Disposed¶50

Umayal v. the Managing Director

Madras HC26 Feb 2026WP/7564/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of mandamus, Article 226, house allotment dispute, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Improvement Board (formerly Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board), Nochikuppam Mylapore resettlement, original allottee Rajee 1972, Class-I legal heir certificate, 2014 survey and enumeration, equity in allotment, inter-family undertaking 22.09.2020 and 30.11.2023, direction to consider representation within one month, disposed without costs, WP No. 7564 of 2026, Justice P.T. Asha, decision dated 26-02-2026.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued: respondents 1 and 2 directed to consider the petitioner's representations dated 03.11.2025 and 31.01.2026 and pass orders within one month, subject to proof of Class-I legal heirship of Rajee, verification of 2014 residence, verification of family undertakings, and hearing to both sides; writ petition disposed of with no costs.

Umayal Vs the Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 1 and 2 should be directed, by mandamus, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.11.2025 and reminder dated 31.01.2026 seeking allotment of a house. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated 03.11.2025 and 31.01.2026 and pass orders within a period of one month.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

Consideration of the representations is subject to the petitioner producing documents to show that she is the Class-I legal heir of deceased Rajee, who according to the petitioner is the original allottee.

¶49

Key takeaways

The respondent must also examine whether the petitioner resided in the said place during the survey and enumeration conducted in 2014, as alleged by her.ratio¶49
The veracity of the undertakings executed between members of the two families must be verified.ratio¶49
The consideration must be carried out after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4, the legal heirs of late Murthy.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P.T. Asha, J.) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 filed by Umayal seeking a mandamus to the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Improvement Board to consider her representation dated 03.11.2025 and reminder dated 31.01.2026 for allotment of a house at Nochikuppam, Mylapore. The petitioner claimed descent from Rajee, in whose name the original house at Old Door No.115/7 was allotted in 1972, whereas the 2017 fresh allotment and the proposed extended-area allotments went only to the heirs of late Murthy. Directing consideration within one month, the Court conditioned it on the petitioner producing documents to establish she is a Class-I legal heir of Rajee, verification of her residence during the 2014 survey and enumeration, verification of the inter-family undertakings of 22.09.2020 and 30.11.2023, and a hearing to both the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4, the legal heirs of late Murthy. Petition disposed of; no costs.

¶1

WP No. 7564 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 26-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

WP No. 7564 of 2026

¶7

Umayal

¶8

W/o. (Late) Gunalan No.156/1, Srinivasapuram, Foreshore Estate, Chennai-600 028.

¶9

..Petitioner

¶10

¶11

The Managing Director Division-5 Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Improvement Board No.130, Pillaiyar Temple Garden Commercial Complex R.K. Mutt Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

¶12

The Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Improvement Board No.130, Pillaiyar Temple Garden Commercial Complex R.K. Mutt Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

¶13

Manibalan

¶14

S/o. Late Murthi, Old. No.115/7, New No.4/16, Nochikuppam, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004

¶15

Sneha Salomi Old. No.115/7, New No.4/16, Nochikuppam, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004

¶16

..Respondents

¶17

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 03.11.2025 as well as

¶18

Page1 of 7

¶19

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

¶20

WP No. 7564 of 2026

¶21

reminder dated 31.01.2026 seeking allotment of house and to take action thereon within a time frame that may be fixed by this Honble Court

¶22

For Petitioner: Mr.K.S.Jeyaganeshan For Respondents: Mr.G.Venkatesan for R1 & R2

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 03.11.2025 seeking allotment of house as well as his reminder dated 31.01.2026.

¶25

It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1972, a house was allotted in Old Door No.115/7 at Nochikuppam in the name of Rajee, who is none than the father-in-law of the petitioner. Rajee had a wife named Vanamayil and two sons namely Gunalan and Murthi. Gunalan is the husband of the petitioner and the couple had two children viz., Pandian and Vanitha. The petitioner's brotherin-law Murthi and his wife Porselvi had four children namely Vadivelan, Manibalan, Manivannan and Megala.

¶26

In the year 2014, the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board (now Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board) had decided to demolish the old houses in Nochikuppam, Mylapore, and had decided to put up a new structures in the said locality. The petitioner would submit that the respondent, with an

¶27

Page2 of 7

¶28

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

¶29

WP No. 7564 of 2026

¶30

intention to provide an alternate temporary houses, had conducted survey and

¶31

enumeration, in the year 2014, during which time, her father-in-law, mother-in-

¶32

law, brother-in-law and her husband are no more, and only the petitioner, her

¶33

children and legal heirs of Murthy alone were there in the said house.

¶34

Be that as it may, after completing the construction of new residence apartments, on 03.07.2017, the respondent Board allotted one house in Old Door No.115/7, New Door No.4/16 in the name of Porselvi and her three children. The petitioner would submit that she was informed by the respondent that vide fresh allotment in the extended area, a house in Door No.4/16 will be made available to the petitioner, However, the respondent without following the equity in the allotment procedures, had proposed the names of Manibalan, the other son of Murthy, and Sneha Salomi, W/o. Manivannan, S/o.late Murthy, for granting fresh allotment in the extended area.

¶35

5.The petitioner would contend that the original allotment was made in her father-in-law Rajee’s name. The legal heirs of Rajee are Gunalan and Murthy, and they both have died. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first allotment was given to Porselvi, the wife of late Murthy and now once again for the extended house also, the allotment is proposed in

¶36

Page3 of 7

¶37

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

¶38

WP No. 7564 of 2026

¶39

the name of Manibalan and Sneha Salomi, the other legal heirs of late Murthy. However, no allotment was made in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner would submit that there should be equity in allotment and hence, the 2^nd intended allotment should be in her name, who is also the legal heir of Rajee.

¶40

It is also represented before the Court that the children of late Murthy

¶41

and late Gunalan by mutual consent had agreed that each family would take one house, without any dispute and this was reduced in writing on 22.09.2020, which was also agreed in an undertaking dated 30.11.2023, mutually entered between the petitioner’s son and son of late Murthy.

¶42

Contending that the act of the respondent is against equity and the procedure followed is arbitrary, she had submitted a representation on 03.11.2025, requesting the respondent to allot one house to her family. She had sent a reminder on 30.01.2026. Since, her representations were not considered by the respondents to date, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶43

Page4 of 7

¶44

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

¶45

WP No. 7564 of 2026

¶46

Heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials

¶47

placed before this Court.

¶48

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs

¶49

the respondent to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner on 03.11.2025 and 31.01.2026 and pass orders within a period of one month, subject to the production of the documents by the petitioner to show that she is the Class-I legal heir of deceased Rajee, who according to the petitioner, is the original allottee, and also whether she had resided in the said place, during the survey and enumeration conducted by the respondent in the year 2014, as alleged by the petitioner and also after verifying the veracity of undertakings that was executed between the members of two families, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4, the legal heirs of late Murthy.

¶50

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶51

26-02-2026

¶52

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DS

¶53

__________ Page5 of 7

¶54

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

¶55

WP No. 7564 of 2026

¶56

To:

¶57

The Managing Director Division-5 Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Improvement Board No.130, Pillaiyar Temple Garden Commercial Complex R.K. Mutt Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

¶58

The Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Improvement Board No.130, Pillaiyar Temple Garden Commercial Complex R.K. Mutt Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

¶59

__________ Page6 of 7

¶60

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

WP No. 7564 of 2026

P.T.ASHA, J.

WP No. 7564 of 2026