Jaqulin Mary v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.09.2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SRIMATHY Jaqulin Mary :Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.8469 of 2021 Arockiam :Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.8480 of 2021 ..Vs..

¶1The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its, Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Corporation, St.George Fort, Chennai.

¶2The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nanthanam, Chennai – 600 035.

¶3The Chief Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nanthanam, Chennai

¶4The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madurai Division, Ellis Nagar, Madurai.

¶5The District Collector, Office of District Collector, Madurai.

¶6The Tahsildar, Madurai West Taluk, Madurai. : Respondents in both writ petitions PRAYER in both writ petitions: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of to issue an WRIT OF MANDAMUS, to direct the respondents to assign the land in S.No.15/1 situated at Ponmeni Village for housing plots to the members of Dr. Ambedkar Residential Colony by taking into account the 4th respondent's proceedings in letter No. LA/SUR/007736/15 dated 27.10.2016 and the 6th respondent's proceedings in Na.Ka.No.C/29/2019 dated 18.01.2019 and the petitioner's representation dated 12.10.2020. In both cases: For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents : Mr. A.K.Manikkam R1, R5 & R6 Additional Government Pleader R2 to R4 : Mr. R. Shiva Kumar Standing Counsel COMMON ORDER

These writ petitions are filed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to assign the land in S.No.15/1 situated at Ponmeni Village for housing plots to the members of Dr. Ambedkar Residential Colony by taking into account the 4th respondent's proceedings in letter, dated 27.10.2016 and the 6th respondent's proceedings, dated 18.01.2019 and the petitioners' representation dated

12.10.2020.

¶2On instructions, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 submitted that the petitioners in both the writ petitions were granted alternative site. But the petitioners are refusing to move to the said site.

3.This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners cannot choose the property. The respondents have taken the petitioners' plight into consideration and have granted alternative site. Therefore, these writ petitions cannot be maintained.

4.Recording the said submission, the writ petitions are closed.

22.09.2023 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No tmg To

¶1Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Corporation, St.George Fort, Chennai.

¶2The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nanthanam, Chennai – 600 035.

¶3The Chief Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nanthanam, Chennai

¶4The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madurai Division, Ellis Nagar, Madurai.

¶5The District Collector, Office of District Collector, Madurai.

¶6The Tahsildar, Madurai West Taluk, Madurai. S. SRIMATHY, J., tmg

22.09.2023