IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21-11-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

and

WMP.Nos. 30077 & 30078 of 2022

1. T.Palanichamy

2. K.Veluchamy

Petitioner(s)

Vs

Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

CMDA Complex, E & C Market Road,

Koyambedu, Chennai- 600 107.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records in impugned communication in letter No.L.A. Sp15 / 15032 / 2016 dated 15.07.2022 on the file of the Respondent and quash the same, consequently declare that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land measuring an extent 36.5 cents of land in survey No.944/ 1A, New Survey Nos.944/ 1A1 and 944/1A2 as per Patta Nos.3082 and 3083 Kalapatti (East) Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District, Gandhipuram Sub-Registration District was lapsed in view of the right to fair compensation and transparency in land

acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement, 30 Act 2013.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.B. Manoharan

For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Gunasekar

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated

15.07.2022 and to declare that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject property as lapsed in view of the right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement, 30 Act 2013.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that originally one Maruthachalam owned a land to an extent of 36.5 cents in Survey No.944/1A, New Survey Nos. 944/1A1 and 944/1A2 as per Patta Nos. 3082 and 3083 Kalapatti (East) Village, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore District on the file of Gandhipuram Sub-Registration Office and the petitioner acquired the same through a registered partition deed vide Document No.1378 of 1960, since then, he was in possession and enjoyment of the property thereafter, the said Maruthachalam sole the property to Dr.Palaniyappan vide Document No.867 of 1989 and thereafter, Dr.Palaniyappan sold the land to one Smt.Baby vide Document No. 2631 of 2001. Thereafter, she sold the property in favour of one Smt.C.M.B.Jaya through registered sale deed 2498 of 2003. Again, the said Smt.C.M.B.Jaya, through her power of attorney sold the above said property in favour of the petitioner vide Document No.3843 of 2005 on the file of the Sub- Registrar, Gandhipuram, since then, the petitioner were in possession and enjoyment of the property. Thereafter, the petitioners’ family partitioned the property vide Document No.8544 of 2014 dated 20.11.2014 and put up fencing and also a small shed for security purpose. Thereafter, revenue records also mutated in favour of the petitioners and they decided to put a construction by approaching local body authorities. However, they insist no objection certificate from the Housing Board thereby, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court W.P.No.2831 of 2017 for issuance of No Objection Certificate. This Court, by its order dated 02.03.2021, disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate orders. Since no order was passed, the contempt petition in Cont.P.No.1063 of 2012 was filed and the respondent / Housing Board counsel made a statement that NOC will be issued. Recording the same, this Court closed the contempt petition on 11.07.2022. Thereafter, the respondent rejected the petitioner’s request by passing impugned order 15.07.2022 Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the rejection of no objection certificate and challenge the land acquisition proceedings in terms of Section 24(2). He would further submit that though the petitioner is a fourth purchaser of the original land owner, there are three sale transactions between the original land owner and the