Disposed¶43

M.Kannabiran v. The Principal Secretary

Madras HC5 Nov 2025WA/2655/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.A.No.2655 of 2022; M.Kannabiran v. The Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development and Tamil Nadu Housing Board; writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent; challenge to writ order dated 30.11.2018 in W.P.No.2585 of 2017; cancellation of second flat allotment for suppression of first allotment; ineligible allottee; refund of initial deposit; forfeiture unjustified; re-allotment to R.Shanthi; Pot No.312, LIG II, Nolambur Phase – II scheme; repayment of Rs.9,04,720/- within six weeks; part payment of Rs.21,79,927/-; S.M. Subramaniam J.; Mohammed Shaffiq J.; decision dated 05.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Tamil Nadu Housing Board directed to repay the balance amount of Rs.9,04,720/- to the appellant within six weeks; writ appeal disposed of with no costs and no interference with the writ Court's findings. ¶43

M.Kannabiran Vs The Principal Secretary — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the forfeiture of the initial deposit by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board is justified, and whether the Board must repay the balance amount of Rs.9,04,720/- to the appellant towards the cancelled second allotment of the flat, which was re-allotted to a third party.

¶38

Court's answer

Forfeiture of the initial deposit is unjustified; since the plot initially allotted in favour of the appellant was cancelled and re-allotted in favour of some other person, the initial deposit made by the appellant is to be reimbursed.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The respondent Tamil Nadu Housing Board is directed to repay the balance amount of Rs.9,04,720/- to the appellant within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶38

Key takeaways

No interference is required in respect of the findings made by the writ Court.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the Madras High Court (S.M. Subramaniam and Mohammed Shaffiq, JJ.) disposed of W.A.No.2655 of 2022 filed by M.Kannabiran challenging the writ order dated 30.11.2018 in W.P.No.2585 of 2017. The appellant had secured two different allotments of flats from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board despite ineligibility; the second allotment, secured by suppressing the fact of the first, was cancelled and a part amount of Rs.21,79,927/- was already paid back. Since the cancelled flat (Pot No.312, LIG II, Nolambur Phase – II scheme) was re-allotted to one R.Shanthi, there was no financial loss to the Board. The Court held that forfeiture of the initial deposit was unjustified and directed the Board to repay the balance amount of Rs.9,04,720/- to the appellant within six weeks, while requiring no interference with the findings of the writ Court. No costs.

¶1

W.A.No.2655 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05.11.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.A.No. 2655 of 2022

M.Kannabiran

...Appellant

Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, Fort St. George,

¶11

Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 493, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.

¶13

3.The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, K.K.Nagar, Chennai.

¶14

4.The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer, Mogappair Division, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Thirumangalam, Chennai.

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: The Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 30.11.2018 made in W.P.No.2585 of 2017.

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.A.No.2655 of 2022

¶20

For Appellant : Mr.A.Veerasamy

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.S.Senthil Murugan,

¶22

Spl.GP for R1

¶23

Mr.V.Gunasekar,

¶24

Standing Counsel for R2 to R4

¶25

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

¶28

Writ order dated 30.11.2018 made in W.P.No.2585 of 2017 is under

¶29

challenge.

¶30

2. Writ petitioner is appellant. Admittedly, writ petitioner secured two different allotment of flats from Tamil Nadu Housing Board for which he is ineligible.

¶31

3. Learned counsel for Tamil Nadu Housing Board would submit that second allotment was secured by suppressing the fact of first allotment made in favour of appellant. Thus, Board cancelled second allotment and already paid a sum of Rs.21,79,927/-.

¶32

2/6

¶33

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

¶34

W.A.No.2655 of 2022

¶35

¶36

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant would submit that he is not pressing the relief to resume cancelled allotment. However, amount paid is to be returned back to appellant. A part amount of Rs.21,79,927/- has already been settled, but balance amount to the tune of Rs.9,04,720/- is yet to be paid to appellant.

¶37

5. Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board in his counter has stated that allotment of Pot No.312, LIG II, Nolambur Phase – II scheme was canclled and possession also had taken from appellant/ allottee. Said flat was allotted subsequently in favour of one R.Shanthi. Therefore, there is no financial loss to Tamil Nadu Housing Board.

¶38

6. Thus, forfeiture of initial deposit is unjustified. Since plot initially allotted in favour of appellant was cancelled and re-allotted in favour of some other person, initial deposit made by appellant is to be reimbursed. In view of said fact, respondent Tamil Nadu Housing Board is directed to repay balance amount of Rs.9,04,720/- to appellant within a period of six (6) weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order. In respect of finding made by writ Court no interference is required.

¶39

3/6

¶40

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

¶41

W.A.No.2655 of 2022

¶42

¶43

7. With above directions, this Writ Appeal stands disposed of. No

¶44

costs.

¶45