R.DHARMAN Vs. TAMIL NADU SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved against the dismissal of the writ petition in W.P. No. 24727 of 2010 filed by them. Facts in brief:

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the delay by itself cannot be a ground to deny the relief sought for. The first respondent has not followed the procedure in a proper manner. The decree obtained from the civil Court will have to be given effect to. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has made reliance upon the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others V. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Others, 2013 1 SCC 353.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents would submit that the appellants have not placed the correct facts before the Court. The allotment made in favour of Saradammal was cancelled. Thereafter, it was given in favour of the second respondent. The second respondent has also transferred the plot in favour of the third party. The writ petition has been filed by the appellants after a long delay. A decree of the Court cannot be executed by approaching the Honourable High Court after expiry of the statutory period. Therefore, the writ appeal has to be dismissed.