High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 11 MAD CK 0199

A.Chandra Prakash vs The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 493, Nanthanam, Chennai-35 and Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Madurai Housing Unit, Elis Nagar, Madurai-625 016

Madras High Court · Decided on 1 November 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Chandru, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (MD) No.110 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 437 words

Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru

1.

The petitioner was an allottee of a plot in Madurai Elis Nagar in H.486. The petitioner did not pay the entire amount due and payable towards the allotment of the plot.

2.

With reference to the fixation of the amount by the allottee, there was a litigation and finally when the allottees challenged the enhanced demand made by the Housing Board, the matter was heard by this Court in W.P.No.12252 of 2001, this Court held that the Housing Board is entitled to enhance the amount depending upon the compensation to be paid to the land owners and the issue also decided by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a SLP filed by the State. Therefore, after the disposal of the said writ petition in W.P.No.12252 of 2001, dated 02.07.2009, the respondent Tamil Nadu Housing Board informed the petitioner that they should pay a sum of Rs.1,68,410/- on or before 31.08.2010. It is only on such payment no objection certificate will be given and after getting the same, he can get the sale deed registered in his name. Challenging the same the present writ petition came to be filed.

3.

When the matter came up on 05.01.2011, notice of motion was ordered.

4.

On behalf of the Housing Board, learned counsel produced a copy of the proceedings, dated 20.04.2011 in which the Executive Engineer cum Administrative Officer, Madurai Housing Scheme informed the petitioner that if he is paid a sum of Rs.1,31,180/-, on or before, 30.04.2011 and also withdraw the writ petition, the sale deed will be registered in his name. When this was brought to the notice of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the notice was served only on 09.05.2011 and the time stipulated therein expired on 30.04.2011, if this court is extended the time, he is willing to pay the amount and comply with the requirement of the Housing Board for the purpose of getting the sale deed.

5.

Learned Counsel for the Housing Board is unable to agree with the extension of time limit. But however, under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may be given a further time, to comply with the demand made on 20.04.2011. Therefore, the time is extended upto 30.11.2011 to pay the amount of Rs.1,31,180/- and if the amount is paid, the respondents Housing Board shall receive the same and also to do the needful for registering the sale deed in favour of the petitioner.

6.

Hence, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.