BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21/11/2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA
W.P.(MD)No.3555 of 2008
AND
M.P.(MD)NO.1 of2008
Susila Jeyaraj alias Susila Devi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Executive Engineer
Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
80 feet, Opposite to Jawahar Hospital,
K.K.Nagar,
Madurai - 20
2. Ashok ... Respondent
(The second respondent is impleaded
as per order dated 28.07.08 in
W.P.No.3555 of 2008)
Prayer
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Order or direction or any other appropriate
Writ and more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to
execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the
petitioner's representation dated 27.02.2008, after surveying the land within a
time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble court.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.N.Murugesan
^For Respondent ... No apperance
No.1
For Respondent ... Mr.M.Boominathan
No.2
:ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondent to execute the
sale deed in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the petitioner’s
representation dated 27.02.2008, after surveying the land within a time frame to
be fixed by this Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also
Mr.S.Chellapandian, learned counsel for the second respondent. There is no
representation for the first respondent.
3. The nutshell facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for
the disposal of this Writ Petition would ran thus:
4. The petitioner deposited all the amounts, according to him with the R1
viz., Slum Clearance Board and thereby entitled himself to get the sale deed
executed in his favour, from R1. In the meanwhile, because of the interference
of R2, viz, the second respondent, the R1 is not executing the sale deed.
Admittedly the second respondent is in possession of a portion of the area,
relating to which the R1 is expected to execute the sale deed in favour of the
petitioner.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the second
respondent is none, but his tenant, whereas it appears the contention of the
learned counsel for the second respondent is to the contrary that he is having
independent right over the property and that a civil suit is pending between the
petitioner and the second respondent at the instance of the second respondent.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the second respondent.
7. Hence, in these circumstances, I would like to make it clear that the
contract is between the petitioner and the first respondent, without prejudice
to the right of the second respondent to prosecute his case in the pending
injunction suit, the first respondent has to execute the sale deed in favour of
the petitioner within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order, if at all the petitioner fulfilled all the terms and conditions,
which are just and necessary for getting the sale deed executed in his favour.
8. To the risk of repetition without being tautologous, this emergence of
sale deed would not in any way affect the right of the second respondent, if he
is having one, which he could prove before the Court or in his injunction suit.
9. With the above said observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
arr/smn
To
The Executive Engineer
Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
80 feet, Opposite to Jawahar Hospital,
K.K.Nagar,
Madurai – 20