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) 37299

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Dhandapani, J
N.Usha – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board – Respondent
Writ Petition



Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr.K.V. Ananthakrushnan
For the Respondent: Mr.S. Karthikeyan Standing Counsel

Court directs time-bound house allotment to eligible EWS applicant upon payment after prior direction compliance.

Headnote:**First Paragraph:** Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner from Economically Weaker Section applied for house allotment under Thirumangalam Project on 05.01.2023, meeting all eligibility criteria, but no allotment occurred despite court direction in prior writ petition (W.P.No.2930 of 2023) to allot in available vacancies. Court finds petitioner eligible and respondent has identified a tenement. **Second Paragraph:** Issues framed include failure to allot despite eligibility and prior directions, availability of tenements in Shenoy Nagar and Thirumangalam projects. Ratio: Eligible EWS applicant entitled to allotment in identified vacancy upon payment, court directs time-bound process to enforce compliance. **Last Paragraph:** Writ petition disposed of with directions for petitioner to remit Rs.6,09,000/- within two weeks, respondent to issue allotment within two weeks thereafter and provide payment schedule.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's ews application and prior court direction ignored. (Para 2 , 3)
2. parties submit on eligibility, availability, and payment requirement. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court acknowledges eligibility and directs time-bound allotment. (Para 7 , 8)
4. specific payment and allotment directions issued. (Para 10)

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 19.01.2026 for allotment of a house under the schemes of the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board.

2. It is the case of the petitioner, that she belongs to the Economically Weaker Section and applied for allotment of a tenement under the Thirumangalam Project, Chennai on 05.01.2023. It is further stated that though the petitioner satisfied all eligibility criteria, no allotment was made, compelling the petitioner to file W.P.No.2930 of 2023 before this Court.

3. Subsequently, based on information obtained under the RTI Act, the petitioner came to know that tenements were available under the Shenoy Nagar Project and submitted a representation dated 03.05.2024 seeking allotment therein. By a common order dated 11.06.2024 in W.P. No.2930 of 2023 etc. batch, this Court directed the respondent to allot tenement in any available vacancies. Thereafter, she submitted a further representation dated 19.01.2026 followed by a legal notice dated 26.02.2026. Since no action was taken, till date, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, being an eligible candidate under the Economically Weaker Section, applied as early as on 05.01.2023, but no allotment has been made till date. It is the argument of the learned counsel that even after the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.2930 of 2023 etc. batch, the respondent has failed to allot any house/tenement to the petitioner. He also submitted that tenements are available at Shenoy Nagar and Thirumangalam Projects, yet the respondents have not issued any allotment order in favour of the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for issuance of appropriate directions by this Court.

5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that a tenement has already been identified for allotment to the petitioner at Moorthingar Street. He further submitted that the petitioner is required to remit a sum of Rs.6,09,000/- by way of Demand Draft in favour of the Executive Engineer, Division-II, payable at Chennai, within a period of two weeks, upon which, the allotment will be processed and issued in favour of the petitioner. In view of the above, this Court may issue suitable directions. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has applied for allotment of a house/tenement under the Economically Weaker Section and that this Court had earlier directed the respondent to consider the petitioner’s claim for allotment in any available vacancy. Despite such direction, the grievance of the petitioner is that no effective allotment has been made till date. However, it is the fair stand of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent that a tenement has already been identified for the petitioner and subject to payment of the required amount, allotment order will be issued in petitioner’s favour.

8. Recording the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, this Court is inclined to issue appropriate directions to ensure that the allotment process is completed within a time frame.

9. Accordingly, this Court issues the following directions :-

i) The petitioner shall remit a sum of Rs.6,09,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Nine Thousand only) by way of Demand Draft in favour of the Executive Engineer, Division-II, Chennai, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy o

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