AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—It is a case, wherein, the God has encroached the land in Survey No. T.S. No. 24/03 and 23/03 measuring a total
extent of 2698 Sq.ft of Housing Board at Konam, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. Thereafter, a pucca construction of Vinayagar Temple is
made. The Temple has been in existence for decades together. The administration of the said Temple intended to purchase the land so as to
regularise the construction. The Housing Board also agreed to sell the lands on which the Temple exists.
On 29.06.1995, the Housing Board fixed the cost of the land at Rs. 28,000/- per ground and wanted the Petitioner to express their willingness
in this regard. According to the Petitioner, though the Petitioner was willing to pay the said sum, for one reason or other, the payment was not
made.
The Housing Board sent a notice dated 28.07.2005, directing the writ Petitioner to pay Rs. 4,34,400/- towards the cost of the land and the
same was determined in the Board meeting in its Resolution No. 6.02. The aforesaid price was fixed as on 31.03.2004. The Petitioner was also
directed to remit the amount on or before 31.03.2004, otherwise the Petitioner was bound to pay interest for belated payment. However, the rate
of interest is not stated therein.
The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the aforesaid order dated 28.07.2005.
Heard both sides.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the first instance has submitted that the impugned notice fixing the cost at Rs. 4,34,400/- as on
31.03.2004 is arbitrary and the Petitioner is entitled to pay only Rs. 28,000/- as fixed in the earlier letter dated 29.06.1995 with interest.
Later, the Petitioner was willing to pay the amount of Rs. 4,34,400/- and the interest that could be reasonably fixed by the Housing Board.
In these circumstances, the Housing Board was directed to come with a work-sheet about the payment of interest. The Housing Board
addressed a letter dated 19.04.2011 to the counsel for the Housing Board stating that the Petitioner has to pay in total Rs. 8,78,283/- including the
interest. It is stated that as per the resolution of the Board dated 16.04.2004, the price was fixed at the rate of Rs. 4,34,400/- per ground as on
31.03.2004 and the balance amount indicates the interest.
Two issues arise for consideration. The first question which arises for consideration is whether the Housing Board is correct in revising the
amount contrary to the impugned notice. Though it is stated in the impugned notice dated 28.07.2005 that the cost of the land was fixed at Rs.
4,34,400/- , it is now stated in the letter dated 19.04.2011, that the cost of the land per ground is fixed at Rs. 4,34,400/- . In my view, the
Housing Board would not do the same, having intimated the temple that the price of the land was Rs. 4,34,400/- . That is, the Housing Board
could not say that the cost of the land per ground is Rs. 4,34,400/- . On the other hand, as per the impugned notice, the cost of the entire land was
fixed at Rs. 4,34,400/- .
Thereafter, the next question that arises for consideration is as to whether the interest calculated by the Housing Board is fair. In the impugned
notice there is no mention about the rate of interest.
Further, in the letter dated 19.04.2011, the Housing Board does not give the worksheet as to how they calculated the interest. The interest
come to Rs. 4,43,883/- . Neither in the first letter dated 29.06.1995 nor in the impugned notice dated 28.07.2005, the rate of interest is indicated.
There is no contract between the parties as to the land cost and the rate of interest. The Housing Board has fixed the land cost and the Petitioner
has no quarrel over the same. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the interest that is charged by the Housing Board is exorbitant.
In my view, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is correct in his submissions that the interest is exorbitantly claimed. It is stated that the
Housing Board has calculated the interest at the rate of 18% on compounding basis. I do not approve the calculation of interest that is made by the
Housing Board.
At this juncture, it is useful to refer to Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for payment of 6% interest at the maximum
for the amount that is due under a decree. I take the amount Rs. 4,34,400/- as the amount due under a decree and direct the Petitioner-Temple to
pay the amount with simple interest at the rate of 6% from 01.04.2004 to 30.04.2011. The interest comes to Rs. 1,84,620/- (Rupees one lakh
eighty four thousand six hundred and twenty only).
At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner is a Temple and it is not a commercial enterprise. The Petitioner
could be given some adequate time to make payment.
In these circumstances, the Petitioner is directed to make the entire payment of Rs. 6,19,020/- (Rs. 4,34,400/- + Rs. 1,84,620/- ) i.e. Six
lakhs nineteen thousand and twenty, within a period of 12 months in four instalments. The Petitioner is directed to make the first installment on or
before 01.07.2011, the second installment on or before 01.09.2011, the third installment on or before 01.01.2012 and the fourth installment on or
before 31.03.2012.
At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the Housing Board submits that this order could not be cited as a precedent. The said submission is
recorded. It is made clear that no encroacher could cite this decision as a precedent for seeking relief.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.