T. Udaykumar vs Ravichandran And Ors

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2025 INSC 510

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5414-5415/2010

T. UDAYKUMAR ..... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

RAVICHANDRAN AND ORS. ..... RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5420-5422/2010

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5423-5425/2010

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5444-5445/2010

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5437/2010

O R D E R

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some

length, we do not find any good ground and reason to interfere with

the reasoning of the High Court and the findings recorded with

regard to the acquisition of the land whereupon the Tamil Nadu

Housing Board1 became the owner of the subject extent of 0.90 cents

of land located in Survey No. 297/1 of Kodambakkam Village,

Mambalam, Guindy Taluk, Chennai.

2. Signature Not Verified We would like to add that the confusion has probably arisen Digitally signed by babita pandey Date: 2025.04.17 on 19:25:26 IST Reason: account of the incorrect mention of the total area of the

1 For short, “TNHB”.

1 acquired land in the order/judgment dated 13.03.1981 passed in

CROP. No. 145/1976. In this order, by mistake, the extent of land

has been written as 4.05 acres instead of 4.95 acres. It is clear

to us, as the awarded compensation mentioned in the order dated

13.03.1981 is ₹62,209.82 (Rupees sixty two thousand three hundred

nine and ninety two paisa only), the figure which matches with the

amount of compensation payable to the then owners, S. Velu Mudaliar

and Rajalakshmi Ammal.

3. Reliance placed by the appellant, T. Udaykumar, on the

Ratification Deed dated 19.01.2004, in our opinion, does not carry

weight because what was ratified thereunder were the sale deeds

executed in the year 1996. This will be of no consequence, as the

sellers were not the owners of the land in question.

4. This is so, once we reject the argument that the land

acquired was not 4.05 acres. In fact, as held above, the total land

acquired was 4.95 acres. We agree with the findings recorded by

the Division Bench of the High Court with regard to the letter

dated 19.01.2001, which has not been accepted.

5. Nevertheless, we must comment that the TNHB is also not

blameless, as it not only allowed the land in question to be

occupied but even gave permission for construction, as a result of

which several flats were constructed, and as many as 54 flats have

been sold to third parties, some of whom were impleaded as

respondent Nos. 12 to 64 before the High Court.

2

6. In fact, the Revenue authority, obviously with the knowledge

of the TNHB, had issued Patta dated 10.06.2004 in the name of the

predecessors from whom, the appellant, T. Udaykumar, had purchased

the property. This Patta was cancelled on 15.06.2006. We uphold

the cancellation of the Patta dated 10.06.2004. Patta was also

issued in favour of the appellant, T. Udaykumar, after he had

purchased the rights from the erstwhile Patta holder, which too has

been cancelled by the cancellation deed dated 15.06.2006.

7. This Court, while issuing notice in the present appeals, vide

order dated 02.11.2007, had directed that the appellant, T.

Udaykumar, shall deposit ₹5 crores within six weeks with the TNHB,

without prejudice to his rights and contentions. This Court had

also directed that, out of 58 flats constructed in the disputed

properties, 54 of which were allotted to the purchasers, who had

also filed appeals before this Court, they would be permitted to

occupy the flats, subject to the condition that they would

undertake to abide by the result of the appeals, and would not

alienate or part with the possession of the respective flat(s).

Another direction given by the same order was that the remaining

four flats, which had not yet been allotted, should remain with the

appellant, T. Udaykumar.

8. It is apparent that the appellant, T. Udaykumar, in violation

of the order passed by this Court, allotted two out of the four

flats to C.S. Jayaraman and Kalavalli Selvaraj. On a pointed

3 question being put, it is accepted that payments for these two

flats were received after the judgment of the High Court dated

05.10.2007 and the order of this Court dated 02.11.2007. We,

therefore, reject the prayer for allotment of these two flats to

the legal representatives or successors-in-interest of C.S.

Jayaraman and Kalavalli Selvaraj. However, they are be at liberty

to enforce their rights and claims against the appellant, T.

Udaykumar, in accordance with law.

9. To balance out equities and keeping in view the fact that the

TNHB itself is partly responsible for this imbroglio, and in order

to protect the interests of innocent flat buyers whose transactions

were completed long ago, we permit the said 54 flat buyers to

continue to occupy and use their flats. They will be treated as

absolute owners thereof. The sum of ₹5 crores deposited by the

appellant, T. Udaykumar, shall be treated as sale consideration

paid to the TNHB for the land on which the flats have been

constructed.

10. In addition, the TNHB will be entitled to sell the remaining

four flats, which have not yet been transferred and sold.

11. We are informed that there may be more flats, which have been

constructed in the property. It will be open to the TNHB to deal

with the said flats and the remaining land, if any, in the manner

it deems appropriate.

4

12. We also make it clear that we have not pronounced on or

examined the question of the rights/claims, if any, of the

appellant, T. Udaykumar, against the persons who had sold or

transferred the land to him.

13. Recording the aforesaid and on the above terms, the appeals

are disposed of.

14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..................CJI.

(SANJIV KHANNA)

..................J. (SANJAY KUMAR) NEW DELHI;

MARCH 27, 2025.

5