BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14/11/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition (MD)No.832 of 2011 M.Swarnam ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Administrative Officer-cum Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Trichy Housing Unit, Kajamalai Colony, Trichy-20. 3.Mathialagan (R-3 impleaded as per order dated 14.11.2011 in M.P.No.1 of 2011)... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the written representation made by the petitioner, dated 30.08.2010 for allotment of plot (shop No.1) under Rural Development Scheme at Phase III, Poonga Nagar, Pudukkottai Trichy Housing Unit. !For Petitioner ... Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu ^For 2nd Respondent... Mr.P.Ganapathisubramanian For 3rd respondent ... Mr.R.Murugan :ORDER
The petitioner is a resident of Rajagopalapuram residing at Park Nagar,
Pudukottai District. In this writ petition, she has sought for a direction to
the respondent to consider her representation dated 30.08.2011 for allotmetn of
plot described as (shop No.1) under Rural Development Scheme in Phase III,
Poonga Nagar, Pudukkottai, Trichy Housing Unit.
2.When the writ petition came up for admission on 22.01.2011, this Court
ordered notice of motion and granted private notice. In the meanwhile, one
Mathialagan, who was an allottee of the plot in question has filed M.P.(MD)No.1
of 2011 seeking to implead himself in the writ petition and that was ordered
today.
3.The case of the third respondent (impleaded) is that he had applied for
Shop No.1 in the housing unit and which was allotted to him on 30.11.2010 (long
before the petitioner filed the writ petition). Subsequent to the allotment, he
has paid the sale consideration of Rs.17,11,500/- to the Housing Board and
registered a sale deed, dated 17.02.2011 was also executed by the second
respondent and he is the lawful owner of the said premises.
4.In the guise of sending representation, the petitioner cannot seek for
any allotment. To support the avernment made in the affidavit, the third
respondent has also filed six receipts issued by the Board evidencing the sale
consideration paid by the third respondent including the sale deed dated
17.02.2011 in the form of typed set of papers. The petitioner has not
controverted these allegations.
5.The standing counsel for the Housing Board states that the petitioner
has no locus standi to seek for any allotment of the plot execlusively for her
unless the matters are advertised, the petitioner also participated in any
auction. Taking advantage of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner
states that the allotment was made in favour of the third respondent by the
Board and no procedures have been followed and she had also made complaint to
all authorities vide representation dated 30.08.2010. That representation made
by the petitioner, do not inspire this Court to pass order in her favour. As
the representation itself started by saying that the area under the Rural
Development Scheme in Phase III, Poonga Nagar, Pudukkottai, she used the vacant
space without any disturbance and interference to the Board for more than 12
years and had also put up fencing which only indicate that she has encroached
the land without authority of the Board or the Government. Mere offering that
she is willing to give the sale price of the plot, cannot be accepted by this
Court as it is amount to make premium to the Board by the encroacher who has
come to this Court without any legal authority or legal obligation on the part
of the Board to allot the plot. This Court is not inclined to entertain the writ
petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
sms
To
1.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam,
Chennai-600 002.
2.The Administrative Officer-cum
Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Trichy Housing Unit,
Kajamalai Colony,
Trichy-20.
