JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to cancel the allotment and sale of Plot Nos.B-68 & B-69 in S.M.T. Scheme at Thiruvarur by virtue of Sale Deeds bearing Nos.2431 and 2432 of 2007 dated 27.06.2007 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Thiruvarur and consequently allot alternative Plots of same dimensions under the same scheme or any other scheme available currently, award damages and costs.) 1. This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus seeking for a direction to the respondent to cancel the allotment and sale of Plot Nos.B-68 & B-69 in S.M.T. Scheme at Thiruvarur and allot alternative plots of same dimensions under the same scheme or any other scheme to the petitioner and also award damages and costs. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she purchased two Plots from Tamil Nadu Housing Board under sale deeds bearing Nos.2431-2432 of 2007, dated 27.06.2007 on the file of the SRO, Tiruvarur. It is her case that while the Plots were allotted to her by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, there were no High Tension wires or Tower in both the Plots. But, according to her subsequent to the allotment and after the registration of the sale deeds in her favour, she came to know that there are High Tension wires and High Tension Tower in Plot Nos.B-68 and B-69, which was purchased by her through the aforesaid sale deeds. It is her case that despite several representations to various authorities, neither the High Tension wires nor the High Tension Tower has been removed or has she has been allotted alternative Plots in the same scheme. In such circumstances, she has filed this writ petition seeking for a Mandamus to direct the respondent to cancel the allotment and sale of Plot Nos.B-68 and B-69 in SMT Scheme at Tiruvarur and consequently allot alternative Plots of same dimensions under the same scheme or any other scheme available currently and she has also sought for award of damages and costs. 3. The respondent has filed their counter, wherein they have stated that the High Tension Tower as well as the High Tension wires are in existence for more than 50 years. 3. The respondent has filed their counter, wherein they have stated that the High Tension Tower as well as the High Tension wires are in existence for more than 50 years. According to them, it is not correct to state that the High Tension wires of 1000 KV is passing through on the North side of Plot No.B-69. It is their case that the said electric line passes only through B-68 and therefore, Plot No.B-69 is usable. Further, it is their case that the Plots were sold to their customers only in “as is where is” condition. According to them, the petitioner was fully aware of the nature of the Plots and therefore, they are not liable to allot alternative Plots or pay any compensation to the petitioner. 4. Heard Ms.A. Jothi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Bharathkumar, learned counsel for the respondent. Discussion: 5. Admittedly, even as per the counter affidavit filed by the respondent one of the Plots viz., Plot No.B-68 is not usable as even according to the respondent High Tension wires of 1000 KV passes through Plot B-68. However, it is their case that Plot No.B-69 is usable. It is the categorical stand of the petitioner that in Plot No.B-68 there is High Tension electric post embedded and towards East to West in the same Plot, High Tension wires of 1000 KV passes through the entire Plot No B-68. It is also the categorical stand of the petitioner that even in Plot No.B-69, on the Northern side there is a High Tension Electric Tower. According to the petitioner both the Plots are unusable. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of inspection of the Plots before purchase and even before registration of the sale deeds in her name, the High Tension wires or High Tension electric post were not found. According to her, only after the sale deeds, both the High Tension wires as well as High Tension electric post were erected in Plot Nos.B-68 and B-69. 6. This Court has also perused and examined the photographs of the Plots Nos.B-68 and B-69. As seen from the photographs, it is evident that there is High Tension Electric wires passing through Plot No.B-68 and there is a High Tension electric post found in Plot No.B-69. 7. No contra evidence has been produced by the respondent to dispute the contention of the petitioner. As seen from the photographs, it is evident that there is High Tension Electric wires passing through Plot No.B-68 and there is a High Tension electric post found in Plot No.B-69. 7. No contra evidence has been produced by the respondent to dispute the contention of the petitioner. This being the case, the petitioner should not be made to suffer for no fault of hers. She has purchased the property on the belief that she will be able to use the property to her liming. But in the instant case, due to the erection of High Tension post as well as the High Tension wires passing through her Plot, after her purchase, she has been unable to use both the Plots. 8. The learned Standing counsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has now submitted before this Court that there are no alternative Plots available in the same scheme in which the petitioner had purchased Plot Nos.B-68 and B-69. This being the case, the relief sought in the writ petition seeking for alternative Plots cannot be granted by this Court and the relief will have to be moulded. The only relief that can now be granted to the petitioner is to compensate her by way of refund of the sale consideration paid by her under two Sale deeds registered as Document Nos.2431 of 2007 and 2432 of 2007, both dated 27.06.2007 together with Simple Interest from the date of the respective Sale deeds. 9. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the respondent has acted negligently and has not verified the dimensions of the Plots and laid out a plan of residential area without physically verifying the available area and got the plan sanctioned and also sold defective Plots to the Petitioner. The respondent allotted Plots to the petitioner with High Tension Tower and High Tension wires contrary to the sanctioned plan, thereby saddling the petitioner with unusable Plots. The petitioner has been deprived of enjoyment of property despite payment of the sale consideration under the Sale deeds mentioned supra. The respondent’s act of allotting a plot with High Tension Tower and Wires is against law and endangers the life and safety of the petitioner. 10. The petitioner has been deprived of enjoyment of property despite payment of the sale consideration under the Sale deeds mentioned supra. The respondent’s act of allotting a plot with High Tension Tower and Wires is against law and endangers the life and safety of the petitioner. 10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the respondent to refund the sale consideration to the petitioner paid under two Sale deeds registered as Document Nos.2431 of 2007 and 2432 of 2007 together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the sale deeds till the date of payment, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order subject to the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate with the respondent for cancellation of the two Sale deeds standing in her name. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.