Madras High Court Dismisses Tamil Nadu Housing Board's Appeals Against Consent Orders for Direct Allotment of Plots — Holds Board Bound by Counsel's Concession on Instructions. Board's Subsequent Conduct of Continuing Same Counsel for Months After Initial Order Ratified Counsel's Authority and Waived Any Objection to Consent Order Under Letters Patent.

Intra-court appeals against consent orders directing the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to execute sale deeds upon deposit of fixed prices for plots.

Appellant sought to set aside the orders of the Single Judge and be allowed to sell the plots through public auction rather than direct allotment at upset price.

The Board contended that its Standing Counsel gave consent without proper instructions and that the plots must be auctioned to maximize public revenue.

The Single Judge had allowed the writ petitions, directing the Board to execute sale deeds upon deposit of specified amounts, based on the consent of the Board's Standing Counsel on instructions.

Whether the concessions made by the Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board before the Single Judge, upon express instructions, are binding on the Board, or whether the Board can resile from such concessions on the ground of lack of authorization and public auction norms. Whether the Board's subsequent conduct of continuing the same Standing Counsel for months after the first order constitutes a waiver or affirmative ratification of the counsel's authority.

Appellant argued that the plots are commercial/utility nature and can only be alienated via public auction to maximize revenue; the Standing Counsel had only specified upset price and was not instructed to offer consent to bypass auction; reliance on Supreme Court decisions holding that counsel cannot settle without express authorization. Respondents argued that the Board's Standing Counsel gave consent on express instructions, as evidenced by reference to official communication; the Board allowed the same counsel to continue in subsequent matters, thus ratifying his authority; these plots had previously failed to attract bidders at auction; the consent was not vague but specific as to price; and the challenge to counsel's authority cannot be raised for the first time in appeal with new documents.

When a counsel makes a concession in court upon express instructions from a statutory authority, and the authority by its subsequent conduct ratifies such concession by continuing the same counsel and not promptly seeking review, it cannot later disavow the concession on the ground of lack of authorization or public auction norms. The correctness of such consent cannot be re-examined in an intra-court appeal, especially when no plea of lack of instructions is specifically raised in affidavits.

The Board’s claim that its Standing Counsel acted entirely without authority is severely undermined by its own subsequent conduct. ... A litigant cannot allow a counsel to repeatedly make statements in court, await the outcomes, and later disavow those statements when it becomes administratively inconvenient. the Board has failed to state unequivocally in their affidavits that explicit instructions were withheld from the Standing Counsel. The correctness or factual background of a consent given by counsel in open court cannot be picked apart and re-adjudicated within the confines of an intra-court appeal.

The respondents filed writ petitions seeking allotment of plots on payment of market value. The learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, presented specified pricing frameworks before the Single Judge, who ordered that if the writ petitioners deposit the amounts, sale deeds be executed. The first such order was passed on 23.04.2025. Subsequent orders followed in December 2025. The appellant Board, despite the same Standing Counsel continuing to appear, filed intra-court appeals under Clause 15 of Letters Patent challenging these orders, arguing that the counsel made concessions without authority and that public auction norms should apply. The appeals were heard together and dismissed on 09.07.2026.

• Letters Patent: Clause 15