BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN W.A(MD)No.153 of 2026 and C.M.P(MD)No.1559 of 2026

1.The Manager, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, CMDA Complex, E&C Market Road, Koyambedu, Chennai.

2.The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Thiruchirppalli Housing Unit, Kajamalai Road, Thiruchirappalli ... Appellants/Respondents .Vs.

N.Chithrakala ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act praying this Court to set aside the order of this Court made in W.P(MD)No.4071 of 2022, dated 05.02.2025.

For Appellants : Mr.A.Kannan For Respondent : No appearance

JUDGMENT

(Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN.,J The Writ Appeal has been filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board aggrieved by the order made in W.P(MD)No.4071 of 2022, dated 5.2.2025, wherein, the learned Single Judge has directed the Housing Board to collect a sum of Rs.83,561/-from the Writ Petitioner and to execute the sale deed.

2.There is no representation on behalf of the sole respondent.

3.The facts of the case as found from the records is that the Housing Board which is the appellants herein has allotted a house site to one Jayakumar vide allotment order, dated 21.09.1986 on condition that the cost fixed is only tentative cost and sale deed will be executed after ascertaining the final cost. A Lease-cum-sale agreement was executed and directed Jayakumar to accept the lease cum sale agreement. The said Jayakumar had obtained A & B Certificate from the Housing Board for availing loan from BHEL. He has availed loan from Vijaya Bank and mortgaged the property. It is so happened and the said Jayakumar had defaulted in paying the loan amount which has lead to auction of the property under SARFAESI Act by the above said Bank.

4.The first respondent herein, who is the Writ Petitioner was the successful bidder in the auction. She has paid Rs.10,55,000/- towards bid amount and she has sought for execution of the sale deed in her favour by the Housing Board. The Housing Board based on record had refused to execute the sale deed contending that the terms of allotment in favour of Jayakumar is to avail loan from BHEL and intimate the same to the Housing Board .He has to avail loan from BHEL Employees Housing Board but had availed loan from Vijaya Bank behind the back of the Housing Board. The Housing Board was kept at dark till the request of the respondent was made for executing sale deed in her favour. The Housing Board cannot execute the sale deed directly in favour of the respondent since she is not the allottee and No Due Certificate from the BHEL was not produced.

5.The learned Single Judge, after appreciating the facts, had rightly directed the Housing Board to convey the title after receiving Rs.83,561/- from the respondent. The said order is backed by sound reasoning and logic. No doubt, a sum of Rs. 83,561/- is due and payable from the allottee to the Housing Board though the said Jayakuar had not complied with the terms of the Housing Board and is communicating that he will avail loan from BHEL Housing Society and intimate the same to the Housing Board. But the Housing Board from the date of giving allotment order in the year 1986, had been keeping quiet without any murmur. In fact, the Administrative Officer of the Housing Board, Thiruchirappalli Unit vide his letter, dated 21.01.1998 had issued proceedings stating that the said Jayakumar had paid the tentative cost of Rs.79,000/- While so, the interest of the Housing Board is confined to collect the balance cost of the land which has been fixed subsequently and the final cost being Rs.83,561/-, they must be satisfied by collecting the said amount and executing the sale deed to the auction purchaser. Since the auction purchaser who is the respondent herein has the right to get the sale deed executed in her favour and they have to process the auction unde