Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a Division Bench order that had allowed a defaulting auction-purchaser of a Tamil Nadu Housing Board commercial plot to pay Rs 3 crore in instalments and obtain a sale deed, holding that the respondent, who had paid only a fraction of his 1986 bid in over three decades of possession and had not complied with repeated payment orders including this Court's own interim direction, had forfeited any further right to pay; he was directed to vacate the plot within four months.
Issues
- Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in permitting the respondent, a defaulting allottee, to pay Rs 3 crore in three monthly instalments and obtain execution of the sale deed for a public commercial plot.
- Whether the Board could be blamed for the respondent's default because it had once wrongly informed him that only Rs 77,300 remained payable.
- Whether the respondent, having failed to tender Rs 3 crore within the time granted by this Court's order dated 19 May 2025, should be granted further time to pay.
Held
- A public authority holding public property holds it in trust for the public and must manage it to serve the broader public interest; any auction by a public authority must be above reproach and guided by transparency, fairness and reasonableness. Indulgences extended to a defaulting bidder over decades, during which the market value rose, result in loss to the public exchequer. (¶ 29)
- An allottee who had bid Rs 4,78,921 and paid only a fraction of it could not in good conscience have believed that the balance due was only about Rs 77,000; the Board's clerical error, corrected within a little over a year and followed by the respondent's own undertaking to pay the corrected balance, did not put the Board in the wrong. (¶ 30)
- A litigant who has repeatedly failed to comply with judicial orders requiring payment, including an order of this Court giving him over two months to tender the amount, will not be granted further extensions; his offer to pay the balance in a single instalment after defaulting on earlier commitments was too unrealistic to be taken seriously. (¶¶ 27, 28, 31)
- Given that the dispute originated in 1986 and the respondent had occupied the plot for over three decades having paid only Rs 1,97,031, his right to make payment stood conclusively closed, even in terms of the High Court's impugned order, and he must deliver possession to the Board. (¶¶ 32, 33)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Division Bench's judgment dated 28 January 2025 set aside. The respondent's right to pay stands closed; he is granted four months to vacate the plot, failing which the Board may evict him with police assistance and recover Rs 2,81,890 (balance of the bid) with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of possession till he remains in possession, as arrears of land revenue. The Board may thereafter re-auction the plot. No costs; pending applications closed.