Dismissed

Thirunyanamani v. The Managing Director

Madras HC9 Dec 2022WP/32956/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition challenging the cancellation of a Mig plot allotment due to non-payment. Finding no immediate interference possible due to ongoing allotment processes, the court directed the Housing Board to consider refunding amounts paid by the petitioner and her late husband's successors.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Housing Board directed to consider refunding approximately Rs.3,00,000 paid by the parties.

Thirunyanamani Vs The Managing Director — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.32956 of 2022

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

W.P.No.32956 of 2022

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.No.32352 of 2022

Thirunyanamani

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Koyambedu, Chennai.

¶13

2.The Executive Officer-cum-Manager (Marketing), Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Villupuram Housing Board Division, East Pondy Road, Maharajapuram, Villupuram Taluk & District.

¶14

3.The Superintendent, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Villupuram Housing Board Division, East Pondy Road, Maharajapuram, Villupuram Taluk & District.

¶15

4.The District Collector, Villupuram District.

¶16

5.Thirumathi A.Gayathri Niranjana Devi

¶17

..Respondents

¶18

1/6

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P.No.32956 of 2022

¶21

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling upon the records of the 2^nd respondents in Letter No.R/4/2880/2012, dated 23.01.2021 and Letter No.UTM/0515/21, dated 08.06.2022 and quash the same as illegal and thereby direct the 1 to 3 respondents to allot a Plot No.MIG-117 in Old T.S.Nos.31/1, 34/1 Part, 34/4 Part, New T.S.Nos.205/1A & 225, R.S.Nos.163/2 Part, 163/2A Part, 163/2B Part, 167/2, 168/1, 168/3, Ward-B, Old Block – 15, New No.40, Keelperumpakkam Village, Villupuram Town measuring 1199 Sq.ft to the petitioner herein.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mubarak Basha For Respondents : Mr.D.Veerasekaran Standing Counsel for R1 to R3 Mr.T.Seenivasan Special Government Pleader for R4

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner challenges the order of the Tamil Nadu Housing

¶25

Board, informing her of the cancellation of the allotment made as early as on 23.01.2021.

¶26

2/6

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.No.32956 of 2022

¶29

2.The petitioner's husband, Ramalingam was allotted a MIG Plot in the scheme promoted by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board at Keelperumbakkam Village of Villupuram District at a cost of Rs.8,48,000/-. Since the said Ramalingam did not pay the security deposit, the allotment was cancelled on 31.05.2013. On 11.06.2013, the allottee paid the security deposit and one monthly instalment totalling to Rs.96,360/- apart from the fees for annulling the cancellation of the allotment. Upon such payment, the cancellation of allotment was annulled.

¶30

3.Since he did not pay the balance amount or the monthly instalments, various notices were sent to him. One of his daughters, Mrs.R.Gowri paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 19.08.2020 and had informed the Housing Board that the allottee had died on 10.11.2014. She had also asked for transfer of allotment in her favour. She was required to provide the details of the legal heirs. She was not able to provide the entire details. The husband of the one of the daughters raised a dispute, therefore, the allotment was cancelled on 23.01.2021 and the petitioner was intimated.

¶31

3/6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.No.32956 of 2022

¶34

4.In view of the said developments, I do not think, I can interfere with the cancellation at this distant point of time. With a view to consider the case of the petitioner sympthetically, the learned counsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board was required to find out whether there are any other plot in the scheme, which is vacant and the same could be allotted to the petitioner subject to the condition, she would pay the difference in price.

¶35

5.Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned counsel for the Housing Board has filed a position note which discloses that almost all the plots have been allotted except 1-MIG, 15-LIG plots. For those plots also advertaisements have been made calling for applications and applications have been received from the general public. Therefore, we cannot now interupt the said allotment process.

¶36

6.Finding no merit in the Writ Petition, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the Housing Board is directed to consider repayment of amounts paid by her husband as well as her daughter, which roughly about Rs.3,00,000/- as of today. The petitioner if so advised, will make a

¶37

4/6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P.No.32956 of 2022

¶40

claim for refund and such claim will be considered by the Housing Board sympethetically. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition

is closed.

09.12.2022

kkn

Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order

¶45

To:-

¶46

1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Koyambedu, Chennai.

¶47

2.The Executive Officer-cum-Manager (Marketing), Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Villupuram Housing Board Division, East Pondy Road, Maharajapuram, Villupuram Taluk & District.

¶48

3.The Superintendent, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Villupuram Housing Board Division, East Pondy Road, Maharajapuram, Villupuram Taluk & District.

¶49

4.The District Collector, Villupuram District.

¶50

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

W.P.No.32956 of 2022

¶53

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶54

KKN

¶55

W.P.No.32956 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.32352 of 2022

¶56

09.12.2022

¶57

6/6

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Thirunyanamani v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thirunyanamani 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

Mouli Spinners Limited Vs The Tamil Nadu Generation and

M/s.Baapaa Engineers Vs M/s.Electronics Finance Ltd. Company

Sulochana Vs Superintending Engineer

V.Lalitha Vs The state of TamilNadu

N.Radha Vs The Secretary

Ameen Ahsan Vs Directorate of Collegiate Education