IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL W.A.No.1688 of 2022 The Chairman/Managing Director Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, No.5, Kamaraj Salai, Chennai - 60 005.

Appellant(s)

Vs

1.Sathyamoorthy S/o. Late Krishnan, No.8, Plot No.246, Nehru Nagar, 1 st Street, Villivakkam, Chennai - 600 049. 2. District Collector, Fourth Floor, M. Singaravelar Maaligai, 62, Rajaji Salai, Chennai Collectorate, Chennai – 600001 Respondent(s)

(R2 impleaded vide order dated 20.11.2025 made PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of letters Patent, praying to set aside the order passed in W.P.No. 8826 of 2021 dated 29.11.2021 by allowing the writ appeal.

For Appellant(s) : Mr.J.Ravindran, AAG, assisted by Mr.B.Balaji For Respondent(s) : Mr.T.K.Kulasekaran (for R1)

Mrs.Akila Rajendran, Government Advocate (for R2)

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

Writ appeal on hand is challenging the writ order dated 29.11.2021 in W.P.No.8826 of 2021. Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, erstwhile Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, instituted the present intra Court Appeal. 2.The respondent filed the writ petition seeking direction to execute the sale deed in respect of the property admeasuring 81 square meter of house site bearing Plot No.246, Nehru Nagar 1st Street, Villivakkam, Chennai-49, comprised in Survey No.373/2 consequent to the Allotment proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.B3/22988/04 dated 10.01.2005, and based on the entire payment made in respect of the above property.

3.It is not in dispute that the subject plot was allotted originally in the name of the mother of the 1st respondent Smt. Govindammal vide proceeding dated 30.07.1986 by Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. After the demise of the original allottee, the 1st respondent, who is non-other than the son of the allottee, secured re-allotment vide proceeding dated 10.01.2005. The 1st respondent has constructed a house and is residing there. While so, the Slum Clearance Board refused to executed sale deed. Hence, the 1st respondent filed the writ petition seeking a direction to execute the sale deed, and the writ court disposed of the writ petition recording the undertaking given by the Additional Advocate General that the sale deed will be executed in favour of the 1st respondent within a period of 5 months.

4.The undertaking was given by the then learned Additional Advocate General. Now the learned Additional Advocate General Mr.J.Ravindran would submit that the undertaking given is incorrect in view of the fact that the subject land is clarified as a water body.

5.The land has been classified as Government Poramboke and the remarks column of the revenue records would show that said Government Poramboke is surrounded by Villivakam Eri, Railway A class, grazing land, Madras Water supply channel etc.

6.The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that 5 more such irregular allotments were made in the year 1986 but the Slum Clearance Board has not executed the sale deed in respect of irregular allotments. Even the counter affidavit filed by the Slum Clearance Board before the Writ Court would show that the area where subject plot is situated is classified as “Poramboke land” in Survey No.71, Konnur Village and that the said Poramboke land was not been transferred to the board till date. So, the board could not execute the sale deed in respect of the 1st respondent, for the 1st plot, and other 5 plots which all are situated in a poramboke land.

7.However, the case of the 1st respondent will be considered by the empowered committee for providing alternate allotment.

8.The learned counsel for the 1st respondent would strenuously oppose by stating that the allotment was made originally in the name of the mother of the 1st respondent. Subsequently, it was re-allotted in the name of the 1st respondent. He has taken possession of the plot, constructed a house by spending hi