Dismissed

P.Jayakodi v. the Secretary to Govt. of

Madras HC10 Jan 2017WP/2637/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking allocation of a house site. The court held that the impugned letter was merely communication. Since the predecessor orders in the petitioner's favor were not successfully challenged and the site was re-allotted to another under GO, the petitioner had no right to set aside the subsequent order.

What the court decided

AI extract

P.Jayakodi Vs the Secretary to Govt. of — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.01.2017

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P. No.2637 of 2011 and M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011

¶6

P. Jayakodi ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government
of Tamil Nadu
Housing and Urban Development
Department, Secretariat
Fort St. George
Chennai – 600 009
2. The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Anna Salai, Nandanam
Chennai -600 035.
3. The Executive Engineer cum
Administrative Officer
Housing Board Division
Salem, Salem District.
4. Mr. Prabhakar .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
the letter No.R6/3883/10 dated 19.11.2010 of the third
respondent and addressed to the petitioner, quash the same and
direct the respondents 1 to 3 to allot house site No.6 in Phase
No.III in Namakkal Kondichettypatty to the petitioner as ordered
in G.O. 2(D) No. 646 Housing and Urban Development (Housing
Board 5(1) Department) dated 26.10.2010 or in the alternative
directing the respondents to allot house site No.21 in the same
scheme to the petitioner and pass further orders.

¶7

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

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr. C. Johnson

¶9

For Respondents :Mr. S. Diwakar

¶10

Spl. Government Pleader for R1 Mr.V.Yuvakumar for TNHB for R2&3

¶11

R4 – Dismissed.

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the letter No.R6/3883/10 dated 19.11.2010 of the third respondent and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to allot house site No.6 in Phase No.III in Namakkal Kondichettypatty to the petitioner as ordered in G.O. 2(E) No. 646 Housing and Urban Development (Housing Board 5(1) Department) dated 26.10.2010 or in the alternative to allot house site No.21 in the same scheme to the petitioner.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was allotted a house site bearing No.6 in MIG III in Namakkal Kondichettypatty Scheme vide G.O. 2D. 646 (Housing and Urban Development HB-5 (1) Department dated 26.10.2010. It is stated that when the petitioner went to remit one third cost of the property, she was informed by the respondent office that the same has already been allotted to the 4^th respondent and they refused to receive the money. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2^nd respondent issued a Memo in Allotment No.3(1)/44890/2010 dated 03.11.2010 enclosing G.O. 646 dated 26.10.2010 and thereby instructed the petitioner to strictly follow the allotment conditions as prescribed by the 2^nd respondent and that the petitioner also followed the same. Subsequently, on 19.11.2010 the 3^rd respondent had issued letter No.R6/3883/10 stating that the house site No.6 had been allotted to the 4^th respondent under the Government Quota, without referring the earlier Government order. Hence, the petitioner submitted a letter to the 2^nd respondent on 20.12.2010, requesting to allot her another house No.H-21 in the same site, if the house site No.6 has been allotted to the 4^th respondent. However, no action has been taken on her letter and so the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the aforesaid prayer.

¶15

Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2^nd respondent and Adoption counter by the 1^st respondent. Reiterating the reply stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, learned counsel for the Housing Board submitted that originally the house site No.M6 in Kondichettypatty

¶16

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

¶17

Namakkal Phase III Scheme was allotted in favour of

¶18

the 4^th respondent Prabhakaran, under Government discretionary quota, as per Government Order in G.O.2D No.1460 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 12.12.2008. Since the 4^th respondent failed to make the payment, a cancellation order was sent to him and the plot was surrendered to the Government. But, the said allottee requested for further time to pay the initial amount. Considering his request, Government extended time upto 30.09.2010 and the same was communicated vide Lr. No. 25462/HB5 (1)/09-1 dated 08.09.2010 along with Board's Lr.No. Allot/3(1)/55478/08 dated 24.09.2010. The 4^th respondent also made the payment of Rs.2,98,400/- and hence the house site was re-allotted to the 4^th respondent Prabhakaran. Therefore, the 3^rd respondent office refused to receive the cost from the petitioner. Further, the petitioner was requested to approach the 1^st respondent to get the allotment since the allotment has been made under the Government discretionary quota. Without approaching the 1^st respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Special Government Pleader and learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.

¶20

As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the Board, the order impugned by the petitioner is only a communication of the 3^rd respondent dated 19.11.2010, informing that the house site sought for by the petitioner has already been allotted to the 4^th respondent as per the orders of the Government. The 2^nd respondent has allotted a house site and pursuant thereto the petitioner should have paid the cost amount for the said plot but the petitioner has not deposited any amount to the Board. In the orders issued by the Government in favour of the 4^th respondent for extension of time, nothing has been mentioned about the payment made by the petitioner was refused. The relief prayed for in the writ petition is against the 4^th respondent. It is seen from the docket that the writ petition has been dismissed as against the 4^th respondent. The petitioner has not challenged the orders of the 1^st respondent, issued in favour of the 4^th respondent, extending the time for payment of the cost. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any right to seek for setting aside the subsequent order passed by the 3^rd respondent, without challenging the proceedings of the 1^st respondent.

¶21

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

¶22

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.Ps are closed. No costs.

¶23

-s/dAssistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶24

True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Secretary to Government
of Tamil Nadu
Housing and Urban Development
Department, Secretariat
Fort St. George
Chennai – 600 009
2. The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Anna Salai, Nandanam
Chennai -600 035.
3. The Executive Engineer cum
Administrative Officer
Housing Board Division
Salem, Salem District.
+1 CC to M/s. C. Johnson, Advocate sr 2974
+1 CC to The Govt. Pleader sr 3073
+1 CC to M/s. V. Yuvakumar, Advocate srv 2675

¶25

W.P. No. 2637 of 2011
and
M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011

¶26

GMI(CO) sp/5/4

¶27

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

P.Jayakodi v. the Secretary to Govt. of

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

P.Jayakodi v. the Secretary to Govt. of

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Rajalingam Vs the Director of Municipal

Malargodi, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

K.Hari Vs the Managing Director

R.Venktesh Babu Vs the Director, National Silk

N.Gunaseeli Vs the State of Tamilnadu

G.Chinnaraj, Vs the Commissioner of Police