Disposed

S.Devarajan v. The Chairman

Madras HC23 Jan 2017WP/35404/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed in the Madras High Court, the petitioner sought a mandate to enforce the allotment and execution of a sale deed for a property where installments were paid but no sale deed or certification had been issued. The court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representations and pass orders on merits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to consider petitioner's representations and pass appropriate orders on merits within three months.

S.Devarajan Vs The Chairman — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 23.01.2017

¶3

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶4

W.P.No.35404 of 2016

¶5

S.Devarajan .. Petitioner

¶6

The Chairman Tamilnadu slum Clearance Board, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. .. Respondent

¶7

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider his representation dated 13.06.2016 and to execute a sale deed in respect of the property mentioned in the allotment order dated 03.10.1988 in Se.Mu.No.51/84/D/83.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ravi For Respondent : Mr.S.Prabu

¶9

Standing Counsel for Slum Clearance

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The respondent/Tamil Nadu slum Clearance Board allotted the property bearing Plot No.303, Thillaiyadi Valliyammal Nagar, Tirumangalam, Chennai comprised in S.No.228/2 Koyambedu Village, measuring an extent of 0.81.0 sq.ft to the petitioner under order dated 11.02.1984. Subsequently, issued a allotment order dated 03.10.1988 in Se.Mu.No.51/84/D/83. The entire installments were paid on 12.02.1992. The respondent has given no objection certificate to obtain electricity connection, water connection and drainage connections and to avail loan to construct a building.

¶12

It is further case of the petitioner that he submitted the application to the respondent on 23.10.2007, requesting the respondent to execute the sale deed in his favour. As per the order of the respondent, he submitted the death certificate of his wife directly to the respondent's office within the speicified time. Even after submitting the death certiificate of his wife, the respondent has failed to execute the sale deed in his favour. Hence, he sent representations to the respondent dated 23.07.2015 and 16.02.2016 and 13.06.2016

¶13

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

¶14

requesting the respondent to execute the sale deed in respect of plot No.303 in his favour. The respondent neither replied nor executed the sale deed. Hence he has come forward with the present writ petition.

¶15

Heard the submission of Mr.S.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr.S.Prabu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Slum Clearance Board.

¶16

This Court, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, directs the respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 23.07.2015 and 16.02.2016 and 13.06.2016 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶17

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kkd To The Chairman Tamilnadu slum Clearance Board, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶19

+1cc to Mr.S. Prabhu, Advocate, S.R.No.4766 +1cc to Mr.S. Ravi, Advocate, S.R.No.4345

¶20

kji(CO) md(16/02/2017)

¶21

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

S.Devarajan v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Devarajan v. The Chairman

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

Surya Vetrikondan Vs The State, Rep by The Commr.

S.Venkatachalam, Vs The Inspector General of

M/s.Shyam Hotels and Vs The Commissioner of Food

A.R.Mohammed Mushtaq Vs The Regional Passport

E.Kannadasan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Firos.C.M., Vs The Director