay
    the said balance amount. We fail to see how the Board can then be
    considered to be in the wrong in the instant case.
31. Despite such disapproval as above, it is significant to note that even
    after the Division Bench had granted the respondent opportunity to
    clear the amount of Rs. 3 crore in three equal monthly instalments,
    only the first instalment was paid within time whereafter permission
    of the Board was sought by him to pay the remaining two instalments
    at one go. Although the Board had returned the instalment payment
    citing its intention to approach this Court, nothing prevented the
    respondent to show his bona fides by crediting the Board’s account
    with the balance Rs. 2 crore within the time stipulated notwithstanding
    the Board’s intention to move this Court. In our considered opinion,
    given the respondent’s failure to adhere to previous commitments,
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                     1537

 Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. by its Managing Director and Ors. v.
                           S. Ganesan

     his offer to pay the balance sum not in two instalments but in a
     single instalment was too unrealistic to be taken seriously and be
     deemed practicable.
32. We, therefore, intend to put an end to this long-drawn litigation,
    especially considering that the genesis of this dispute originated
    almost 4 (four) decades ago, in the year 1986. The state of this
    public property has been in a limbo since then. The respondent
    has been in occupation of the Plot for a little in excess of 3 (three)
    decades having paid only Rs. 1,97,031/- (Rs. 1,19,731/- given as
    initial deposit and Rs. 77,300/- later on) despite he having offered
    the bid of Rs. 4,78,921/- in 1986. It is now high time that he quits
    and delivers possession of the Plot to the Board.
33. In these circumstances, notwithstanding non-compliance of this
    Court’s order dated 19th May, 2025, the right of the respondent to
    make payment now stands conclusively closed even in terms of the
    impugned judgment and order of the High Court. While we do not
    propose to fasten the respondent with the liability to make payment
    of any further sum, we grant him time to vacate the Plot within 4
    (four) months from date. In default thereof, the Board shall not only
    be free to dislodge the respondent with the assistance of police
    force, but may also recover Rs. 2,81,890/-, being the balance of
    Rs. 4,78, 921/-, together with simple interest @ 6% per annum from
    the date the respondent was put in possession till he continues in
    possession of the Plot, as arrears of land revenue. After obtaining
    possession of the Plot together with any structure thereon, the Board
    may proceed to conduct a re-auction or take any other course of
    action, as permitted by law, to further public interest.
34. The appeal stands allowed on the above terms. No costs.
35. Pending applications, if any, stand closed.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey