D.Kumutha v. The Managing Director
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH and W.M.P.Nos.18783, 18786 & 18789 of 2025 D.Kumutha W/o.Late Durairaj Petitioner Vs 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2.The Executive Engineer, Zone - 7, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.
3.G.Saranya W/o.Late D.Gopi Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in order vide proceedings Na.Ka.No.G7/16165/2018 dated 26.11.2024 on the file of first respondent and to quash the same and further, direct the first respondent to issue allotment order to the 1/4
petitioner for the housing quarters for Door No.187, 9th Floor, Block-A of TNUHDB Housing Quarters, Valleeswaran Kovil Thottam, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 028.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Dhivakar For Respondents : Mr.K.Indumathy Venkatesh Standing Counsel [R1 & R2] No appearance - Mr.Sanjay Balachandar [R3] *****
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 26.11.2024 and for a direction to the first respondent to issue allotment order to the petitioner with respect to the Housing Quarters situated at R.A.Puram.
2. Heard Mr.M.Dhivakar, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.K.Indumathy Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. The third respondent is represented through the counsel, but, however, there is no appearance when the matter was called.
3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2/4
2, based on instructions, submitted that as per the Board Regulations, a person can have only one allotment whereas in the case of the petitioner two allotments were made - one allotment at Perumbakkam and another allotment at R.A.Puram. Therefore, one of the allotment was cancelled by virtue of the impugned proceedings dated 26.11.2024.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the mother-in-law and the third respondent is the daughterin-law and the daughter-in-law is in possession of the flat in Perumbakkam and the petitioner is in possession of the flat in R.A.Puram.
5. It is not in dispute that both the allotments were given in the name of the petitioner and there is no allotment given individually in the name of the third respondent. Since the petitioner is now residing in the allotment made at R.A.Puram, it will be proper if the other allotment at Perumbakkam is cancelled. Just because the third respondent is in possession of the allotment in Perumbakkam, that will not give any vested right to the third respondent. Proper proceedings shall be issued in N.ANAND VENKATESH, J 3/4
gm this regard by the first respondent within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Insofar as the property at R.A.Puram is concerned, the same shall be confirmed in favour of the petitioner.
This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 25.07.2025 Index: Yes/no Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order gm To 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2.The Executive Engineer, Zone - 7, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.
4/4