WP/6270/2026 of J.SANTHANALAKSHMI Vs TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD
W.P.No.6270 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.6270 of 2026
J.Santhanalakshmi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Represented by its Chairman,
TNHB Office Complex,
1st Main Road, CIT Nagar,
Chennai – 600 035.
2.Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Represented by its Managing Director,
TNHB Office Complex,
1st Main Road, CIT Nagar,
Chennai – 600 035.
3.T.Udaya Kumar ... Respondents
Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Ind ia to
issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Tamil Nadu Housing Board
represented by the Chairman and Managing Director the r espondents
1 and 2 herein to issue a No Objection Certificate to the third
respondent to execute the sale deed for the 516 sq.f t. of undivided
share in the subject land comprised in O.S.Nos.39/1, 2, 3 Part, 295/1
and 2, 296 Part and 297/1 Part T.S.No.14/2 Part, Block No.129,
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6270 of 2026
measuring an extent of 39264 sq.ft. (90 cents), Kodambakkam
Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai in the name of the
petitioner pursuant in the agreement of sale dated 23.01.2007 entered
into between the husband of the petitioner and the third respondent.
For Petitioner : Ms.Nalini Chidambaram
Senior Counsel
for M/s.C.Uma
For Respondents : Mr.A.M.Ravindranath for R1, R2
Standing Counsel
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of
Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to issue No
Objection Certificate to the third respondent to execut e the sale deed
for the 516 sq.ft. of undivided share in the subject la nd comprised in
O.S.Nos.39/1, 2, 3 Part, 295/1 and 2, 296 Part and 297/1 Part
T.S.No.14/2 Part, Block No.129, measuring an extent o f 39264 sq.ft.
(90 cents), Kodambakkam Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chen nai,
in the name of the petitioner pursuant in the agreemen t of sale dated
23.01.2007 entered into between the husband of the p etitioner and
the third respondent.
2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
2/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6270 of 2026
submitted that the land measuring 90 cents in Survey No.297/1,
Kodambakkam Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai [hereinaft er
referred to as ‘subject property’] belong to the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board and without knowledge that the subject property belong to the
Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the third respondent purchased the
property from the so called erstwhile owners for a valuable
consideration of Rs.3 Crores. The third respondent app roached CMDA
for reclassification of the subject property from institu tional zone to
residential zone and CMDA published Notification dated 09. 11.2005 in
the Government Gazette reclassifying the subject land fro m
institutional zone to residential zone. The third respond ent thereafter
issued advertisement dated 13.11.2005 in the newspape r calling for
applications for purchase of flats in the housing project to be
developed by the third respondent in the subject property and the plan
was approved by CMDA on 20.03.2006 and necessary pla n sanction
was also issued by Chennai Corporation vide sanction order dated
05.04.2006 for construction of three floors in the subject property.
3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
further submitted that the third respondent put up a multistorey
building by name Metropolis in the subject property and the
3/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6270 of 2026
petitioner’s husband purchased flats in the said building. The
petitioner’s husband entered into sale agreement date d 23.01.2007
with the third respondent and two others who were joint owners of the
subject property under which it was agreed that 516 sq.ft. of
undivided share in the subject property will be sold to the petitioner’s
husband and on the same day, a construction agreemen t was entered
into between the petitioner’s husband and M/s.Land Ma rk Construction
under which it was agreed that Flat No.T15, B Block in t he third floor
of an area of 1030 sq.ft. will be constructed for a value of
Rs.22,29,252/- and after construction, the flat was handed over to the
petitioner’s husband.
4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
further submitted that the patta issued to the third respondent for the
subject property was set aside by this Court in a Public Interest
Litigation on 05.10.2010 and the matter went up to H on’ble Supreme
Court in S.L.P.Nos.19368 – 19369 of 2007 [later renumbered as
C.A.Nos.5414 – 5415 of 2010] by order dated 02.11.2007 directed the
third respondent to deposit Rs.5 Crores with the Tamil Na du Housing
Board. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
petitioner’s husband purchased Flat No.T-15 in Block No.B renumbered
4/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6270 of 2026
as BT-7 in the third floor of Metropolis by paying sale co nsideration for
the undivided share of the land measuring 516 sq.ft. t o the third
respondent and also paid the cost of construction to M /s.Land Mark
Construction and further submitted that when Tamil Na du Housing
Board received Rs.5 Crores from the third respondent, there is no legal
impediment for the respondents to execute sale deed in respect of 516
sq.ft. of undivided share in the subject property in favour of the
petitioner.
5.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the issue in the wr it petition was
already settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein t he Hon’ble
Supreme Court approved only with regard to 54 flats f or which sale
consideration was paid by the third respondent to Tamil Nadu Housing
Board as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and further
submitted that 90 cents of land was not mentioned in th e order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. If at all the petitioner wants No Objection
Certificate, the petitioner has to file petition seeking clarification before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court and not before this Court b y way of writ
petition.
5/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6270 of 2026
6.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and per used
the materials available on record.
7.Admittedly, patta issued to the third respondent for t he
subject property was set aside by this Court in a Public Interest
Litigation on 05.10.2010 and the matter went up to H on’ble Supreme
Court in S.L.P.Nos.19368 – 19369 of 2007 [later renumbered as
C.A.Nos.5414 – 5415 of 2010]. It is useful to extrac t hereunder the
relevant portion of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
C.A.Nos.5414 – 5415 of 2010 dated 27.03.2025:
“5. Nevertheless, we must comment that
the TNHB is also not blameless, as it not only
allowed the land in question to be occupied but
even gave permission for construction, as a
result of which several flats were constructed,
and as many as 54 flats have been sold to
third parties, some of whom were impleaded
as respondent Nos. 12 to 64 before the High
Court.
6. In fact, the Revenue authority,
obviously with the knowledge of the TNHB, had
issued Patta dated 10.06.2004 in the name of
6/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6270 of 2026
the predecessors from whom, the appellant, T.
Udaykumar, had purchased the property. This
Patta was cancelled on 15.06.2006. We uphold
the cancellation of the Patta dated 10.06.2004.
Patta was also issued in favour of the
appellant, T. Udaykumar, after he had
purchased the rights from the erstwhile Patta
holder, which too has been cancelled by the
cancellation deed dated 15.06.2006.
7. This Court, while issuing notice in the
present appeals, vide order dated 02.11.2007,
had directed that the appellant, T. Udaykumar,
shall deposit ₹5 crores within six weeks with
the TNHB, without prejudice to his rights and
contentions. This Court had also directed that,
out of 58 flats constructed in the disputed
properties, 54 of which were allotted to the
purchasers, who had also filed appeals before
this Court, they would be permitted to occupy
the flats, subject to the condition that they
would undertake to abide by the result of the
appeals, and would not alienate or part with
the possession of the respective flat(s).
Another direction given by the same order was
that the remaining four flats, which had not
yet been allotted, should remain with the
appellant, T. Udaykumar.
7/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6270 of 2026
8. It is apparent that the appellant, T.
Udaykumar, in violation of the order passed by
this Court, allotted two out of the four flats to
C.S. Jayaraman and Kalavalli Selvaraj. On a
pointed question being put, it is accepted that
payments for these two flats were received
after the judgment of the High Court dated
05.10.2007 and the order of this Court dated
02.11.2007. We, therefore, reject the prayer
for allotment of these two flats to the legal
representatives or successors-in-interest of
C.S. Jayaraman and Kalavalli Selvaraj.
However, they are be at liberty to enforce their
rights and claims against the appellant, T.
Udaykumar, in accordance with law.
9. To balance out equities and keeping
in view the fact that the TNHB itself is partly
responsible for this imbroglio, and in order to
protect the interests of innocent flat buyers
whose transactions were completed long ago,
we permit the said 54 flat buyers to continue
to occupy and use their flats. They will be
treated as absolute owners thereof. The sum
of ₹5 crores deposited by the appellant, T.
Udaykumar, shall be treated as sale
consideration paid to the TNHB for the land on
which the flats have been constructed.
8/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6270 of 2026
10. In addition, the TNHB will be entitled
to sell the remaining four flats, which have not
yet been transferred and sold.
11. We are informed that there may be
more flats, which have been constructed in the
property. It will be open to the TNHB to deal
with the said flats and the remaining land, if
any, in the manner it deems appropriate.
12. We also make it clear that we have
not pronounced on or examined the question
of the rights/claims, if any, of the appellant, T.
Udaykumar, against the persons who had sold
or transferred the land to him.
13. Recording the aforesaid and on the
above terms, the appeals are disposed of.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.”
8.Perusal of the above decision makes it clear that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court permitted 54 flat buyers whose tr ansactions
completed long ago to continue to occupy and use their flats, however,
the petitioner is not coming under the 54 flat buyer and title was not
conferred by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, the relief sought for
9/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6270 of 2026
in this writ petition is not permissible and the remedy ava ilable to the
petitioner is to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of
clarification petition or before the civil Court against the third
respondent and not before this Court by way of writ petition.
9.The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
02.04.2026
pri
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking Order: Yes/ No
NCC: Yes/ No
To
1.Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Represented by its Chairman,
TNHB Office Complex,
1st Main Road, CIT Nagar,
Chennai – 600 035.
2.Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Represented by its Managing Director,
TNHB Office Complex,
1st Main Road, CIT Nagar,
Chennai – 600 035.
10/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6270 of 2026
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
pri
W.P.No.6270 of 2026
02.04.2026
11/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis