SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 30771

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Dhandapani, J
G.Mohandas – Appellant
Versus
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board – Respondent
W.P.No. (unspecified)



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Shivakumar for M/s.Shivakumar and Suresh
For the Respondents: Mr.D.Veerasekaran

Conditional sale deed execution pending appeal on housing scheme cost dispute.

Headnote:Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner allotted MIG-I flat under hire purchase scheme with tentative cost of Rs.40,71,000/-, paid initial amount based thereon. Housing Board later demanded additional Rs.9,67,750/- as final cost. Court in similar case (W.P.No.1020/2025) set aside excess demand and directed sale deed execution, upheld conditionally by Division Bench in W.A.No.2743/2025. Issue: Whether final cost demand exceeding provisional allotment can be enforced without sale deed execution. Ratio: Following precedent, court directs conditional sale deed execution subject to appeal outcome, protecting Board's recovery rights if appeal succeeds. Writ petition disposed directing respondents to execute sale deed with conditions: petitioner pays demanded amount with interest if Board succeeds in W.A.No.2743/2025; no encumbrance till disposal.

Table of Content
1. provisional flat allotment and initial payment details. (Para 1 , 2 , 6)
2. reliance on similar case precedent and interim order. (Para 3 , 7)
3. respondents accept facts; court reviews record. (Para 4 , 5)
4. conditional sale deed direction with encumbrances. (Para 8)

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to execute the sale deed in respect of Flat No.MIG I – 12/35 at the 9th Floor, Sholinganallur Phase – II in favour of the petitioner and refund the excess amount of paid by the petitioner to the second respondent towards the cost of the Flat No.MIG I – 12/35 at the 9th Floor, Sholinganallur Phase – II together with interest.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner applied for Flat under MIG – I vide application dated 18.09.2015 and the second respondent issued provisional allotment order dated 27.04.2017, as per which it was informed that the petitioner had been provisionally allotted M.I.G.I, Flat No.12/35 in the

9th Floor at Construction of 1500 MSB Flats under Pre-fab Technology at Sholinganallur Phase – II Scheme under Hire Purchase Mode during the lot held on 07.01.2016 and the tentative cost of the Flat is Rs.40,71,000/- and the petitioner was required to pay 25% of the Flat Cost i.e., Rs.10,17,750/- and a sum of Rs.50,000/- which was the application money would be adjusted in the said amount. The petitioner paid the entire amount on 23.04.2018. Thereafter, the respondent fixed the final cost and vide impugned order, demanded the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.9,67,750/-.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that similarly situated person filed W.P.No.1020 of 2025 challenging the final cost price and this Court vide order dated 13.03.2025, disposed the said writ petition by setting aside the final cost imposed on the petitioner therein and by directing the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to execute sale deed in favour of the petitioner therein as against which, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board preferred W.A.No.2743 of 2025 and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court passed the following interim order on 08.09.2025:

"There shall be a direction to the appellant Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) to execute the sale deed as directed by the Writ Court through the impugned order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the execution of the sale deed by the TNHB is subject to the condition that, in case the respondent / writ petitioner lost the writ appeal, in other words, the writ appeal is allowed in favour of the TNHB, the demand of excess cost roughly about Rupees Six Lakhs made by the TNHB shall be paid by the respondent / writ petitioner. Only on the above condition, the aforesaid execution of the sale deed shall be undertaken by the TNHB within the time frame.”

Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed for similar order in this writ petition.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents did not dispute the facts submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

5.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6.The petitioner applied for Flat under MIG – I vide application dated 18.09.2015 and the second respondent issued provisional allotment order dated 27.04.2017, as per which it was informed that the petitioner had been provisionally allotted M.I.G.I, Flat No.12/35 in the 9th Floor at Construction of 1500 MSB Flats under Pre-fab Technology at Sholinganallur Phase – II Scheme under Hire Purchase Mode during the lot held on 07.01.2016 and the tentative cost of the Flat is Rs.40,71,000/- and the petitioner was required to pay 25% of the Flat Cost i.e., Rs.10,17,750/- and a sum of Rs.50,000/- which was the application money would be adjusted in the said amount. The petitioner paid the entire amount on 23.04.2018. Thereafter, the respondent fixed the final cost and v

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top