Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.It is his case that he is a bonafide allottee. According to him, the petitioner paid the entire payment to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board (TNSCB) in accordance with the lease cum sale agreement. However, it is his case that despite the payment made by the petitioner, the TNSCB did not execute the sale deed in his favour. According to him, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) claimed that the plot allotted to the petitioner by TNSCB belongs to http://www.judis.nic.in them absolutely. According to him, since the TNHB made a claim for the plot allotted to the petitioner by TNSCB, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3179 of 2011 before this Court. This Court, directed the TNHB to pass appropriate orders on the application dated 24.12.2010 submitted by the petitioner for allotment of the plot No.150 and till such time, the TNHB was directed not to disturb the possession of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.3179 of 2011, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board rejected the application dated 24.12.2010 submitted by the petitioner for allotment of plot No.150 by its order dated 31.03.2011. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has been paying all the necessary taxes in respect of plot No.150. According to him, even if the original allotment made by TNSCB is found to be a mistake, he should not be penalized for no fault of his.

5.A counter affidavit has also filed by the second respondent stating that the subject plot allegedly allotted to the petitioner, namely plot No.150, situated at New C.I.T.Nagar Chennai – 35 absolutely belongs to TNHB. According to them, a layout in which the plot No.150 situated is meant for the construction of a community hall. According to them, the Chairman of TNSCB vide its proceedings No.E6/23202/95 dated 31.08.1995 has wrongly allotted plot No.150 to the petitioner despite the fact that the said plot belongs absolutely to TNHB. Infact, TNHB also requested TNSCB to withdraw the allotment made by TNSCB in favour of the petitioner by mistake.

12.The learned standing counsel for the second respondent would submit that the subject plot which the petitioner claims is earmarked for a community hall. According to him, TNSCB had by mistake allotted the subject plot to the petitioner even though they are not the owners of the said plot.

http://www.judis.nic.in

13.The learned standing counsel for the second respondent also drew the attention of this Court to a judgment of this Court dated 17.09.2010 passed in W.A.Nos.1513 to 1515 of 2001 and submitted that after due consideration, the Division Bench has held that in the said order that the subject land measuring 1 ground 138 sq.ft. in which plot No.150 is situated belongs absolutely to TNHB and in particular he referred to paragraph No.27 of the said judgment which reads as follows:

16.This being the case, the petitioner if at all, aggrieved by the wrong allotment, can only seek damages against TNSCB. Further, as seen from the counter affidavit filed by TNHB, they have categorically stated that plot No.150 as well as the portiion of the adjoining land has been earmarked exclusively for a community hall. When it has been earmarked for a community hall, it cannot be allotted as a house site to the petitioner. Therefore, the second respondent as well as the first respondent have rightly rejected the application of the petitioner for allotment of plot No.150 in his favour. The second respondent/TNHB has also not denied the fact that there was a wrong allotment made by TNSCB in favour of the petitioner. Infact, they have also requested the TNSCB to withdraw the allotment made by mistake in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has also been put in possession of plot No.150. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for TNHB that subsequent to the http://www.judis.nic.in filing of this writ petition, TNHB has taken back possession of plot No.150 from the petitioner which is also admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.