N MUTHURAMAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition is filed challenging the order in G. O. Ms. No. 276, Housing and Urban Development (HB-5) Department dated 31. 10. 2003 of the first respondent and for a consequential relief.

(2.) THE plots bearing Nos. 2 and 3 at Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai was originally allotted to the fourth respondent on 27. 2. 1981, consequent to the direction of the Government in its letter No. 19461/ha-1/74-2 dated 20. 11. 1974 for commercial purposes. The fourth respondent, as per allotment order, took possession of the plots on 9. 5. 1981. Subsequently, the petitioner herein has submitted a representation to the effect that the fourth respondent is owning house sites in Survey No. 40/1 at Kandansavadi Village and at Palavakkam and hence the allotment made in favour of the fourth respondent is contrary to rules. On receipt of the said representation, the allotment was withheld by the Government and aggrieved against the same, the fourth respondent filed W. P. No. 6968 of 1981 and obtained an order of stay. The petitioner herein also filed W. P. No. 1959 of 1982 to cancel the allotment made in favour of the fourth respondent. This Court disposed of both the writ petitions, with a direction to the first respondent to pass orders by considering the representations of both the parties. Subsequently, the Government passed orders in G. O. Rt. No. 167, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 16. 4. 1984, cancelling the allotment made in favour of the fourth respondent and rejecting the request of the petitioner herein to allot the plot No. 3 and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board was directed to sell the plots and dispose of the plots as per the then existing Rules. Aggrieved against the said order, the fourth respondent has filed a writ petition No. 512 of 1984 and also obtained an order of stay. In the meanwhile, the matter was again examined and the Government has passed an order in G. O. Ms. No. 38, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 10. 1. 1990, cancelling the orders issued in G. O. Rt. No. 167, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 16. 4. 1984 and the fourth respondent was permitted to retain the plots subject to conditions as set out therein.

(3.) ONCE again, the petitioner herein has submitted a representation on 12. 6. 1991, alleging that the fourth respondent is not eligible for the allotment of the plots and he is actually in possession of plot No. 3 and the same should be allotted to him and also undertook to withdraw the writ petitions filed by him in W. P. Nos. 1334 of 1991 and 1744 of 1991 in the event of allotment of plot No. 3 in his favour. The first respondent, based on the report of the second respondent as well as on the basis of the statement of the petitioner to the effect that he is actually in possession of plot No. 3, cancelled the earlier order issued under G. O. Ms. No. 38, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 10. 1. 1990 and issued a revised order in G. O. Ms. No. 622, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 12. 7. 1995, allotting plot No. 3 to the petitioner herein subject to conditions that he withdrew the writ petitions filed by him and to initiate separate proceedings to cancel the allotment of plot No. 2 in favour of the fourth respondent for submitting a false declaration that he was ex-owner of a land which is subject to acquisition. The fourth respondent has challenged the above mentioned order in W. P. No. 11592 of 1995. This Court passed a common order on 5. 11. 1999 in W. P. Nos. 11592 of 1995, 1334 of 1991 and 1744 of 1991 wherein G. O. Ms. No. 622, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 12. 7. 1995 was set aside and the Government was directed to pass fresh orders after hearing both parties.