Judgment : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner thereby praying to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to forbear from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property situate in S.Nos.75/4 and 77/2, Londonpettai, Krishnagiri Taluk, Dharmapuri District, except in accordance with law and to pass such further or other orders. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would contend that he was allotted a house site measuring 3 cents in S.No.60/2 by the Special Tahsildar. A.D.W. Krishnagiri, on 12. 1967 and he got inducted into possession of the same on 3. 1977, after construction of the house in the said site; that he is residing there with all his family members; that on 28. 1991, the second respondent issued him a show cause notice, calling for explanations as to why the allotment made in his favour should not be cancelled on two grounds viz., (a) that the petitioner let out a portion of the premises to one Venkatesan and (b) that the petitioner permitted his daughter to stay in another portion of the house. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that he gave a detailed explanation on 30.9.1991 clarifying that there had been no landlord-tenant relationship between himself and the said Venkatesan; that his daughter is well residing with him in a portion of the premises and not separately; that after his explanation, there was no communication or information regarding the whole affair. While so, on 19. 1992, the third respondent came to the house of the petitioner and directed him to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises and that the petitioner questioned the validity of such a direction being issued orally by the third respondent especially in view of the fact that to his knowledge, the allotment made in his favour had not been cancelled; that the petitioner cannot be evicted, nor could respondents 1 to 3 in any other manner interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the premises except in accordance with law and would pray for the said relief. 4. On the part of respondents 1 to 3, the learned Government Advocate, viz., Sri.A.Arumugam appeared and argued to the effect that the petitioner cannot wholly come forward to say that he was totally ignorant of the eviction proceedings initiated against him. 4. On the part of respondents 1 to 3, the learned Government Advocate, viz., Sri.A.Arumugam appeared and argued to the effect that the petitioner cannot wholly come forward to say that he was totally ignorant of the eviction proceedings initiated against him. Apart from the eviction proceedings initiated, the assignment had also been made in favour of the 4th respondent and in spite of all such events having taken place, admittedly, the show cause notice having been served on him and the petitioner also having come forward to explain his position as per his reply, he cannot at this stage deny the institution of the proceedings and the other developments that have taken place in the case of the entire proceeding; that it is nothing but concealing the other procedures that are followed towards the eviction of the petitioner and would say that in spite of knowledge, the petitioner had been lethargic. 5. Resuming the arguments, the learned Government Advocate would contend that a suit had also been instituted against him in O.S.No.465 of 1992 wherein the petitioner is the first respondent. Adhering to the facts, the learned Government Advocate would further contend that it is a case of clear cut violation of the conditions of assignment and both the charges would indicate specific violations of the conditions of assignment especially in view of condition No.1; that it is a definite case and as open secret that the petitioner let out the premises in favour of Venkatesan and now the petitioner has not only admitted the letting out of the part of the premises in favour of Venkatesan but also attributes some unbelievable stories for such commitments which cannot at all be accepted and that he has also allotted a portion of the premises for his daughter to reside and all these violations are sufficient on the part of the authorities to cancel the assignment made in his favour pertaining to the said premises and would pray for dismissing the writ petition. 6. 6. On the part of the fourth respondent, Sri.P.N.Prakash, learned counsel would contend that the fourth respondent is an impleaded party at a later stage since she is an interested party to the issues involved in this case; that the fourth respondent is the subsequent allottee after the cancellation of the assignment effected in favour of the petitioner; that he had also gone to the civil court, filing a suit in O.S.No.465 of 1992 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Krishnagiri, for recovery of possession of the land; that the said suit is also kept pending mainly because the petitioner has produced the injunction order passed by this court in the writ petition as a result of which, the said suit has not been proceeded further by the District Munsif. The learned counsel would further contend that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he is liable to be evicted from the premises on ground that he had already been owning a house for himself prior to the assignment was made in his favour and suppressing all such facts, he had fraudulently obtained the assignment in his favour and would strongly pray for dismissing the above writ petition. .7. On a bare assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case and the question involved regarding the disposal of the above writ petition, the petitioner had been assigned with 3 cents of land falling under S.No.60/2, Londonpettai, Krishnagiri on 12. 1967 and he was inducted into possession of the house by the Tamil Nadu Harijan Housing and Development Corporation Limited, Vellore, that on two grounds, viz., (i) letting out a portion of the premises in favour of one Venkatesan and (ii) permitting his daughter to stay in another portion of the premises, the third respondents initiated measures against the assignment made in favour of the petitioner ultimately resulting in cancellation of the assignment order dated 111. 1981. 8. It is not only that the assignments made in favour of the petitioner got cancelled as aforementioned, but also the same premises had been assigned in favour of the fourth respondent as per the proceedings dated 16. 1992. 1981. 8. It is not only that the assignments made in favour of the petitioner got cancelled as aforementioned, but also the same premises had been assigned in favour of the fourth respondent as per the proceedings dated 16. 1992. In the above circumstances, the petitioner would strongly contend that only with the show cause notice issued for which he submitted his explanation in time and without any further proceedings either instituted within his knowledge or made known to him by means of any communication, any other order much less cancelling the assignment made in his favour and while such was the state of affairs, all of a sudden on 19. 1992, the third respondent ascended to his residence and deliberately wanted to vacate the petitioner from the premises since his assignment had been cancelled and with great difficulties, the petitioner had to resist the eviction being carried out. 9. The petitioner would further, contend that the usual and statutorily contemplated rules and procedures that should be followed, have not been followed in this case by the authorities concerned, nor had he been afforded with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and the whole order of cancellation and eviction had been passed behind his back and without his knowledge, needless to point out without an opportunity for him to be heard. By such unlawful and unreasonable ways and means, it is strongly, contended by the petitioner that the authorities concerned have acted not only in an arbitrary manner, but also in violation of the high principles of natural justice, which are fundamental and basic on the part of the respondents to have adopted and adhered to. The petitioner would also contend that he cannot be evicted unless the procedures established by law are followed and would ultimately pray for granting the relief as sought for in the writ petition. 10. Even though, factually a strong case is projected on the part of the respondents, still, especially on the part of respondents 1 to 3, they are not able to establish that after the petitioner had submitted his explanation for the show cause notice, any communication towards passing of the order cancelling the assignment, or consequently passing an order of eviction so as to ask the petitioner to vacate from the assigned premises and to hand over vacant possession either by production of such documents or by other means. On the part of the 4th respondent also, based on the assignment subsequently made in her favour, she had not only filed a suit but also would contend that she has got her own right to be in possession and enjoyment of the property, since she has been lawfully assigned with the same. At the same time, it is as open case in so far as the fourth respondent is concerned that she has gone to the court seeking delivery of the premises from the petitioner who is none other than the first defendant in the suit and it is quite evident that the physical possession of the premises is still with the petitioner and not with any one else much less with the fourth respondent herein. 11. Inthese circumstances, the strong contentions made on the part of the petitioner to the effect that without causing the eviction of the earlier assignee that is the petitioner, no assignment could be effected in favour of any other person much less in favour of the fourth respondent as it has happened in this case is also thought provoking. 12. In the said circumstances, though this court does not even indicate anything regarding the facts and circumstances of the case especially in view of the pending suit and further enquiries that may be held in future by the concerned authorities considering the conditions that are prevalent and encircling the whole affair, it has at the moment become incumbent on the part of this court to say that the petitioner has not been given a fair opportunity for making his representations or to participate in the enquiry and to exhaust all his remedies as per the procedures that are laid down by law. Nor on the part of the respondents, they are able to establish that the petitioner had been afforded with sufficient and reasonable opportunity as warranted by law. Hence, it is clear that this is a case of no opportunity being given to the petitioner. 13. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would contend that it cannot be said that the petitioner was kept wholly in dark in so far as the proceedings initiated against him are concerned. The fact is that the petitioner received the show cause notice and has also submitted his explanation. 13. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would contend that it cannot be said that the petitioner was kept wholly in dark in so far as the proceedings initiated against him are concerned. The fact is that the petitioner received the show cause notice and has also submitted his explanation. But it is the question uppermost in the mind of the court that whether the petitioner was within his knowledge regarding the later proceedings or not, and whether he had been afforded with sufficient and reasonable opportunities or not. For this question, it has to be answered in the negative clarifying that the petitioner has not been afforded with such opportunities as warranted by law and it is nothing short of violation of the high principles of natural justice and this legal inconsistency itself is sufficient to grant the relief as sought for by the petitioner against his eviction by respondents 1 to 3. 14. It is also discussed during arguments that the petitioner has no where challenged the cancellation of the assignment made in his favour, but it is not up to this Court to answer. Since the statutory remedy for the petitioner lies else where, it is up to him to decide. Confining to the pleading and prayer of the petitioner, it could only be ordered directing the respondents not to interfere with the absolute possession and enjoyment of the property situate in S.Nos.75/4 and 77/2, Londonpettai, Krishnagiri Taluk, Dharmapuri District, which assignment was made in favour of the petitioner by any other means except in adherence to the procedures established by law. 15. Respondents 1 to 3 are at liberty either to initiate fresh proceedings for to carry on with the evicting proceedings if it is left in the half way, but strictly adhering the rules and procedures established by law in which event, the petitioner will also have a fair opportunity of being heard. 116. So far as the attempted eviction of the petitioner in the manner as brought forth in this writ petition is concerned, it is nothing but a clear cut violation of the principles of natural justice since no opportunity has been afforded for the petitioner to be heard in a fair and impartial enquiry held by respondents 1 to 3 as laid down by law. 117. In result, the above writ petition stands allowed. No costs.