AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE petitioner/complainant applied to the opposite party, Tamil Nadu State Housing Board, for allotment of higher income type A house site with a house constructed on it. As per the scheme in which the complainant had applied, type A houses were to be constructed on the site measuring 250.54 sq. mtr. whereas type B houses were to be constructed on site measuring 124.15 sq. mtr. The opposite party issued an allotment letter to the complainant allotting house No.H8 under HIG -A category to him in Nagapattinam Neighbourhood Scheme for Rs.5,32,400/ -. The complainant also entered into a lease -cum -sale agreement dated 20 -07 -1999 with the Board and eventually possession of the site with house was also handed over to him.
A notice which is available on page 41 -45 of our paper book, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant, was then sent on 02 -06 -2000 to the opposite party. The grievance of the complainant in the aforesaid notice was that though he had applied for allotment of a house on site measuring 250.54 sq. mtr. he had been allotted a house site measuring 197.71 sq. mtr. It was also stated in the said notice that the complainant had received a communication dated 04 -05 -2000 from the Board alleging therein that he had committed tress pass over site MG II -12 to the extent of 133.78 sq.mtr. with a further direction to vacate the same within a week of the receipt of the notice. It is, thus, evident that according to the respondent/opposite party, though the complainant was allotted and given possession of the site measuring 197.71 sq. mtr. he had committed tress pass of land measuring 133.78 sq.mtr. However, the said communication dated 4 -5 -2000 received from opposite party has not been filed by the petitioner either before us or before the District Forum.
A perusal of the reply filed by the opposite party before the District Forum would show that as per the approved layout plan the area of plot No.HA 8 allotted to the complainant was 197.71 sq. mtr. and not 250.54 sq. mtr. A perusal of the lease agreement dated 20 -07 -1999 executed between the parties would clearly show that the area of the site allotted to the complainant was recorded as 197.71 sq. mtr. in the schedule to the said agreement.
IN our opinion, having accepted the allotment of plot measuring 197.71 sq. mtr. by executing the lease -cum -sale agreement dated 20 -07 -2009 the complainant/petitioner is precluded from raising any objection with respect to the area of the aforesaid site particularly when there is no document on record to show that the lease agreement was executed by him under protest. In fact there is no documentary evidence of the complainant of having even written to the opposite party immediately after 20 -07 -1999, disputing the area mentioned in the lease -cum -sale agreement. If the site measuring 197.71 sq. mtr. was not acceptable to the complainant, he ought to have rejected it, instead of accepting its possession, without protest.
IN fact, it appears to us from the averments made by the complainant in the notice sent to the opposite party that he had encroached upon land measuring 133.78 sq. mtr. for which a notice had to be issued to him by the board asking to vacate the aforesaid portion.
IN our view considering that the complainant/petitioner by executing the lease -cum -sale agreement dated 20 -07 -1999 accepted allotment of site measuring 197.71 sq. mtr. he is precluded from seeking any compensation from the opposite party on account of his having been allotted the site less than 250.54 sq.mtr.
FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no good reason to interfere with the view taken by the State Commission and accordingly dismiss the revision petition.