Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37293
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Dhandapani, J
K.Thilagavel – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department – Respondent
Writ Petition | WP No. 18999 of 2003
For the Petitioners: Mr.N. Naganathan
For the Respondents:Mr.S. Rajesh Govt. Advocate for R1, Mr.G. Venkatesan for R2 & R3
Court directs consideration and execution of sale deed for allotted land after full payment and long possession, per prior orders.
Headnote:The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing execution of a registered sale deed for allotted land measuring 4200 sq.ft. originally allotted in 1987 subject to instalment payments, with full dues discharged and transfer approved in 1995 proceedings, yet sale deed not executed despite representations. Court found petitioners' long possession and payment compliance warrant consideration. Issue framed as whether respondents must execute sale deed despite full payment and prior approvals. Ratio: Court directed consideration given payment and prolonged delay, without opining on merits. Writ petition disposed directing respondents 2 and 3 to consider claim and execute sale deed if eligible, within twelve weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek sale deed for allotted property after full payment. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. parties submit on payment compliance and legal consideration. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court directs execution post consideration per prior orders. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. petition disposed with directions, no costs. (Para 8) |
ORDER
By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. The relief sought in this writ petition is a direction to the respondents to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners in respect of the subject property.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the subject property measuring an extent of 4200 sq.ft., bearing Door No.5, Plot No.146, Rajamannar Street, comprised in Survey No.209 (Part), situated at New Vijayaraghavapuram, Saligramam Village, Chennai District, was originally allotted by the 2nd respondent in favour of one Tmt. A.V. Subbulakshmi on 03.10.1987, subject to payment of a sum of Rs.51,000/- in instalments.Subsequently, the original allottee executed a General Power of Attorney dated 18.01.1990 in favour of one Vijayavel, who, in turn, conveyed the property in favour of petitioners 2 to 4 father. Ever since the date of purchase, the petitioners’ father has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. According to the petitioners, despite lapse of several decades and full payment having been made, the respondents have failed to execute the sale deed in their favour, which is arbitrary and illegal. Hence this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the property was originally allotted to one Subbulakshmi by the 2nd respondent. All the petitioners discharged the entire dues payable to the respondents and complied with all conditions and the said transfer from the original allottee has also been approved vide proceedings dated 27.12.1995 and the required charges were paid. He further submitted that despite having paid the full amount by the petitioners and their representations, the respondents have not executed the sale deed. Hence, he prayed for an appropriate directions by this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the petitioners’ request would be considered in accordance with law.
6. Considering the fact that the petitioners have paid the entire amount and the matter has been pending for a long period, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioners require consideration.
7. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to consider the petitioners’ claim and execute the sale deed, in the light of the orders dated 30.07.2012 passed in W.P. No.18999 of 2003, if the petitioners are otherwise eligible, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions. No costs.
