____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on Pronounced on 25.03.2026 30.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P. NOS. 4465, 4467, 4468, 4471, 4491, 4495, 4500, 4504, 18798 & 19623 OF 2024 AND W.M.P. NOS. 21477, 20617, 20618, 4866, 4826, 4828, 4851, 4863, 4825, 4827 & 4845 OF 2024 R.Ganesh Babu .. Peoner in WP 4465/2024 S.Balamuralidhar .. Peoner in WP 19623/2024 Provash Naskar .. Peoner in WP 18798/2024 Dr.J.Dinesh Raj .. Peoner in WP 4467/2024 Dr.Ch.Satyanarayana .. Peoner in WP 4468/2024 Diveysh P Davey .. Peoner in WP 4471/2024 B.Padmanaba Rao .. Peoner in WP 4491/2024 S.Jayachandran .. Peoner in WP 4495/2024 M.Boominathan .. Peoner in WP 4500/2024 Jayakumar Kachapeshwaran .. Peoner in WP 4504/2024 - Vs - 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch 1. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board CMDA Complex, E & C Market Road Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107. 2. The Manager Markeng & Service Besant Nagar Division Tamil Nadu Housing Board Chennai 600 020. 3. The Chief Engineer (City) Tamil Nadu Housing Board CMDA Complex, E & C Market Road Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107. 4. The Execuve Engineer & Administrave O=cer Tamil Nadu Housing Board Besant Nagar Division Chennai 600 020. .. Respondents in all WPs W.P. No.4465 of 2024 >led under Arcle 226 of the Constuon of India praying this Court to issue a writ of cerorari>ed mandamus to call for the records relang to the impugned order in LeAer 05.10.2021 in LeAer No.AL.5/492/2016 passed by the 2nd respondent quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent to execute sale deed in favour of the peoner in respect of the Cat alloAed to the peoner bearing LIG I Flat No.02/06 in 1st Floor, TNHB 1500 MSB Flats, Phase II, TNHB Main Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. WP No. 19623 of 2024 >led under Arcle 226 of the Constuon of India praying this Court to call for the records relang to the impugned order in LeAer 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch 11.01.2022 in LeAer No.AL.1/796/2015 passed by the 2nd respondent quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent to execute Sale Deed in favour of the peoner in respect of the Flat alloAed to the peoner bearing MIG I Flat No.14/7 in 2nd Coor, TNHB 1500 MSB Flats phase II, TNHB Main Road, Sholinganallur Chennai-600 119. WP No. 18798 of 2024 >led under Arcle 226 of the Constuon of India praying this Court to call for the records relang to the impugned order in LeAer 30.06.2022 in LeAer No.AL-1/ 326/ 2016 passed by the 2nd respondent quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent to execute Sale Deed in favour of the peoner in respect of the Flat alloAed to the peoner bearing MIG Flat No.MI 15/16 in 4th Floor, TNHB 1500 MSB Flats, Phase II, TNHB Main Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. WP No. 4467 of 2024 >led under Arcle 226 of the Constuon of India praying this Court to call for the records relang to the Impugned Order in LeAer 24.05.2022 in LeAer No.AL.1 / 135 / 2016 passed by the 2nd respondent quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent to execute Sale Deed in favour of the peoner in respect of the Flat alloAed to the peoner bearing HIG I Flat No.H 7/19 in 5th Floor, TNHB 1500 MSB Flats, Phase II, TNHB Main Road, Shollinganallur, Chennai-600119. WP No. 4468 of 2024 >led under Arcle 226 of the Constuon of India praying this Court to call for the records relang to the Impugned Order in LeAer 23.05.2022 in LeAer No.AL.1 / 878 / 2015 passed by the 2nd respondent quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent to execute Sale Deed in favour of the peoner in respect of the Flat alloAed to the peoner bearing MIG II Flat No.8/30 in 5th Floor, TNHB 1500 MSB Flats, Phase II, TNHB Main Road, Shollinganallur, Chennai-600119. 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch WP No. 4471 of 2024 >led under Arcle 226 of the Constuon of India praying this Court to call for the records relang to the Impugned Order in LeAer 24.11.2021 in LeAer No.AL.1 / 1098 / 2015 passed by the 2nd respondent quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent to execute Sale Deed in favour of the peoner in respect of the Flat alloAed to the peoner bearing MIG Flat No.M I 2/8 in 3rd Floor, TNHB 1500 MSB Flats, Phase II, TNHB Main Road, Shollinganallur, Chennai-600119. WP No. 4491 of 2024 >led under Arcle 226 of the Constuon of India praying this Court to call for the records relang to the Impugned Order in LeAer No. AL.3 / 702459/ 2015 dated 15.07.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent to execute Sale Deed in favour of the peoner in respect of the Flat alloAed to the peoner bearing HIG Flat No.H-1/35 in the 9th Floor, TNHB 1500 MSB Flats, Phase II, TNHB Main Road, Shollinganallur, Chennai-600 119. WP No. 4495 of 2024 >led under Arcle 226 of the Constuon of India praying this Court to call for the records relang to the Impugned Order in LeAer No. AL.3 / 702415/ 2015 dated 15.07.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent to execute Sale Deed in favour of the peoner in respect of the Flat alloAed to the peoner bearing HIG Flat No.H-2/12 in the 3rd Floor, TNHB 1500 MSB Flats, Phase II, TNHB Main Road, Shollinganallur, Chennai-600 119. WP No. 4500 of 2024 >led under Arcle 226 of the Constuon of India praying this Court to call for the records relang to the Impugned Order in LeAer No. AL.5 / 804920/ 2015 dated 15.10.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent to execute Sale Deed in favour of the peoner in respect of the Flat alloAed to the peoner bearing HIG Flat 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch No.L-3/09 in the 2nd Floor, TNHB 1500 MSB Flats, Phase II, TNHB Main Road, Shollinganallur, Chennai-600 119. WP No. 4504 of 2024 >led under Arcle 226 of the Constuon of India praying this Court to call for the records relang to the Impugned Order in LeAer No. AL.1 / 804965/ 2015 dated 09.09.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent quash the same and further direct the 2nd respondent to execute Sale Deed in favour of the peoner in respect of the Flat alloAed to the peoner bearing LIG Flat No.L-2/13 in the 2nd Floor, TNHB 1500 MSB Flats, Phase II, TNHB Main Road, Shollinganallur, Chennai-600 119. For Peoners : Ms. Sudharshana Sundar for M/s. V.V.Sathya & B.M.Kirsh Kishan For Respondents : Mr. P.S.Raman, SC for Mr. D.Veerasekaran COMMON ORDER The >nal cost arrived at by the respondents claiming it to be addional cost in respect of the Cats sold to the respecve peoners which was alloAed pursuant to the adversement published during the year 2014 and 2015 under the Hire Purchase Scheme is put in issue before this Court through the present peons. 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch 2. The facts in a nutshell, as could be culled out from the writ peons, is summarised as under :- The Tamil Nadu Housing Board (for short ‘the Board’) invited applicaons under the Hire Purchase Scheme on 21.7.2014, which was concluded on 19.8.2014. In view of the lesser takers, the adversement was once again republished between July and September, 2015. The Cats were constructed in four categories, viz., HIG, MIG-I, MIG-II and LIG with the tentave cost being >xed at Rs.58,60,000/-, Rs.40,71,000/=, Rs.40,64,000/= and Rs.27,33,000/= with a note that the >nal cost will be informed at the me of handing over. 3. It is the further case of the peoners that consequent to the said adversements, the respecve peoners submiAed their inial applicaon on various dates as menoned in the writ peon, with which there is no quarrel, and the tentave cost, as stated in the above was >xed and towards inial payment, the respecve peoners also submiAed the said amount. 4. It is the further case of the peoners that allotment inmaon leAers were issued provisionally alloLng the respecve Cats to the respecve peoners with a clear stand that the cost of the Cat will be informed aMer 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch compleon of 80% of the construcon work and that the payment details and other monthly instalment will be informed at the me of issue of allotment order. It is the further averment of the peoners that the respondent have not inmated the cost of the Cat as communicated, but the fact remains that the peoners have paid the enre amount to the respondents as per the value >xed in the adversement towards the cost of the Cat. 5. It is the further averment of the peoners that provisional allotment was issued in the year 2017 in which the tentave cost was >xed and the peoners were directed to pay 25% of the Cat cost on or before 30 days from the date of receipt of the provisional allotment order. 6. It is the further averment of the peoners that a regular allotment order was issued in the year 2018 demanding the balance price towards the cost of the Cat, which was also duly complied with by the peoners and that the peoners took over possession of their respecve Cats. In >ne, it is the case of the peoners that they have paid not only the applicaon money and the 25% cost, but also the enre balance cost of the Cat, as prescribed in the 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch adversement. Further lease-cum-sale agreement was entered into with the Board by the respecve peoners. 7. When It is the further averment of the peoners that when the maAer stood thus, to their shock and surprise, the respecve impugned leAers were by the peoners in which the Board had communicated the >nal cost arrived at for the respecve Cats and called upon the respecve peoners to pay the diOerenal amount with interest. It is the speci>c case of the peoners that in the said leAer, the manner in which the said amount has been arrived at has not been speci>ed and further the said >xaon is exorbitant notwithstanding the fact that the peoners have paid the full amount towards the sale consideraon of the Cats. 8. It is the averment of the peoners that the demand of addional cost is without any basis and against the principles and procedures laid down for such receipt. It is the further averment of the peoners that though the construcon cost was inially >xed for the various types of Cats, viz., HIG, MIG-I, MIG-II an LIG at diOerent rates, however, through the present claim, the construcon cost for all the Cats were >xed uniformly at Rs.3341/- per sq.M. It is the further averment 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch of the peoners that the cost was inially >xed by adopng the PWD rates, which includes the pro>t for the Board and contract for construcon was given and, therefore, there could be no increase in cost due escalaon and, therefore, higher rate cannot be >xed by the respondents. 9. It is the further averment of the peoners that the cost of the Cats should be >xed on the basis of the land value, which was paid while the lands were acquired plus the addional pro>t for the Board. However, inspite of the land cost having been >xed at Rs.744/- per sq.M., and there being no appeal resulng in re>xaon of the cost at any higher value, the land was sold at Rs.2,600/- per sq.M., to the peoners and further even if interest is sought to be collected by the Board, then it should be only on the actual rate paid to the land and it cannot be on the market value of the land. Therefore, the >xaon of the cost as also the charging of interest on the market value, which formed the determinaon of the escalated addional cost is erroneous. 10. It is the further averment of the peoner that the interest which is demanded on the construcon cost ll March, 2018 is also arbitrary and such interest cannot be demanded from the peoners. It is the further averment of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch the peoners that a representaon was sent by the Associaon highlighng the points, but the same has not evoked any response and, therefore, leM with no other alternave, the peoners have come before this Court >ling the present peons assailing the impugned demand of addional cost, labelled as >nal cost. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the peoners submiAed that when the land cost itself, which was >xed during the period of land acquision was less, the said value ought to have been the guiding factor in arriving at the cost to be >xed as the sale price of the land, but the Board had >xed the market value and has demanded the amount from the peoners along with compound interest, which cannot be sustained. 12. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the interest demand made towards project period interest ll March, 2018 is also contrary to the agreement as the said agreement does not contemplate charging of interest. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that though the enre cost of the Cat, which has been >xed, has been paid by the respecve peoners, more than three years aMer the said period, the >nal cost is alleged to have been arrived at, which is running to lakhs of rupees and interest is also being charged 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch on the said cost without any basis and no valid reason has been given for demanding such high amount from the peoners. When the peoner has paid the lumpsum amount, which has been >xed towards the cost of the Cat and entered into the lease-cum-sale agreement, which has >xed the cost of the Cat, the Board cannot, posterior in point of me come and claim any addional amount as >nal cost. 13. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that though the adversement states that the >nal cost will be informed at the me of handing over, however, the construcon costs have been carefully determined even prior which includes escalaon so as to protect the investors from addional burden. However, the Board has not informed the >nal cost within two months from the date of handing over of the Cat and it was communicated only three years aMer and, therefore, imposing interest on the belated claim made by the Board is grossly impermissible. 14. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the cost for construcon have been >xed taking into account the escalaon factor, which also includes the pro>t margin for the Board and, therefore, the claim of the Board for 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch higher rates alleging escalaon in costs is wholly unjus>ed and unsustainable. In this regard, it is pointed out by the learned counsel that the sale agreement clearly provides that the cost is >xed tentavely and any diOerence in cost is to be inmated within two months from the date of compleon, however, the Board had taken three years to arrive at the >nal cost, which cannot be imposed on the peoners, that too along with interest. 15. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that as per the proceedings dated 22.10.2016, the Board had inmated that the cost of the Cat will be informed upon compleon of 80% of construcon. The Cats were completely constructed by 14.2.2018, but the communicaon relang to the addional cost claimed to be the >nal cost was demanded only aMer three years from 14.2.2018, which is against the Board’s proceedings. In view of the above infracons, the impugned order passed by the Board is grossly illegal, erroneous, arbitrary and unreasonable and the same deserves to be interfered with. 16. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the Board, even at the outset, submiAed that neither the adversement nor the provisional allotment order speci>es the >nal cost and in fact, the very averment of the peoners in 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch the a=davit accepts the very factum. It is further submiAed that the provisional allotment order clearly spulates that the peoners agree to pay the amount asked for in addion to the price >xed by the Board in case of unexpected conngencies not included in the esmate regarding the implementaon of the project. 17. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that it is the prerogave of the Board to >x the >nal price at its sole discreon based on the price of the land acquired under the Land Acquision Act together with suitable modi>caon and the price >xed by the vendor in respect of the Cat/house is >nal and binding on the purchaser and the purchaser has no rights to seek for >xaon of price at his choice. 18. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that even the sale agreement entered into between the pares clearly state that the rate agreed upon at the >rst instance is only a tentave price and not the >nal price, which has been agreed by the peoners. Further, it is submiAed that the guideline value as well as the market value of the land is taken into account for the purpose of >xaon of the land price and as per the Board norms, the higher 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch of the two is considered and, therefore, the Board had >xed the land cost on the basis of the market value. 19. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that it is not necessary for the Board to adopt the guideline value while >xing the cost of the land, as even under the Land Acquision Act, while taking into consideraon the guideline value of the land, the cost of the land given is worked out by giving solaum and other bene>ts for the land, in addion to the guideline value and, therefore, >xaon of land cost merely on the basis of the guideline value as sought for by the peoner cannot be done and it is per se erroneous. 20. 20. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that even as per the clauses in the lease cum sale agreement, more speci>cally condion No.10, interest could be claimed by the Board and the purchaser is bound to pay the same as also on any arrears and service charges and, therefore, it cannot be claimed by the peoners that interest is not leviable. 21. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that as per the lease-cum-sale agreement entered into between the Board and the 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch purchaser, the purchasers had agreed to pay the >nal cost as and when demanded by the Board and what is inially >xed is only a tentave cost. Even in the provisional allotment order, the same has been clearly menoned and accepted by all the purchasers and, therefore, the purchasers cannot go back on their agreement. Further, the said commitment and acceptance is irrespecve of whether it is through the own fund of the purchasers or through loan taken from >nancial instuons as the cost >xed is only tentave and not >nal. Therefore, the contenon of the peoners that the tentave cost becomes >nal once the amount is paid in full, as speci>ed in the lease-cum-sale agreement is erroneous and an erroneous interpretaon of the provisions of the lease-cum-sale agreement. 22. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that as per the lease-cum-sale agreement, no condion has been menoned about >xing the >nal cost within two months and >nal cost has been revised based on the representaon of the Associaon dated 1.8.2022 for reducon in cost and, therefore, there is no delay on the part of the Board. 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch 23. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that equal selling price for self >nance scheme and hire purchase scheme could not be considered as they are two diOerent modes of allotment. Further, the >nal selling price was approved by the Pricing CommiAee of the Board and based on the representaon of the Associaon, the cost was reduced by reducing the supervisory charges and pro>ts, which was spread across all the diOerent types of tenements. Therefore, the peoners, as a maAer of right, cannot seek for the >nal cost >xed to be excluded as it is not part of the agreement entered into between the Board and the purchasers. Accordingly, he seeks for dismissal of the present peons. 24. This Court gave its careful consideraon to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 25. The factum that the purchasers entered into the lease-cum-sale agreement is not denied. Further there is a clear admission in the a=davit >led on behalf of the peoners that the adversement as well as the lease-cum-sale agreement entered into between the pares clearly menon the sale 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch consideraon at the >rst instance as a tentave cost and the >nal cost to be arrived at a later point of me. When the peoners themselves have admiAed that the agreement between the pares has only >xed the cost of the Cat as a tentave cost, the peoners cannot try to wriggle out of the same and claim that it is the >nal cost, which has been agreed to between the pares. 26. The peoners/purchasers as well as the Board are privy to the agreement and both have understood the terms of the agreement before entering into the same. The peoners, with open eyes, have accepted the price, which was >xed in the lease-cum-sale agreement as the tentave cost and the >nal cost to be determined at a later point of me, which would be honoured by the purchasers. Further, the tabulated statement provided by the Board also clearly depicts that the amount shown while entering into the lease-cum-sale agreement is a tentave cost and that the >nal cost would be determined later. Such being the case, the peoners cannot come before this Court and claim that the >xaon of >nal cost by the Board is wrong as the cost, which was adversed is the >nal cost, which has been agreed upon. Therefore, the contenon of the peoners on this ground deserves outright rejecon. 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch 27. Coming to the issue of >xaon of land value, which, according to the peoners, ought to have been >xed based on the guideline value, as it should have been determined on the land cost >xed in the award under the land acquision proceedings. The contenon of the peoners cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that while >xing the land cost under the land acquision proceedings, the >xaon of value depends not only on the guideline value, but on other factors as well and while paying the compensaon to the land losers, towards the market value of the land, the award is passed by including solaum, which oO-sets the rate towards the market value and the cost of the land is to be read by taking the land value and solaum together. Therefore, the contenon of the peoner that the guideline value would be the determining factor is grossly erroneous. Further, the >xaon of the land cost cannot be primarily be on the land value >xed in the acquision proceedings, as many value clubbed together goes to determine the value paid to the land loser for the lands and not the guideline value alone and, therefore, the >xaon of market value of the land for determining the >nal cost of the land to be paid by the peoners cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable. 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch 28. The only contenon that remains to be decided is the interest imposed on the >nal value to be paid by the peoners. In this regard, the stand of the peoners is that aMer three years from the date of hand over of the Cats in the year 2018, the >nal cost has been arrived at in the year 2021 and not only the >nal cost is called upon to be paid, but in addion to the above, interest is levied on the said amount. This, according to the peoners, is erroneous as the delay had been occasioned on account of the Board in determining the >nal cost and the said delay cannot be put against the peoners by imposing interest on the amount which is determined to be payable towards the >nal cost. 29. It is the case of the peoners that the >nal cost, if at all collectable, ought to have been determined within two months from the date on which the Cats were taken possession by the purchasers and the delay on the part of the Board cannot be put against them in the form of interest, which is countered by the Board by submiLng that there is no clause in the agreement, which calls for determinaon within a period of two months and, therefore, what is not provided in the agreement cannot be sought to be enforced by the purchasers/peoners. 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch 30. It is to be pointed out that no condion with regard to the period within which the >nal cost should be determined and a claim made by the Board against the purchasers is provided in the agreement. Therefore, the period of two months for arriving at the >nal cost cannot be pressed into service by the peoners. But equally it is to be pointed out that the Board cannot sit over the maAer for interminable me and, thereaMer, on a >ne day, aMer a period of three years, determine the >nal cost of the Cats and call upon the peoners/purchasers to pay the same together with interest for the enre period from the date when possession has been taken ll the date on which the payment is made. 31. Interest is leviable and collecble by the Board for any delay occasioned by the purchasers in paying the >nal value that is determined as the >nal cost of the Cat. However, in the present case, the delay is not aAributable to the peoners; rather, it is the Board which was the reason for the delay as the Board had handed over possession of the Cats in the year 2018 and, thereaMer, aMer a period of three years, through the impugned order, had sought to collect interest for the amount determined towards the >nal cost. The delay occasioned due to the fault of the Board cannot be mulcted on the peoners by 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch demanding interest on the said >nal value. Though it is incumbent upon the peoners, who have purchased the Cats to pay the >nal value as determined by the Board, however, the interminable or a long delay on the part of the Board resulng in charging of interest on the said amount cannot be fastened on the peoners/purchasers as they were not the reason for the delay. The administrave di=cules in arriving at the >nal cost which has resulted in the delay in arriving at the >nal cost payable by the respecve purchasers, viz., the peoners herein, cannot be passed on to the peoners by claiming interest from them on the said amount, which would be an arbitrary and impermissible exercise. Therefore, the interest claimed on the >nal cost payable by the peoners in respect of the Cat purchased by them cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be set aside. 32. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ peon stands disposed of with the following direcons :- i) The impugned order insofar as the xaon of nal cost towards the payment of the at purchased by the respecve peoners and its consequenal demand is conrmed; 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch ii) The impugned order insofar as levying of interest on the balance amount payable by the peoners on determinaon of nal cost stands set aside; iii) The peoners are directed to pay the nal cost as demanded by the Board vide the respecve impugned orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the said nal cost will a!ract interest at 6% p.a. from the date of this order ll the date of payment; iv) On receipt of the said payment, the Board is directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the respecve peoners within a period of six weeks therea'er. Consequently, connected miscellaneous peons are closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 30.03.2026 Index : Yes / No GLN 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch To 1. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board CMDA Complex, E & C Market Road Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107. 2. The Manager Markeng & Service Besant Nagar Division Tamil Nadu Housing Board Chennai 600 020. 3. The Chief Engineer (City) Tamil Nadu Housing Board CMDA Complex, E & C Market Road Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107. 4. The Execuve Engineer & Administrave O=cer Tamil Nadu Housing Board Besant Nagar Division Chennai 600 020. 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ W.P. Nos.4465/2024, etc., Batch M.DHANDAPANI, J. GLN PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN W.P. NOS.4465 OF 2024, ETC. BATCH Pronounced on 30.03.2026 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis