Madras High Court
K.Parameswaran vs The Secretary To Government on 6 January, 2021
WA.Nos.1152, 1153 and 1154 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.01.2021
CORAM :
The Hon'ble Mr.SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
WA.Nos.1152, 1153 and 1154 of 2020
and CMP Nos.14198, 14199, 14200, 14201,
14202 and 14196 of 2020
K.Parameswaran .. Appellant in W.A.No.1152 of 2020
R.Rajendran .. Appellant in W.A.No.1153 of 2020
A.J.Ponnaiah .. Appellant in W.A.No.1154 of 2020
-vs-
1.The Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035.
3. Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
Rep. by its Managing Director
Kamarajar Salai,
Chennai – 600 005.
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.Nos.1152, 1153 and 1154 of 2020
4.Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer,
Nandanam Division,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035.
5. The Secretary & Personnel Officer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
493, Anna Salai,
Nandanam,
Chennai -600 035. .. Respondents in all the appeals
Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
common order dated 08.10.2020 in W.P.Nos.19625 to 19627 of 2013
on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Saravanakumar
For 1st respondent : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan
State Government Pleader
For R.2,R.4 and R.5 : Mr.R.Bharathkumar
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The appeals are directed against a common judgment and order
of October 8, 2020, on three writ petitions filed by three erstwhile
employees of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.Nos.1152, 1153 and 1154 of 2020
2.The facts are not much in dispute. The writ petitioners or their
predecessors-in-interest were allotted flats at Masthan Garden in C.I.T
Nagar, Chennai. The construction was made in the year 1954 and the
original allotments were made contemporaneously.
3.It appears that in or about 2001, a scheme was put in place by
the State or the appropriate authority for conversion of the rental flats
at Masthan Garden colony to ownership flats. A cluster of 50 flats was
allowed to be converted from rent to ownership. Four similarly situate,
but different, flats in the Masthan Garden colony were not included in
the scheme.
4.The four allottees of such four flats or the persons who were in
possession of such four flats made a representation to the respondents
in 2001 for the four flats to also be included as part of the scheme.
One flat has since been allotted to the Fire Department and is not the
subject-matter of the present proceedings; the three other flats
continue to be occupied by the three writ petitioners and it is upon
their request for conversion of the rental flats to ownership flats being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.Nos.1152, 1153 and 1154 of 2020
rejected in 2013 that the writ petitions came to be filed in the same
year.
5.The appellants rely on several documents to claim that there
was a mistake on the part of the respondent authorities in not
including these three appellants or the allottees of the four flats and
making a distinction between the 50 other similar flats and the four
flats. The appellants refer to their representation of September 21,
2001 to the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. In
such representation, the appellants requested the Board to make their
“present rental flats ..... as ownership flats”. The appellants next refer
to a letter dated June 10, 2002, issued by the Executive Engineer of
the Board to the Revenue Officer indicating that the four flats were
adjacent to the 50 Masthan Garden flats and should have been treated
similarly as the 50 other flats which were converted from rental flats to
ownership. Indeed, the relevant letter records, in its final paragraph,
as follows:
“Hence, this is to inform that, when action is taken for
Masthan Garden Flats action can be taken including these
4 flats.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.Nos.1152, 1153 and 1154 of 2020
6.The appellants claim that their representations continued
thereafter and in 2006, an internal finding of the Managing Director
noticed the appellants' plight and the Managing Director recommended
the acceptance of the appellants' request. However, the Chairman of
the Board ultimately rejected the request.
7.Another internal note of the Board, which appears to have
been prepared in the year 2007, dealt with the cases of these three
appellants and opined that the three appellants be treated as the
original allottees at par with the allottees of 1954 and be provided sale
deeds with the property being valued as in 1983, just as the 50 other
similarly placed flat owners had been treated. Finally, the appellants
rely on a writing of May 19, 2006, where the Managing Director of the
Board again recommended that the appellants be permitted to
purchase the flats outright as the appellants' names appeared to have
been omitted from the original list.
8.The case that is sought to be made out by the appellants is
that the original scheme included the appellants' three flats as well and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.Nos.1152, 1153 and 1154 of 2020
that at the time of the recommendation being made for conversion of
the rental flats into ownership flats, the names of four persons had
been missed out, including the names of these three appellants. The
word “omitted” used by the Managing Director in the internal
communication of May 19, 2006, appears to be the source of
sustenance for founding the argument that a mistake was committed
in 2001 for which the appellants continued to make representations till
the respondents refused to rectify the mistake in 2013, whereupon the
appellants approached the Writ Court within ten days of the order of
rejection of July 1, 2013.
9.A reading of the very documents that the appellants rely on
would, however, indicate a completely different picture. It does not
appear that the four other flats in the Masthan Garden colony were
included along with the 50 flats that were recommended to be made
over to the original allottees on ownership basis from the existing
rental basis. Indeed, the very first representation made by the
appellants requests the authorities to include the four flats that had
been left out. No case of any mistake was made out.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.Nos.1152, 1153 and 1154 of 2020
10.The initial report of the Board also reveals that the appellants'
flats were similarly situated as the 50 other Masthan Garden colony
flats though the appellants' flats were larger in size measuring
approximately 310 sq. ft. against the approximately 228 sq. ft. that
the other flats measured. It is evident that the initial scheme
propounded by the authorities in 2001 was limited to the 50 flats and
did not include the four adjacent flats, three of which are claimed by
the appellants herein. There was no mistake in any name being
accidentally missed out, though there may have been a mistake in not
including the four adjacent flats along with initial lot of 50 flats.
11.Apart from the fact that this does not appear to be a case of a
right being vested in the appellants and such right being denied, it
appears that the appellants did not pursue the matter in right earnest
and now seek to use the word “omitted” in the letter of May 19, 2006,
to attack the impugned rejection of July 1, 2013. In the meantime,
the policy of the State has changed and rental flats are no longer, after
about 2006, allowed to be taken over as ownership flats without
paying the current market value thereof.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.Nos.1152, 1153 and 1154 of 2020
12.It is also of some significance that the three flats of the
appellants are in a highly dilapidated condition and demolition orders
may have already been passed. In such a scenario, particularly when
the flats today are of no value and the flats have been enjoyed by the
appellants for such a long time, there is no further modicum of right
that the appellants can squeeze out of the present situation. It is
possible that the appellants continue to occupy the dilapidated flats,
but the appellants have no right to assert ownership over the space
that they continue to occupy or claim conversion of their limited rights
as tenants to those as owners.
13.The order impugned refers to an option that was given by the
Board to the appellants. The Board has submitted that it was under no
obligation to give the appellants any choice, but considering the
circumstances, the offer had been made.
14.If the offer is still valid, it will be open to the appellants to
accept the same. However, as far as the three flats are concerned,
the appellants have no rights to claim ownership over or in respect
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.Nos.1152, 1153 and 1154 of 2020
thereof. If any order of demolition has been made, the same has to be
carried out in accordance with law.
There is no merit in the appeals. The judgment and order
impugned do not call for any interference. W.A.Nos.1152, 1153 and
1154 of 2020 are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to
costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.14198 to 14202 and 14196 of 2020
also stand dismissed.
(S.B., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)
06.01.2021
Index : Yes
sra
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035.
3. The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
Kamarajar Salai, Chennai – 600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA.Nos.1152, 1153 and 1154 of 2020
The Hon'ble Chief Justice
and
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.
(sra)
4. The Executive Engineer & Administrative Officer,
Nandanam Division,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.
5. The Secretary & Personnel Officer,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
493, Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai -600 035.
WA.Nos.1152, 1153 and
1154 of 2020
06.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
