IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.01.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

W.P. No.7090 of 2017

Isaivani

…Petitioner

Vs

1. The Executive Engineer

Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

Hosur Housing Unit,

Bagalur Road,

Hosur – 635 109.

2. The Managing Director

Tamil Nadu Housing Board

Office at Nandanam

Chennai - 600 035

(second respondent suo-motu impleaded as

a party to the writ petition as per the order

dated 22.01.2021 passed in WP No. 7090

of 2017)

...Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent

to receive the price of the housing plot bearing number 170A and

situated in New ASTC, HUDCO, Phase VIII, Hosur from the

petitioner in pursuance of the order passed by the first

respondent on 20.08.2015 in HR-11/163/2012 and execute necessary

sale deed or any other suitable conveyance deed in her favour

within the time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

For petitioner

...

Mr.R.Rajamani

For respondents

...

Mr.R.Bharth Kumar

for the 1^st Respondent

ORDER

Suo-motto, the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Housing

Board is impleaded as second respondent in this writ petition as

he is a necessary party for adjudication of this writ petition.

2. This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus seeking

for a direction to the first respondent to receive the price of

housing plot bearing number 170A and situated in New ASTC,

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

HUDCO, Phase VIII, Hosur from the petitioner in pursuant to the

order passed by the first respondent on 20.08.2015 and execute a

sale deed in favour of the petitioner, within a time frame to be

fixed by this Court.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that a provisional

allotment order was made in favour of the petitioner for the

aforementioned property on 20.08.2015 and thereafter an

application was also submitted by the petitioner with the first

respondent. According to the petitioner, she has also paid the

registration fee to the first respondent, which was duly

acknowledged by them on 21.08.2015. Further, it is the case of

the petitioner that the bank has also sanctioned loan for the

purchase of the vacant plot. Thereafter, the petitioner has

given representations to the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu

Housing Board on 14.03.2016 and 15.10.2016 requesting him to

direct the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to execute the sale deed on

receipt of the sale consideration from the petitioner. It is

the case of the petitioner that till date, the said

representations have not been considered and the sale deed has

not been executed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board / TNHB in her

favour. In such circumstances, this writ petition has been filed.

4. Heard Mr.R.Rajamani, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr.R.Bharth Kumar, learned Standing counsel for the

respondent / TNHB.

5. According to the learned Standing counsel appearing for

the respondents, the petitioner is owning other properties and

therefore, she is not entitled for allotment of the vacant plot.

Further, according to him, she is a subsequent purchaser from

the original allottee.

However, he would submit, on

instructions, that the respondents are willing to consider the

petitioner's representation dated 20.08.2015 on merits and in

accordance with law.

6. The positive direction sought for in this writ petition

cannot be granted by this Court. It is for the respondents to

consider the petitioner's representation seeking for allotment

and for execution of a sale deed based on merits and in

accordance with law. No prejudice will be caused, if the

petitioner's representations are directed to be considered by

the respondents on merits and in accordance with law.

7. For the fore