Disposed

S.Mary v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC15 Dec 2021WP/35029/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court order directs petitioners to produce specific documents including a Legal Heirship Certificate, Succession Certificate, and No Objection Certificate from other heirs to establish their status as legal heirs of the deceased allottee before the allotment order for a housing flat is transferred and dues are collected.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioners to produce No Objection Certificate, Legal Heirship Certificate, and Succession Certificate before transfer of allotment order.

S.Mary Vs The Principal Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.12.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.No.35029 of 2019

¶6

1. 2.	S.Mary Jithin Jacob ... Petitioners vs.
1.	The Principal Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.	The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, rep. by its Chairman, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
3.	The Executive Engineer, Wood Working Unit Division, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, K.K.Nagar, Chennai 600 078.
4.	The Manager (Sales and Service), Wood Working Unit Division, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Thirumangalam, Chennai 600 101.
5.	The Tahsildar, Pollachi, Coimbatore District. ... Respondents
	Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of Man No. Res her	India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified damus, calling for the records in Letter WWUDn/Allot/676/2015, dated 03.12.2019 on the file of the 4^th pondent herein and quash the same and direct the Respondents ein to transfer the allotment order issued to the
Pet	itioner's sister Late Selvi Baby Sironmani vide
Lr.	No.WWUDn/Allot/676/2015, dated 21.08.2015 in favour of the

¶7

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

¶8

Petitioners by receiving the remaining actual tentative cost of Rs.59,94,893/- as per letter dated 28.08.2012 of the 4^th Respondent and execute the Sale Deed to and in favour of the Petitioners in respect of Flat No.22 (MIG I Flat) XI Floor at Wood Working Unit site under “Self Finance Scheme” and put the Petitioners into possession of the Flat.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Saravanan

¶10

For Respondents 1 & 5 : Mr.P.Gurunathan, Addl. Government Pleader

¶11

For Respondents 2 to 4 : Mr.R.Bharathkumar

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the 4^th Respondent vide Letter No.WWUDn/Allot/676/2015, dated 03.12.2019 and for a consequential direction to the Respondents herein to transfer the allotment order issued to the 1^st Petitioner's sister Late Selvi Baby Sironmani vide Lr.No.WWUDn/Allot/676/2015, dated 21.08.2015 in favour of the Petitioners by receiving the remaining actual tentative cost of Rs.59,94,893/- as per the letter dated 28.08.2012 of the 4^th Respondent and execute the Sale Deed to and in favour of the Petitioners in respect of Flat No.22 (MIG I Flat) XI Floor at Wood Working Unit site under “Self Finance Scheme” and put the Petitioners into possession of the Flat.

¶14

According to the 1^st Petitioner viz. S.Mary, she is the elder sister of Late Selvi Baby Sironmani and the paternal grandmother of the 2^nd Petitioner herein. It is stated by the 1^st Petitioner that, on 25.08.2014, her own sister Late Selvi Baby Sironmani submitted Application No.626 to the 3^rd Respondent herein for allotment of a Flat promoted by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board under the Scheme viz. 627 MSB Flats at Wood Working Unit Scheme vide Project Code M.I.G. along with a Demand Draft for Rs.2,00,000/- towards pre-deposit.

¶15

Thereafter, vide Letter dated 21.08.2015, the 3^rd Respondent sent a communication to the 1^st Petitioner's sister Late Selvi Baby Sironmani and confirmed the allotment of M.I.G. I, Flat No.22, XI Floor at Wood Working Unit site under “Self Finance Scheme” subject to Rules and Regulations prescribed in the Application form. They informed that, the tentative cost of the Flat is Rs.81,82,000/- and asked the 1^st Petitioner's sister to pay the same. Thereafter, the 1^st Petitioner's sister paid a sum of Rs.6,18,200/- vide Demand Draft dated 06.04.2015. But, she did not receive any receipt for the same. As, the 1^st Petitioner's sister Selvi Baby Sironmani died on 16.01.2016, the

¶16

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

¶17

1^st Petitioner sent a letter dated 07.03.2016 to the 3^rd and 4^th Respondents herein intimating the sudden demise of her sister, along with the Death Certificate. She also requested the Respondents to transfer the allotment in favour of the 2^nd Petitioner as per the Will dated 16.09.2015 executed by Late Selvi Baby Sironmani.

¶18

The 4^th Respondent vide letter dated 06.09.2016, directed the Petitioners to approach the appropriate Court to obtain necessary orders for transfer of allotment in favour of the 1^st Petitioner. Accordingly, the 1^st Petitioner filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.369 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pollachi and a judgment and decree was issued in favour of the Petitioners. The 1^st Petitioner sent a copy of the said judgment and decree to the 3^rd and 4^th Respondents herein. However, the 4^th Respondent, vide letter dated 18.09.2019 once again directed the 1^st Petitioner to approach this Court for obtaining probate of Will dated 16.09.2015, to enable them to transfer the allotment and execute the Sale Deed in favour of the Petitioners. While so, the 4^th Respondent, by letter dated 03.12.2019, cancelled the allotment of Flat made in favour of the 1^st Petitioner's sister Late Selvi Baby Sironmani. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioners are before this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

¶19

Learned counsel for the Petitioners pointed out that, in the impugned order dated 03.12.2019, the 4^th Respondent had insisted for production of (i) Death Certificate of the deceased allottee (ii) Legal Heirship Certificate (iii) No Objection Certificate from the other legal heirs and (iv) Succession Certificate from this Court, to establish that the Petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased allottee.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for Respondents 2 to 4/Tamil Nadu Housing Board submitted that, though the 1^st Petitioner claims to be the sister of the deceased allottee, the order impugned in the present Writ Petition was passed only based on the representation made by the 1^st Petitioner. He went on to state that, the 1^st Petitioner produced the Will dated 16.09.2015 executed by Late Selvi Baby Sironmani, but, she is not able to produce the Legal Heirship Certificate. He further submitted that, it would suffice if this Court directs the Petitioners to produce (i) No Objection Certificate from the other legal heirs (ii) Legal Heirship Certificate and (iii) Succession Certificate from the competent Court of Law, to establish that they are legal heirs of the deceased allottee.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

¶22

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

¶23

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, as the 1^st Petitioner is a class-II legal heir of the deceased allottee, production of Legal Heirship Certificate and Succession Certificate from the competent Court of Law is inevitable. Hence, this Court directs the Petitioners herein to produce (i) No Objection Certificate from the other legal heirs (ii) Legal Heirship Certificate and (iii) Succession Certificate from the competent Court of Law, before Respondents 2 to 4 herein, to establish that they are the legal heirs of the deceased allottee. Upon receipt of the abovesaid documents, Respondents 2 to 4 shall consider the same in accordance with law and transfer the allotment order in favour of the Petitioners in respect of the Flat in question, after collecting entire dues from them.

¶24

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.Nos.35810, 35811, 35813 and 35815 of 2019 are closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

(aeb)

¶30

To:

¶31

The Principal Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶32

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.

¶33

The Executive Engineer, Wood Working Unit Division, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, K.K.Nagar, Chennai 600 078.

¶34

The Manager (Sales and Service), Wood Working Unit Division, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Thirumangalam, Chennai 600 101.

¶35

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

¶36

The Tahsildar, Pollachi, Coimbatore District.

¶37

+1cc to Mr.R.Bharathkumar, Advocate SR. No.67450 +1cc to Mr.A.Saravanan, Advocate SR. No.67299 +1cc to Government Pleader SR. No.67500

¶38

W.P.No.35029 of 2019

¶39

PL (CO) PR (04/03/2022)

¶40

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

S.Mary v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Mary v. The Principal Secretary to Government

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

Sivakumar Vs the State Rep by

Sri Thulasidhasar Memorial Society, Vs The Registrar of Societies

Madras Social Service Society, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Ashraf Ali, Vs The Managing Director

G.Ayyanar Vs The Director of Higher Secondary

K.S.Srinivasan Vs The District Collector