Madras High Court
WP(MD)/3349/2026 of Robinson Vs The Managing Director on 28 October 2026
WP(MD) No. 3349 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR
RAMAMOORTHY
WP(MD) No. 3349 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD010163032026}
Robinson
S/o.John Henry, Door NO.6, Vivekananda Street, Iyyapaya Nagar, Trichy -21
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Managing Director
Tamilnadu Housing Board, Chennai -35
2. The Executive Engineer/Administrative Officer, Tamilnadu Housing Board, Trichy Housing Unit, Kajamalai Colony, Trichy.
3. The Junior Engineer,
Tamilnadu Housing Board, Trichy Housing Unit, Trichy.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to execute the Sale Deed in the Petitioner's favour in respect of Plot No.M-92 in Karur Senaipiratty Phase II stage II in S.No.1404/1B1, Senaipiratty Village, Karur Taluk and District as per the allotment order dated 20/01/2012 in favour of the Petitioner and to pass such further or other orders as this Honble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice For Petitioner(s)
:Mr.G.Prabu Rajadurai
for M/s Selva Aditya S
For Respondent(s)
:Mr.M.Suresh, Standing Counsel
__________
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 03:39:58 pm )
WP(MD) No. 3349 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board formed a layout in Senaipiratti Village, Karur District. The petitioner applied for the purchase of a plot and was allotted Plot No. M-92 vide allotment order dated 20.01.2012. The total sale consideration for the plot was fixed at Rs.3,56,000/-. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,25,600/- as the initial instalment, followed by monthly instalments of Rs.4,950/-. The possession of the plot was handed over to the petitioner on 22.03.2012. Thereafter, the entire sale consideration was paid to the respondents and the same was duly acknowledged by them. However, despite receipt of the entire sale consideration, the respondents did not come forward to execute the sale deed. The petitioner, therefore, sent a representation to the respondents on 27.07.2018 requesting them to execute the sale deed in his favour. As no further action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to execute the sale deed in respect of the said plot in his favour.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the allotment order, the possession transfer certificate and proof of payment to contend that all amounts due and payable were paid by the petitioner. Turning to the counter-affidavit, he submits that the respondent is refusing to register the __________
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 03:39:58 pm )
WP(MD) No. 3349 of 2026 sale deed on the ground that the original allotment was made to one A.Kannan. He points out that said Kannan or his legal heirs have not objected to the execution of a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. He also submits that no action was taken regarding the alleged unlawful allotment since 2012 until the petitioner requested for the execution of the sale deed.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board submits that the allotment was made fraudulently by the then Junior Engineer, Udaya Kumar, in spite of the fact that the application was made by Mr.V.Kannan and not by the petitioner. He adds that the Junior Engineer does not have the administrative authority to issue land allotment orders to allottees.
4. The petitioner has included in the paper book the allotment order issued on 20.01.2012, the possession transfer certificate issued on 22.03.2012 and proof of payments being made by the petitioner to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. In the counter-affidavit, the Housing Board admits receipt of payments, including the receipt of a sum of Rs.4,68,550/-. __________
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 03:39:58 pm )
WP(MD) No. 3349 of 2026
5. The counter-affidavit also records that the Junior Engineer against whom allegations are made by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board passed away and said affidavit does not record as to what action was taken against him. It also appears that Mr.V.Kannan has not raised any objections regarding the allotment to Mrs.Chandra.
6. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of on the following terms:
(i) The Tamil Nadu Housing Board is directed to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner
(ii) The petitioner shall pay amounts, if any, outstanding to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board as per the terms and conditions of allotment and make the necessary payments towards stamp duty and registration fees.
(iii) The above process shall be concluded within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 28-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No PKN __________
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 03:39:58 pm )
WP(MD) No. 3349 of 2026 To
1. The Managing Director Tamilnadu Housing Board, Chennai -35
2. The Executive Engineer/Administrative Officer Tamilnadu Housing Board, Trichy Housing Unit, Kajamalai Colony, Trichy
3. The Junior Engineer Tamilnadu Housing Board, Trichy Housing Unit, Trichy __________
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 03:39:58 pm )
WP(MD) No. 3349 of 2026 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. PKN WP(MD) No. 3349 of 2026 28-10-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 03:39:58 pm )