Disposed

R. Uthayakuamr v. the Managing Director

Madras HC7 Jul 2015WP(MD)/15597/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition for a writ of mandamus seeking directions from a housing board to process a representation and hand over possession of an allotted house plot. The court directed the first respondent to pass suitable orders on merits within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to pass suitable orders on the petitioner's representation dated 19.08.2014 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

R. Uthayakuamr Vs the Managing Director — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :07.07.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P(MD).No.15597 of 2014

R.Uthayakumar

... Petitioner

1.The Managing Director,

¶10

Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

¶11

493, Anna Salai,

¶12

Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.

¶13

2.The Executive Engineer &

¶14

Administrative Officer,

¶15

Madurai Housing Unit,

¶16

Ellis Nagar, Madurai-10.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 19.08.2014 and hand over the possession of the house plot as per the sale deed dated 10.09.2014 which was executed by the second respondent in the petitioner favour within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶19

For petitioner : M/s.A.Chandrakumar For respondents : Mr.S.Nagarajan

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The prayer in this Writ Petition is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 19.08.2014 and hand over the possession of the house plot as per the sale deed dated 10.09.2014 which was executed by the second respondent in the petitioner's favour within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶22

Notice was ordered on 18.09.2014 and no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

¶23

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that inspite of the fact that the petitioner was allotted a house plot by the second respondent and the same was duly registered by the respondents herein, the petitioner could not enjoy the fruits of the said registered sale deed. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition for the relief stated supra.

¶24

Upon notice, the learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that appropriate orders would be passed by the respondents within four weeks.

¶25

When there is no dispute with regard to the allotment of land by the respondents to the petitioner herein, there is no justification for the respondents in keeping the matter pending. More than five years had gone by since the date of registration made in favour https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the petitioners. Still, the petitioner could not see the light of the day. In view of the above, the first respondent is directed to pass

¶26

¶27

suitable orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 19.08.2014, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Sd/The Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 493, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. 2.The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer, Madurai Housing Unit, Ellis Nagar, Madurai-10. +1cc to Mr.A.Chandra kumar, Advocate SR.NO.37387 +1cc to Mr.S.Nagarajan, Advocate SR.nO.36972 ssm

¶29

Sm:PSK:23.07.2015:2P/5C

¶30

W.P(MD).No.15597 of 2014

¶31

07.07.2015

¶32

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

R. Uthayakuamr v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Uthayakuamr v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S B.G. Naidu Sweets, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Muthuraj Vs the Tahsildar

K. Jeyapaul, Vs the District Collector

Sooriyakala, Vs the District Collector

L.Muppidathi, Vs the District Collector

Ameenammal Vs the District Registrar