Judgment 1. It is very unfortunate that the petitioner who parted with her land for extension and development of the Besant Nagar Scheme, armed with two Government Orders, allotting initially a plot in the existing area, namely, Besant Nagar and subsequently at K.K.Nagar, without no fault for her she was not provided with any plot from 1983 to till date. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: According to her, she purchased from one Ghulam Mohamooda plot of land in a lay out in S.No.169/1, Thiruvanmiyur Village in Besant Nagar (a colony promoted by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board) on 9.3.1981. The said plot was 70’ by 40’ and was priced at Rs.23,340. She was served with a notice under Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (L.A.), Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 31.3.1983 stating that her land was required for extension of the Besant Nagar, South Madras Neighbourhood Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The said land was part of a whole area of 2 acres and odd laid out by M/s.Ghulam Mohamood and one Mr.Rajagopal as housing sites. She wrote to the acquisition authority as the proposed land to be acquired from her was the only piece of land owned by her and her husband and was intended to be utilised for putting up a house for their residence. They should be provided with an alternate plot for their residence. Both of them are officials of the Indian Council of Medical Research posted at T.B.Research Centre, Madras. Since the acquisition proposal included a lot of the plots belonging to M/s.Ghulam Mohamood, he appears to have applied to the first respondent to exclude his lands from the acquisition proceedings. The first respondent, accepting the plea of the said Ghulam Mohamood, excluded a major portion of the lay-out promoted by him from acquisition. Only a small portion belonging to the petitioner and some others, who had not sufficient influence to get their lands excluded from the acquisition, were retained in the acquisition proceedings. After knowing that their lands were required for providing a public road (which would have enhanced the value of the plots in the lay-out promoted by Ghulam Mohamood), the petitioner and her husband were regularly corresponding with the respondents about the alternative provision of the plot. After knowing that their lands were required for providing a public road (which would have enhanced the value of the plots in the lay-out promoted by Ghulam Mohamood), the petitioner and her husband were regularly corresponding with the respondents about the alternative provision of the plot. Ultimately, the first respondent by G.O.448 of 1985 wherein the first respondent passed orders on 6.5.1988 directing that the petitioner be allotted a plot of the same extent of land as the land taken over from her by the Housing Board. The second respondent, Tamil Nadu Housing Board was requested to take necessary action early on the said Government Order. Unfortunately, the said Government Order was not implemented. She had to send several reminders. On 2.9.86, another communication was issued instructing the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to allot as per G.O.No.448. Even this was not given effect to till October, 1988. Thereafter, Government Order Ms.No.1382 was passed allotting plot No.110 at K.K.Nagar to her. The said order was served on her on 18.10.1988. However, the same was cancelled on 21.10.1988 without assigning any reason. Thereafter, she made another round of representation to the Governor, Chief Minister and officials of the Housing Ministry and Tamil Nadu Housing Board were started with personal interviews with most of them. It was discovered in the midst of all these activities that their land which was supposed to have been acquired for providing a public road has been allotted to some individuals for their benefits. Even after one year nothing has been done on her representation. She has received a notice from the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tamil Nadu Housing Board that he is being given a sum of Rs.489 for a plot which she purchase for Rs.23,340. Under these circumstances, having no other effective alternative remedy available to her, she has initially approached this Court by way of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore plot No.6 in S.No.169/1, Thiruvanmiyur Village. Subsequently the said prayer has been amended in W.M.P.No.24057 of 1990, dated 22.10.1990. As per the amended prayer, the petitioner challenges the Government order of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.1421, Housing and Urban Development, dated 21.10.1988. 3. The first respondent even though was duly served with Notice from this Court as early as on 7.11.1990, has not chosen to file counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. 4. As per the amended prayer, the petitioner challenges the Government order of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.1421, Housing and Urban Development, dated 21.10.1988. 3. The first respondent even though was duly served with Notice from this Court as early as on 7.11.1990, has not chosen to file counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. 4. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that an extent of 1 ground and 0788 sq.ft. of bulk site No.110 at K.K.Nagar is reserved for residential purpose in the original approved layout. In the subsequent approved part layout, the site was reserved for shop site. But, the said plot has been allotted by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1382, dated 18.10.1988 to the petitioner and then the said Government Order was cancelled by another order in G.O.Ms.No.1421, dated 21.10.1988. It is stated that the provisional and regular allotment order was not issued in favour of the petitioner and no prescribed application form also was received from her. In view of the orders of the Government dated 21.10.1988, the earlier orders dated 18.10.1988 has not been implemented by the Board. The site has been reserved for shop in the part layout approved by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority. It is further stated that there was no order or stay or prohibition against the respondent/Board, the said plot was auctioned and one N.Vijayakuamari has offered the highest bid amount of Rs.12,35,700 and she has also paid 15 per cent of the highest bid amount. The said auction proposals have been submitted to the Government for confirmation and the same is pending with the Government. With these averments, the second respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents. 6. There is no dispute with regard to the purchase of a plot of land in a lay out in S.No.169/1 Thiruvanmiyur Village by the petitioner from one Ghulam Mohamood on 9.3.1981 for the price of Rs.23,340 as per the Document registered as 775/81 with the office of the Sub Registrar Saidapet. 6. There is no dispute with regard to the purchase of a plot of land in a lay out in S.No.169/1 Thiruvanmiyur Village by the petitioner from one Ghulam Mohamood on 9.3.1981 for the price of Rs.23,340 as per the Document registered as 775/81 with the office of the Sub Registrar Saidapet. It is the definite case of the petitioner that when acquisition proceedings were initiated and notice under Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for extension of the Besantnagar, South Madras Neighbourhood Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the vendor of the petitioner, namely, Ghulam Mohamood made representation to the Government along with one Rajagopal for exclusion of his lands from the purview of the acquisition proceedings. It is stated by the petitioner that a lot of plots belonging to the said Ghulam Mohamood were excluded from the acquisition and only a small portion belonging to the petitioner and some others, who could not influence the respondents, were retained in the acquisition proceedings. It is also clear from the affidavit that since the purpose for which the lands were sought to be acquired was for providing a public road in the Besantnagar Neighbourhood Scheme, she had not challenged the acquisition proceedings, however, made a representation to the Government for providing her an alternative plot. It is also clear that the petitioner and her husband are officials of the Indian Council of Medical Research and they are not having any land or house-site in the City of Madras. 7. After various representations, it is seen that the Government have passed G.O.Ms.No.448, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 6.5.1985 wherein they directed the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to allot a plot of the same extent of land taken over from her by the Housing Board in the same, subject to the collection of development charges as fixed by the Housing Board. The relevant portion from the said Government Order is as follows: “Abstract Housing - Tamil Nadu Housing Board -S.No.169/1 Plot No.6 Thiruvanmiyur Village - request for exclusion of land - orders issued. Housing and Urban Development Department G.O.Ms. The relevant portion from the said Government Order is as follows: “Abstract Housing - Tamil Nadu Housing Board -S.No.169/1 Plot No.6 Thiruvanmiyur Village - request for exclusion of land - orders issued. Housing and Urban Development Department G.O.Ms. No.448 Dated 6.5.1985 x x x ORDER: x x x The Government have carefully examined the request of Tmt.Sujatha Narayanan and they directed that Tmt.Sujatha Narayanan may be allotted a plot of the same extent of land taken over from her by the Housing Board in the same area, subject to the collection of Development charges etc., as may be fixed by the Housing Board. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board is requested to take necessary action early. Sd/- Commissioner and Secretary to Govt.” Even though the said order is dated 6.5.1985, the same has not been implemented by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Subsequently, she made a representation to the Housing Board on 6.6.1986, wherein she had brought to the notice of the Housing Board the order of the Government, dropping of acquisition proceedings in respect of other lands etc. On 22.8.1986 the husband of the petitioner namely, Dr.P.R.Narayanan had written a letter to the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Government of Tamil Nadu Madras-9 reiterating the claim made by his wife. On 2.9.1986 the Deputy Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department sent a reply to the petitioner stating that the Government have already passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.448 dated 6.5.1985 to allot a plot of the same extent of land taken over from her by the Housing Board in the same area. By stating so, the Government have directed the petitioner to address to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board further in the matter. In pursuance of the said direction, the petitioner sent another reminder to the Housing Board on 29.11.1986 requesting to comply with the Government Order and allot a plot as directed. By stating so, the Government have directed the petitioner to address to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board further in the matter. In pursuance of the said direction, the petitioner sent another reminder to the Housing Board on 29.11.1986 requesting to comply with the Government Order and allot a plot as directed. On 1.12.1986 the petitioner made another representation to the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department wherein she has mentioned that inasmuch as the original proposal for laying of a road for the convenience of the public through the ground which she purchased has been and the fact that most of the other grounds surrounding the said plot acquired along with the others has been given back to the original owners, the same ground might be returned to her by issuing a fresh Government Order. 8. On the basis of the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1382, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 18.10.1998 have allotted plot No.110 at Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar, Madras in favour of the petitioner subject to usual terms and conditions prescribed by the Board. It is clearly stated in the said Order that the proposal of the Chairman and Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has been accepted and a copy of the said Government Order was communicated to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Board, besides marking another copy to the petitioner. Within a period of 3 days, the very same Department in G.O.Ms.No.1421, dated 21.10.1988 has cancelled the earlier order dated 18.10.1988. In the said order, the Government have not assigned any reason except one sentence, namely, The orders issued in the G.O., read above are hereby cancelled. The said order of cancellation is being challenged in this writ petition. 9. I have already highlighted the plight of the petitioner starting from the purchase of the land from one Ghulam Mohamood, acquisition proceedings, her willingness to part with the land, several representations to the Government for allotment of a plot, initial order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.448, dated 6.5.1985 directing allotment of a plot of the same extent in the same area, subsequent order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1382, dated 18.10.1988 allotting plot No.110 at Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar, Madras and ending with the impugned order dated 21.10.1988. I have also noted that the first respondent has not filed any counter affidavit informing the reason for cancellation of the plot and passing the impugned order, nor placed before this Court any information to substantive their order. No doubt, the second respondent Housing Board has filed a counter affidavit. However, after going through the averments made in the said counter affidavit, I am of the view that nothing has subsequently been mentioned to support the impugned order of the Government. 10. The reason for not implementing the earlier order of the Government passed in G.O.Ms.No.448, dated 6.5.1985 was not stated either in the impugned order nor this Court. Likewise, there is no tangible information placed before this Court even for cancelling the allotment of plot No.110 at Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar made in G.O.Ms.No.1382, dated 18.10.1988. Admittedly, the petitioner had parted her land in order to provide a public road for the convenience of the public in Besantnagar Neighbourhood Scheme. It is also clear from the specific averments made in the affidavit that at the request of the vendor of the petitioner, namely, Ghulam Mohamood and one Rajagopal, several plots in the very same area had been excluded from the purview of the acquisition proceedings by the Government. It is also asserted that only the lands of the petitioner and some other persons who could not influence the respondents were retained in the acquisition proceedings. This factual position has not been controverted by the first respondent, when there are sufficient opportunities given to the Government to inform the correct position to this Court. As a matter of fact, it is also clear that on the basis of the genuine representation of the petitioner and her husband, who are being scientists working in the Indian Council of Medical Research Madras, initially the Government had passed a reasonable order in G.O.Ms.No.448, dated 6.5.1985 directing the Housing Board to allot a plot of the same extent in the same area. The said order has not been implemented by the second respondent. Subsequently, the first respondent has passed another order in G.O.Ms.No.1382, dated 18.10.1988 allotting a plot at Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar, Madras in favour of the petitioner. Taking note of the duration of time and the ordeal spent, the petitioner was even willing to accept the said allotment. The said order has not been implemented by the second respondent. Subsequently, the first respondent has passed another order in G.O.Ms.No.1382, dated 18.10.1988 allotting a plot at Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar, Madras in favour of the petitioner. Taking note of the duration of time and the ordeal spent, the petitioner was even willing to accept the said allotment. However, curiously even that order has subsequently been cancelled by the Government within 3 days in G.O.Ms.No.1421, dated 21.10.1988 without assigning any reason. The above mentioned particulars clearly show the high-handed action of the respondents in not providing proper plot after taking over her land measuring to an extent of 2,800 sq.ft. in Besantnagar Neighbourhood Scheme area. [Italics supplied] It is also clear from the information furnished by the petitioner that the respondents did not even a pursue the scheme for which the lands were acquired from the petitioner and from some other individuals. It is also clear that after taking over the land of the petitioner, the same has been allotted to some other individuals. In such circumstances it is but proper that petitioner must be provided with an alternate plot as agreed by the Government. The impugned order of the Government cancelling the earlier allotment cannot be sustained. It is against all canons of justice not to speak of the law and the regulations governing the functioning of the housing Board. It is also brought to my notice that the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tamil Nadu Housing Board has now deposited a sum of Rs.489 towards the cost of the plot, which was acquired from the petitioner in City Civil Court in L.A.O.P.No.24 of 1989. No doubt, the said proceedings is a different kind and if the petitioner is aggrieved by that, it is open to her to ventilate her grievance in the manner known to law. 11. In the light of what is stated above, I accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the impugned order of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.1421, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 21.10.1988 is hereby quashed and writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000. 11. In the light of what is stated above, I accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the impugned order of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.1421, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 21.10.1988 is hereby quashed and writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000. In view of quashing the impugned order and in the light of G.O.Ms.No.448, dated 6.5.1985 and G.O.Ms.No.1382, dated 18.10.1988, the respondents are hereby directed to allot a plot to the petitioner herein in a development area in the City of Madras within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I make it clear that while fixing the price for the said plot, the respondent are directed to take note of the plight of the petitioner from 1989 till this date.