← Library
Madras High CourtWP/21459/2011dismissed

R.J.Parthasarathy, v. The Managing Director,

2022-07-05Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.07.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH MP No.2 of 2011 R.J.Parthasarathy .. Petitioner Vs.

The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035 .... Respondent PRAYER.: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records from the file of the respondents relating to the impugned order dated 7.6.2011 bearing Ref.No.TP4/ 56779/ 2009 issued by the respondent to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sai Krishnan For Respondent : Mr.D.Veerasekaran Standing counsel 1/5

O R D E R

This writ petition was filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the respondent dated 07.06.2011 wherein the request made by the petitioner for the revision of the schedule of the property was rejected by the respondent. 2.

The case of the petitioners is that he along with others were alloted houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in the year 1982 to 1983. The petitioner along with others made a representation to the Housing Board requesting for the revision of the schedule of property on the ground that there was a shortage in the length of each property by eight feet and as a result of the same, the Corporation of Chennai was taking steps to remove the portions which stand as the fence or the compound wall as encroachments.

2/5

3.

The respondent on receipt of the representation from the petitioner and others, rejected the request made by the petitioner and aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this court.

4.

Mr.Sai Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there has been absolutely no instructions from the petitioner and they are not in a position to inform this Court on the present status of the property. 5.

Per contra, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the impugned communication issued by the Housing Board since the petitioner and others were seeking for the revision of the schedule of property after nearly 30 years after the allotment was made by the Housing Board.

3/5

6.

In the considered view of this Court, there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the respondent dated 07.06.2011. The houses have already been alloted by the Housing Board and they are out of the scene and they cannot have any say on the revision of the schedule of the property after a period of 30 years. This Court does not find any ground to grant the relief as sought for by the petitioner. In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

05.07.2022 rka To The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035 4/5

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

rka 05.07.2022 5/5