Madras High Court
The Chairman vs G.Parvathy on 27 February, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
2025:MHC:575
W.A.Nos.26 & 30 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A.Nos.26 & 30 of 2025
The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
No.5, Kamarajar Salai
Near Vivekananda House
Ayothya Nagar, Triplicane
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 005 .. Appellant in both WAs
v.
1. G.Parvathy
2. K.Amutha alias Amuthavalli
3. The District Registrar
Office of the District Registrar
Office of the SRO, Sembiam
Rajaji Street, JCK Nagar
Hanumanthai
Tamil Nadu 603 001 ..
4. The Sub Registrar of Sembiam
Office of the Sub Registrar Sembiam
No.340, Paper Mills Road
____________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 11:39:35 am )
W.A.Nos.26 & 30 of 2025
Jagannathan Colony
Perambur, Chennai 600 011
5. G.Gangadharan alias Gangadurai
6. V.Sakunthala
7. G.Devi
8. Mrs.Chandrakala .. Respondents in W.A.No.26/2025
1. G.Parvathy
2. K.Amutha alias Amuthavalli
3. G.Gangadharan alias Gangadurai
4. V.Sakunthala .. Respondents in W.A.No.30/2025
Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of
the Letters Patent against the common order dated 24.06.2024 passed in
W.P.Nos.3209 of 2022 & 23304 of 2021, respectively.
For Appellant :: Mrs.G.Thilagavathy
Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Balaji
For Respondents :: No appearance for R1, R3 & R4
Mr.Md.Arshadullah Shariff for
Mrs.S.Ambigai for R2
Mr.L.Chandrakumar for R5 to R7
Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan for R8
in W.A.No.26 of 2025
No appearance for R1
Mr.Md.Arshadullah Shariff for
Mrs.S.Ambigai for R2
Mr.L.Chandrakumar for R3 & R4
in W.A.No.30 of 2025
____________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 11:39:35 am )
W.A.Nos.26 & 30 of 2025
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
The intra-Court appeals on hand have been instituted by the Tamil
Nadu Slum Clearance Board (presently Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat
Development Board) against the impugned order dated 24.06.2024 passed in
W.P.Nos.3209 of 2022 & 23304 of 2021, respectively.
2. It is not in dispute that Plot Nos.48 and 54 situated at Red Hills
Road, Makaram Thottam, Kolathur, Chennai were allotted in favour of
Mr.G.Gangadharan. Plot Nos.49 & 53 situated in the same place were
proposed to be allotted to one Mrs.V.Sakunthala. Further it is not in dispute
that Mr.G.Gangadharan paid the land cost for Plot Nos.48 & 54 and got the
sale deeds executed from the hands of the appellant-Board. As far as
Mrs.V.Sakunthala is concerned, she is neither an allottee nor the holder of
any sale deed concerning Plot Nos.49 & 53.
3. Admittedly, one of the conditions imposed in the sale deed granted
in favour of the allottee Mr.Gangadharan shows that the plots allotted at
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 11:39:35 am )
W.A.Nos.26 & 30 of 2025
concessional rate by the Board shall not be alienated to any third party for a
period of ten years. In the event of violation of any of the allotment
conditions, the Board is empowered to cancel the allotment and the sale
deed and take over possession of the plots allotted to the allottees. Agreeing
to the said conditions, Mr.Gangadharan-allottee paid the land cost and
secured the sale deed in his favour. The same is not the case in respect of
Mrs.V.Sakunthala, as she was neither an allottee nor any sale deed came to
be executed in her favour.
4. With the above background, a dispute arose on account of
alienation and settlement of the subject plots in favour of the family
members and/or to third parties.
5. Pertinently, Mrs.G.Parvathy, mother of Mr.Gangadharan and
Mrs.K.Amutha @ Amuthavalli, sister of Mr.Gangadharan filed
W.P.No.23304 of 2021 seeking allotment of the four plots, namely, Plot
Nos.48, 49, 53 & 54 to the legal heirs of late Mr.Govindan. The other writ
petition in W.P.No.3209 of 2022 was filed for a further relief to cancel the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 11:39:35 am )
W.A.Nos.26 & 30 of 2025
sale deeds and settlement deeds. Both the writ petitions were taken up
together and the issues were adjudicated by the writ Court.
6. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the relationship
and the sale deeds concerning a portion of the plots in favour of third parties.
The appellant found that the alienation and sale of property were done in
violation of the conditions stipulated in the allotment order and the sale deed
executed in favour of Mr.Gangadharan. Since actions are initiated, the writ
petitions came to be instituted.
7. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 7
Mr.L.Chandrakumar in W.A.No.26 of 2025 would submit that the appellant
Board issued a circular dated 12.01.2022 relaxing the condition that the
allottees can sell their plots without waiting for the ten years check period
contemplated under the allotment conditions and the sale deed. Therefore,
there is no impediment to alienate the property and thus the writ appeal is to
be rejected.
8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 11:39:35 am )
W.A.Nos.26 & 30 of 2025
Board Mrs.G.Thilagavathy would oppose by stating that the circular will
have prospective effect so as to delete the said condition from the sale deeds
to be executed from the date of issuance of circular and more so, the circular
was issued granting the benefit only in respect of low value plots allotted to
the beneficiaries.
9. This Court has perused the circular dated 12.01.2022 and it is
amply clear that the circular will have only prospective effect and cannot be
applied retrospectively so as to save the alienations already done in violation
of the conditions stipulated under the allotment order or the sale deed, as the
case may be. Once conditions have been incorporated in the allotment order
and agreed between the parties, the same are binding. The circular also
reveals that the condition relating to alienation may not be incorporated in
future allotment orders and that being the position, the arguments as
advanced on behalf of the contesting respondents so as to validate the
alienations, deserve no merit consideration.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 11:39:35 am )
W.A.Nos.26 & 30 of 2025
10. Alienations of properties are not in dispute between the parties.
Settlement deeds executed in favour of family members are also not
disputed. The learned single Judge has elaborately considered the nature of
settlement deeds and sale deeds executed in favour of third parties, which
deserves no further adjudication. The settlement deed reveals that it was
executed based on the presumption that the family inherited right from
Mr.Govindan, but the fact remains that Mr.Govindan is not even an allottee.
11. The transaction between the private respondents would reveal that
without any right for alienation, the settlement deeds and sale deeds in
favour of third parties were executed. The alienations are not protected
under the circular dated 12.01.2022. Therefore, the reliefs granted by the
writ Court in paragraph 18(i) and (ii) are in consonance with the conditions
stipulated in the allotment order and the sale deed executed by the appellant
Board. As far as the relief granted in paragraph 18(iii) directing the
appellant Board to allot the Plot Nos.49 & 53 and execute the sale deeds in
favour of Mrs.V.Sakunthala is concerned, this Court is of the considered
opinion that Mrs.V.Sakunthala has not derived any right from the Board,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 11:39:35 am )
W.A.Nos.26 & 30 of 2025
since she is neither an allottee nor any sale deed was executed in her favour.
When Mrs.V.Sakunthala was neither an allottee nor paid the land cost during
the relevant point of time, the direction issued by the writ Court against the
appellant Board to execute the sale deed in favour of Mrs.V.Sakunthala is
infirm and running counter to the facts and the conditions stipulated under
the scheme. Therefore, the appellant Board is entitled to succeed as far as
paragraph 18(iii) of the impugned writ Court order is concerned.
12. In view of the above facts and discussions, this Court, while
confirming the reliefs granted by the writ Court in paragraph 18(i) and (ii) of
the order impugned, is inclined to set aside the direction issued in paragraph
18(iii) alone, which reads as under:-
“(iii) the first respondent is directed to allot the Plot
Nos.49 & 53 and execute the sale deeds in favour of the
fifth respondent herein, on payment of necessary cost, if
not already paid, within a period of two weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
It is needless to state that since the rights of allottees have been determined,
all subsequent alienations/actions became illegal and therefore the appellant
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 11:39:35 am )
W.A.Nos.26 & 30 of 2025
Board is empowered to resume the properties by following the due process.
With these observations, the writ appeals are allowed in part. Consequently,
C.M.P.Nos.171 & 198 of 2025 are closed. No costs.
Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.)
Neutral citation : yes 27.02.2025
ss
To
1. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
No.5, Kamarajar Salai
Near Vivekananda House
Ayothya Nagar, Triplicane
Chennai 600 005
2. The District Registrar
Office of the District Registrar
Office of the SRO, Sembiam
Rajaji Street, JCK Nagar
Hanumanthai, Tamil Nadu 603 001
3. The Sub Registrar of Sembiam
Office of the Sub Registrar Sembiam
No.340, Paper Mills Road
Jagannathan Colony
Perambur, Chennai 600 011
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 11:39:35 am )
W.A.Nos.26 & 30 of 2025
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR,J.
ss
W.A.Nos.26 & 30 of 2025
27.02.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 11:39:35 am )
