Dismissed

S.Noor Mohamed, v. The Principal Secretary to the

Madras HC10 Aug 2015WP/24596/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, a resident of Judge's Quarters in Salem sought a direction to sell the state-owned house property to him based on long-term occupancy. The Court held that mere occupancy cannot confer ownership rights or compel the Government to sell land where no scheme exists.

What did the court decide?

No costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

S.Noor Mohamed, Vs The Principal… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.08.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

W.P.No.24596 of 2015

¶6

S.Noor Mohamed ...Petitioner

¶7

/vs/ 1.The Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Managing Director, TNHB, No.331, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035. 3.The Executive Engineer, Salem Housing Unit, TNHB, Ayanthirumalai Road, Salem 636 008. ...Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to sell the House Property bearing Door No.1, Model House, Judge's Quarters, Yercaud Road, Salem 636 008.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji For Respondents : Mr.S.V.Duraisolaimalai Addl.Government Pleader for R1 Mr.V.Anandhamurthy for R2 & R3

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The petitioner is said to be residing in Door No.1, Model House, Judge's Quarters, Yercaud Road, Salem 636 008 for quite number of years. He made a request to the respondents stating that taking into consideration the long number of years in occupation, the said house may be allotted to him. The respondents 2 and 3 have informed the same to the Government viz., the first respondent. The first respondent in turn informed the petitioner that there is no scheme or policy available to permit the occupant to claim ownership. In other words, it is to be stated that more period of occupancy cannot confer ownership. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking a direction to the first respondent to sell away the house property in favour of the petitioner.

¶13

2.As the decision is a policy one, this Court cannot issue mandamus to the respondents compelling them to sell the property to the petitioner. In the absence of any vested rights for mere period of occupancy, this Court cannot confer such right. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

¶14

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ari To

¶15

1.The Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai 600 009.

¶16

2.The Managing Director, TNHB, No.331, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

3.The Executive Engineer, Salem Housing Unit, TNHB, Ayanthirumalai Road, Salem 636 008.

¶19

1 CC to Mr.V.Anandhamurthy, Advocate SR.No. 41379
1 CC to Mr.C.K.M.Appaji, Advocate SR.No.41430
1 CC to the Government Pleader, SR.No. 41601
W.P.No24596 of 2015
NM (CO)
PSI (26.08.2015)

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Noor Mohamed, v. The Principal Secretary to the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Noor Mohamed, v. The Principal Secretary to the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Saravanan Vs the General Manager Tn

Vela.Palanisamy Vs The Election Commission of

M/S.Hariappa Trading Vs the Commissioner

R.Kala, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

S.Hari Adithya Vs The Chairman

Mr.K.S.Gopalakrishnan Vs The Thasildar