A property allotment made solely in the name of one individual grants them the exclusive right to execution of the sale deed, and heirs acquire no right of inclusion based solely on an unregistered draft document.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 08.06.2021 and 24.06.2021 and thereby direct the respondents 1 to 4 herein to issue and register the sale deed pertaining to the property situated at Plot No. 152, D.No. 39/61, Thangal Erikarai Street, Virugambakkam and Chennai 92, Totally to extent of 44.8 Sq.m by including the name of the petitioner along with the respondents 5 to 7 herein who are all the legal heirs of Late. Smt. Lakshmi wife of the 5^th respondent and the mother of the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 within stipulated period of time and accordance with law.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.F.Arfan For Respondent(s): Mr. G.Venkatesan Standing Counsel for R1 to R3 Ms.A.Bakkiya Lakshmi Government Advocate for R4 Mr.L.Rajasekar for R5 to R7

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 08.06.2021 and 24.06.2021 and thereby direct the respondents 1 to 4 herein to issue and register the sale deed pertaining to the property situated at Plot No. 152, D.No. 39/61, Thangal Erikarai Street, Virugambakkam and Chennai 92, Totally to extent of 44.8 Sq.m by including the name of the petitioner along with the respondents 5 to 7 herein who are all the legal heirs of Late. Smt. Lakshmi wife of the 5^th respondent and the mother of the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 within stipulated period of time.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially the subject property was allotted in the name of the 5^th respondent, who is none other than the father of the petitioner and in the name of the petitioner’s mother. It is stated that the petitioner’s mother is no more. The learned counsel would submit that during her life time, the petitioner’s mother permitted the petitioner to occupy the properties and the petitioner has been in possession and continue to reside in the subject property. Therefore, the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently residing in the subject property along with his wife. Under these circumstances, the 5^th respondent/father making an attempt to execute a sale deed including his name alone. Hence, the petitioner made a representation dated 24.06.2021 to the respondents to take appropriate action. Since the same is not considered, the present writ petition is filed. 3. However, the learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 / Slum Clearance Board would submit that the property was initially allotted to and in favour of the 5^th respondent by virtue of the allotment order dated 13.03.1996 and as on date, the entire amount had already been paid by the 5^th respondent. It is further submitted that due to the present writ petition, they are not in a position to execute the sale deed. However, they would submit that the question of allotment of subject properties to the petitioner’s mother’s name would not at all arise as in the allotment order was issued only the 5^th respondent’s name. It is submitted that if at all any sale deed, the 5^th respondent only have a right to execute the same.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

5. In the present case, though the learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the allotment was made in the name of the 5^th respondent as well as the petitioner’s mother, no documentary evidence has been produced before this Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for