Dismissed¶47

K.Rajaguru v. the Additional Chief Secretary

Writ Petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India – Writ of Mandamus – Cancellation of allotment

Madras HC20 Jan 2026WP/24288/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, W.P.No. 24288 of 2025, decided 20.01.2026 by Ms. Justice P.T. Asha. Writ of mandamus sought to cancel the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board's allotment of Plot No-20, Villivakkam Road, Lakshmipuram, Chennai, in favour of respondents 5 and 6 (Mary and Ambiah) on the alleged ground of bogus documents. Dismissed: petitioner produced no particulars or documents substantiating the allegation; the Board had already replied to the complaint dated 31.07.2023, conducted an enquiry, and the complaint was held to be motivated and unsubstantiated; mandamus cannot issue absent material. No costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed with no costs. ¶47

K.Rajaguru Vs the Additional Chief Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed with no costs.

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing respondents 1 to 4 to cancel the allotment of the land in Plot No-20, Door No.21, Villivakkam Road, Lakshmipuram, Chennai 600 099, made in favour of respondents 5 and 6, allegedly on the basis of bogus documents.

¶30

Court's answer

The petitioner's affidavit nowhere gives any detail of the alleged bogus documents said to have been submitted by respondents 5 and 6, and no documents were filed to substantiate the complaint.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The complaint appears to be a motivated and unsubstantiated one; in the absence of any material to buttress the complaint, a mandamus cannot be issued to the respondents.

¶46

Key takeaways

The petitioner's complaint has already been considered by the respondents.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India – Writ of Mandamus – Cancellation of allotment – Petitioner sought a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to cancel the allotment of land in Plot No-20, Door No.21, Villivakkam Road, Lakshmipuram, Chennai 600 099, registered in favour of respondents 5 and 6, allegedly made on the basis of bogus documents, and to take action against the erring officials – Held: (i) the petitioner's affidavit nowhere gives any detail of the alleged bogus documents and no documents were filed to substantiate the complaint; (ii) the counter affidavit of respondents 3 and 4 states that the Board conducted a detailed enquiry, the allotment was made only on perusing the Aadhar card, original allotment order and ration card, and the entire sale consideration was paid by respondents 5 and 6 on 30.03.2023; (iii) the petitioner's written complaint dated 31.07.2023 was replied to by the Board on 08.09.2023, and an enquiry was conducted in which the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 were present and documents were produced; (iv) the complaint appears to be a motivated and unsubstantiated one, and in the absence of any material to buttress it a mandamus cannot be issued; (v) the petitioner's complaint has already been considered by the respondents – Writ petition dismissed. No costs.

¶1

W.P.No.24288 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 20.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

W.P.No. 24288 of 2025

¶7

K. Rajaguru ...petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Additional Chief Secretary, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, Fort St. George, Secretariat of Tamil Nadu, Chennai- 600 009.

¶10

2.The District Collector, Chennai Collector office, No. 62, Fourth Floor, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.

¶11

3.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, Chepauk, Chennai- 600 005.

¶12

1/7

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.No.24288 of 2025

¶15

4.The Secretary,

¶16

Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, Chepauk,

¶17

Chennai- 600 005.

¶18

5.Mary

¶19

6.Ambiah ...respondents

¶20

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 - 4 to forthwith cancel the allotment made for the land in Plot No-20, Door No.21, Villivakkam Road, Lakshmipuram, Chennai 600 099 registered to and in favour of the 5^th and 6^th respondents based on petitioner’s representation dated 26.05.2025 and consequently direct the respondents 1-4 to take appropriate action against the erred officials incharge for the said unlawful allotment, within the time to be stipulated by this Court.

¶21

: For petitioner Mr. M.Vijay Anand For Respondents : Ms. P.Aishwarya 1 & 2 Government Advocate For Respondents : Mrs. K.Indumathy Venkatesh 3 & 4 Standing Counsel

¶22

2/7

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.24288 of 2025

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

¶27

“To direct respondents 1 to 4 to forthwith cancel the

¶28

allotment made for the land in Plot No-20, Door No.21, Villivakkam Road, Lakshmipuram, Chennai 600 099 registered to and in favour of the 5^th and 6^th respondents based on the petitioner’s representation dated 26.05.2025 and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take appropriate action against the erred officials incharge for the said unlawful allotment, within the time to be stipulated by this Court.”

¶29

Alleging that the respondents 5 and 6 had been allotted a land

¶30

on the basis of bogus documents submitted by them, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to cancel the said allotment.

¶31

The petitioner has nowhere in his affidavit given any detail of

¶32

the alleged bogus documents that had been submitted by respondents 5

¶33

3/7

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.24288 of 2025

¶36

and 6 and except for stating that the allotment had been made on the basis of the bogus documents. There are no documents filed to substantiate the said complaint.

¶37

The respondents 3 and 4 had filed a counter affidavit, in which

¶38

it has been stated that the board had conducted a detailed enquiry and the allotment has been made only on perusing the Aadhar card, original allotment order and ration card. These respondents would also submit that the entire sale consideration has also been paid by respondents 5 and 6 on 30.03.2023, itself.

¶39

These respondents would further submit that to the written complaint made on 31.07.2023 by the petitioner, the board has also sent a reply on 08.09.2023 to the petitioner. Thereafter, an enquiry had been conducted in which the petitioner and the respondents 5 and 6 were present and documents were also produced during the enquiry. Therefore, in the light of the above, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be considered.

¶40

4/7

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.24288 of 2025

¶43

Heard the rival submissions on the either side and perused the

¶44

records.

¶45

From a perusal of the records and submissions of the learned

¶46

counsels on the either side, the complaint appears to be a motivated one and an unsubstantiated one. Therefore, in the absence of any material to buttress the complaint of the petitioner a mandamus cannot be issued to the respondents. That apart, the petitioner’s complaint has already been considered by the respondents. Accordingly, this writ petition is

dismissed. No costs.

20.01.2026

kan

5/7

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

¶52

W.P.No.24288 of 2025