IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 5.8.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2311 OF 2006 T. Rengasamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Housing Board Anna Salai Nandanam, Chennai- 600 035. 2. The Assistant Revenue Officer KK Nagar Division Tamil Nadu Housing Board Ashok Nagar Complex Chennai – 600 083. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the letter No.A1/TR1/303/91, dated 15.11.2005 issued by the second respondent and directing the respondents to execute and register the sale deed to the petitioner in respect of HIG Plot No.4/1998, Tiru Scheme already allotted to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr. T.D. Selvanbabu For Respondents : Mr. A. Vijayakumar O R D E R The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 15.11.2005, wherein a sum of Rs.75,900/- towards the balance cost as on November, 2005 was demanded with a further direction to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of HIG Plot No.4/1998, Tirur Scheme already allotted to him. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the said plot was allotted by Allotment Order dated 31.7.1991 by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board with certain terms and conditions. The petitioner paid the amount, which was demanded as per the original allotment order and also as per the subsequent demand notice dated 4.8.1994. The petitioner also paid interest, for the belated payment of Rs.2394/-, on 2.9.1994. A further sum of Rs.18,084/- was directed to be paid on or before https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 30.6.2000 towards capitalization as a final cost. The said amount having not been paid, the penal interest and other charges were calculated and a sum of Rs.75,900/- is demanded as per the impugned order. The said order is challenged on the ground that further demand of any amount, after paying the entire amount by the petitioner, is not justified. 3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that, in the allotment order, the allottee was informed about the cost of plot as Rs.1,28,700/- and the initial deposit of Rs.77,220/- was deposited and the balance amount of Rs.51,480/- was directed to be paid in monthly instalments of Rs.1145/- per month for a period of 60 months. The plot was handed over to the petitioner on 11.10.1991. By letter dated 25.2.1994, a sum of Rs.33,456/- was demanded towards the balance cost of the plot with penal interest as on 28.2.1994. The balance cost of the plot was revised due to the calculation of capitalization interest and difference in cost and a sum of Rs.18,084/- as on 30.6.2000 was demanded. Even though the petitioner has paid the earlier demand of Rs.33,456/- with interest, the further demanded amount of Rs.18,084/- was not paid. Therefore, interest and penal interest were calculated and a sum of Rs.75,900/- was demanded. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, having been informed about the final cost as early as on 25.2.1994 and the same having been paid, the respondents cannot demand any further sum from the petitioner and even if some amount is demanded, penal interest for belated payment of any amount is uncalled for. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that in spite of the demand notice issued on 29.5.2000 seeking a sum of Rs.18,084/-, which amount was demanded due to the capitalisation of interest and difference in cost, the petitioner is not justified in challenging the impugned demand notice. 6. The petitioner had paid all dues, except Rs.18,084/-, being the final payment, which was made only on 30.6.2000. It is not the case of the respondents that prior to the said demand notice issued, any earlier demand notice was made and the petitioner has not paid any amount as demanded. A similar issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court, in which I was a party, in the decision reported in 2007 WLR 883 (TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERS V. AVADI THANIRAIVU VEETUMANAI ETC. SANGAM AND OTHERS) it is held that the mistake committed by the officials of the department in not demanding the amount till the end of July, 2001 cannot be put against the allottees and only from the date of demand, further interest can be claimed. In the said case, 12% interest from the date of demand was ordered to be paid and it was specifically held that prior to the said demand, no interest can be demanded. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. Applying the said principle to the facts of this case, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to pay the balance cost of Rs.18,084/- as demanded by demand notice dated 29.5.2000 with 12% interest from 1.7.2000 and on paying the said amount, the respondents shall execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said HIG Plot No.4/1998, Tirur Scheme. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will be in a position to pay the said amount before the second respondent, within a period of two weeks. The said submission is recorded. The second respondent is directed to receive the said amount as ordered and execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said plot within a period of two weeks from the date of payment of the said amount by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of with above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar kb To 1. The Chairman Tamil Nadu Housing Board Anna Salai Nandanam, Chennai- 600 035. 2. The Assistant Revenue Officer KK Nagar Division Tamil Nadu Housing Board Ashok Nagar Complex Chennai – 600 083. 1 cc To Mr. A. Vijayakumar, Advocate, SR.57862 1 cc To Mr. T.D. Selvanbabu, Advocate, SR.57246 W.P.No.2311 of 2006 nm(co) pmk.09.08.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/