EXECUTIVE ENGINEER And ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, TNHB vs PUGALUM PERUMAL

THE complainant/1st respondent, who was allotted Plot No. 86 in the Palayamkottai Neighbourhood Scheme Phase-I, has filed this complaint before the lower Forum for a direction to the opposite parties to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant for the plot and construction made in Plot No. 86, Palayamkottai Neighbourhood Scheme and allotted to the complainant.

THE lower Forum accepted the case of the complainant and directed the first opposite party to execute the sale deed. Aggrieved by the order, the present appeal has been filed by the 1st opposite party/appellant.

The admitted facts are as follows. The complainant was allotted Plot No. 86 on 3.11.1978 under the allotment Order, Ex. A1. The complainant paid entire costs and took possession of the plot on 10.1.1984. After taking possession, the complainant applied to the first opposite party for the execution of the sale deed in his favour relating to the said property. Since there was no response, the complainant issued notice under Ex. A2, to which a reply has been sent by the first opposite party under Ex. A3.

THE complaint was presented before the lower Forum in the year 1998. THE reason given by the first opposite party for non-execution of the sale deed is that there was a Vigilance case pending against the complainant and that the related file was sent to the Vigilance Department and that it has not been returned by the said department to the first opposite party and, therefore, they are not in a position to execute the sale deed. This excuse trotted out by the first opposite party, namely, the appellant herein, is, in our opinion, not tenable in law. Though possession has been handed over on 10.1.1984 and in spite of the notice sent by the complainant, there is nothing to show that any serious or sincere steps were taken by the first opposite party for obtaining the same. Even assuming that there was a vigilance inquiry, from the very records produced we find that it was over in the year 1995. Much time has elapsed since then. If the Vigilance Deptt. fails to return the document, on that account a genuine purchaser cannot be made to suffer. Having received the money and handed over possession, it is the duty of the first opposite party/appellant to execute a document to make perfect the title of the complainant. Thus, there is a failure on the part of the first opposite party/appellant in rendering service. Nothing prevented the appellant from maintaining a copy of all the papers that was sent to the Vigilance Department so that they could have reconstructed the necessary particulars for executing the sale deed in favour of the complainant. In fact, that is the procedure adumbrated in the Office Manual which has been given up in this case by the first opposite party. THErefore, in such circumstances, we are of the view that the objetions of the appellant to the execution of the sale deed on the ground of non-availability of file is puerile and cannot stand the test of reasonableness or legality. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 250/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.