Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 03.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Appeal W.A.No.2162 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.18768 of 2026 filed by the Commissioner, Rasipuram Municipality (appellant) against respondents: (1) M. Athiappan, former Junior Assistant; (2) Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply MAV(2) Department, Chennai; (3) Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai.
  • The appeal sought to set aside the order dated 02.09.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5129 of 2021, which had allowed the writ petition of the first respondent, quashed the Government’s rejection order, and directed the municipality to execute a sale deed of residential quarter Door No. 14 at prevailing market price.
  • The quarter is one of twenty Low‑Income Group Housing Scheme units constructed by Rasipuram Municipality with Central Government assistance on a “no‑profit, no‑loss” basis; several units were allotted to municipal employees on a monthly rental basis. The first respondent was allotted Door No. 14 while serving as Junior Assistant.
  • The Municipal Council had resolved to approve outright sale of the remaining quarters, including Door No. 14, to the occupant‑employees at market value and obtained a recommendation from the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Salem, dated 17.02.1995. The State Government did not act on the proposal for decades.
  • The municipality allowed the first respondent to continue residing in the quarter for nearly twenty years after retirement, collecting monthly rent, thereby creating a settled and legitimate occupation.
  • In W.P.No.1019 of 2013, the Court on 12.04.2019 held that Government Order G.O.Ms.No.730 dated 14.04.1976, which bans sale of such properties, was not applicable to the respondents and had been relaxed in identical circumstances. Nevertheless, the Government issued a rejection order on 30.07.2019 relying on the same G.O.Ms.No.730, which the Court deemed improper.
  • The Court emphasized that the respondent, now an elderly senior citizen, had a legitimate expectation of continued residence and that the municipality, by accepting rent for two decades, waived any right to invoke immediate necessity for eviction.

Final Outcome

  • The writ appeal is dismissed; the order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed.
  • The municipality and concerned authorities must fix the present market value and execute the conveyance deed in favour of M. Athiappan within eight (8) weeks from the date of this judgment, if not already done.
  • No order as to costs; the connected interim application stands closed.

Topics: Municipal Housing Sale, Judicial Precedent