LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/tamil-nadu-housing-board-rep-by-its-managing-director-and-ors-vs-s-ganesan-20250721/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. by its Managing Director and Ors. vs S. Ganesan

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
21 July 2025
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 9631 of 2025
Result
Allowed
Bench
Dipankar Datta
Citation
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1530 : 2025 INSC 889
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1530 : 2025 INSC 889
Issue for consideration
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was justified in directing the sale deed of the plot to be executed in favour of the respondent subject to the fulfilment of the condition stated.
Headnote

Public Property – Occupied by the respondent for over three decades despite defaults in making the balance payment therefor – Long-drawn litigation – High Court directed the sale deed of the plot to be executed in favour of the respondent on payment of Rs.3 crore in three monthly instalments despite noting that the market value of the property was around Rs.4.86 crore – Interference with:

Held: Respondent has been in occupation of the plot for over three decades having paid only Rs.1,97,031/- (Rs.1,19,731/- given as initial deposit and Rs.77,300/- later on) despite he having offered the bid of Rs.4,78,921/- in 1986 – He has been utterly lackadaisical while dealing with the appellant-Board, the High Court as well as this Court – Respondent was given sufficient indulgence by the High Court to make the balance payment for the Plot however, he did not avail of the opportunity so granted and has shown continued apathy and indifference with regard to compliance of judicial orders requiring payment to be made – Notwithstanding non-compliance of this Court’s order dtd.19.05.2025, the right of the respondent to make payment now stands conclusively closed even in terms of the impugned judgment – The Board, being the custodian of public property, holds it in trust for the public and is under a duty to take decisions regarding it which serves the broader public interest best – Indulgences granted to the respondent resulted in loss of revenue to the public exchequer on account of inflation in market value of the property from 1986 till date – Respondent to vacate the Plot and deliver possession of the Plot to the Board. [Paras 28, 29, 32, 33]

Keywords: Tamil Nadu Housing Board · Public Property · Plot · Prime Commercial Plot · Auction · Allotment · Failure to make initial deposit · Allotment cancelled · Defaulter · Chronic defaulter · Defaults in making the balance payment · Custodian of public property · Regular Allotment Order · Re-auction · Public interest · Cancellation order revoked · Direction to execute sale deed · Public auction · Loss of revenue to the public exchequer · Inflation in market value of the property · Sufficient indulgence

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Dipankar Datta, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The first appellant 1 invited sealed bids for disposal of Prime Commercial Plot No. PC-16 at Razaak Garden Road, Arumbakkam, Board, hereafter Chennai - 600106 2. An open auction was conducted on 23 rd September, 1986. The respondent participated in such auction and offered a bid of Rs. 4,78,921/-. He emerged as the highest bidder and was declared as such. 3. Vide letter No. AS 1/11364/1986 dated 23rd December, 1986, the Board communicated acceptance of the respondent’s offer for the Plot with a request to him to pay Rs. 1,19,731/- towards
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →