A petitioner sought a writ to quash the Housing Board's rejection of his request for additional 6 feet of land adjoining LIG Plot No.79 and for execution of an amended sale deed. The court found no record supporting allotment of additional land and dismissed the petition, granting liberty to apply afresh.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.2749 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.2749 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.2911 of 2022
V.R.Jayarama Murthy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.
Hosur, Krishnagiri District-635 109.
Sales and Services, Hosur Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Hosur, Krishnagiri District-635 109. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
Page 1 of 8
W.P.No.2749 of 2022
records relating to the impugned order dated 10.12.2019 made in Letter No.HR 11/716/1992 passed by the third respondent and to quash the same, consequently direct the respondents to execute and register the sale deed in respect of LIG Plot No.79 Phase VIII comprised in Survey Nos.327 pt and 326/1 pt in Hosur Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, measuring to an extent of original allotment of 38.45 square meter with additional purchase of land of 6 feet attached thereon within a stipulated time.
For Petitioner : M/s.V.Vargees Amal Raja For Respondents : Mr.D.Veerasekaran
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned Letter No.HR 11/716/1992 dated 10.12.2019 issued by the third respondent and for a direction to the respondents to execute and register the sale deed in respect of LIG Plot No.79 Phase VIII comprised in Survey Nos.327 pt and 326/1 pt situated in Hosur, Krishnagiri District, measuring to an extent of 38.45 square meter with additional purchase of 6 feet of land attached thereon.
_________ Page 2 of 8
W.P.No.2749 of 2022
_________ Page 3 of 8
W.P.No.2749 of 2022
LIG Housing plot No.79 will be verified and since there is an administrative error occurred with the Department, it will be rectified as early as possible. Thereafter, no further steps have been taken by the respondents and he made several representations to the second respondent to rectify the earlier sale deed by including the additional land. While so, the third respondent vide impugned letter 10.12.2019 rejected his request for allotment of additional land stating that the payment of Rs.35,000/- was credited under the category of difference of land cost for plot No.79 and no amount was received from the petitioner towards the allotment of additional land and further, there is no additional land existing adjacent to the said plot. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
would submit that admittedly, the allotment order was issued in favour of the petitioner with regard to Plot No.79 and the Housing Board has also executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 03.05.2011 in respect of the said allotment, however, the petitioner has not paid any amount for
_________ Page 4 of 8
W.P.No.2749 of 2022
allotting additional land and he has made a request for allotment of additional land. A sum of Rs.35,000/- was paid by the petitioner towards the difference of land cost for plot No.79 which cannot be construed that the said amount was paid by the petitioner for allotment of additional land. If the petitioner is prepared to pay the amount for acquiring additional land, the same will be considered.
_________ Page 5 of 8
W.P.No.2749 of 2022
petitioner was credited under the category of difference of land cost and a receipt No.50006 dated 28.05.2007 to that effect has been issued and they have mentioned nowhere about the allotment of additional land. Hence, the impugned Letter No.HR 11/716/1992 dated 10.12.2019 issued by the third respondent cannot be interfered with by this Court. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make an application before the respondents for allotment of additional land and if the additional land is allotted, the petitioner is directed to pay the cost for the same.
13.08.2024
NCC: Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No ssb
_________ Page 6 of 8
W.P.No.2749 of 2022
To
3.The Manager, Sales and Services, Hosur Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Hosur, Krishnagiri District-635 109.
_________ Page 7 of 8
W.P.No.2749 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
ssb
W.P.No.2749 of 2022
13.08.2024
_________ Page 8 of 8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Rs.35,000/- paid by the petitioner was for allotment of additional 6 feet of land or merely difference in land cost for Plot No.79.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
V.R.Jayarama Murthy
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board
The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Hosur Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board
The Manager, Sales and Services, Hosur Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board
M.DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
