Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : Since the parties to these two writ petitions and also the subject matter involved in both the writ petitions are common, both the writ petitions were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order with the consent of all the parties concerned. W.P. No. 8234/91 has been filed by the petitioners herein invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in letter No. P1/38423/90 dated 1-4-1991 and to quash the same in so far as it negatives the request of the petitioner for allotment of Plot No. 5164 of Arignar Anna Nagar and directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to forthwith put the petitioner herein in possession of plot No. 5164 of Arignar Anna Nagar, Madras by duly executing and registering the sale deed in favour of the petitioner as per G.O. Ms. No. 1950 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 28-12-1987 ignoring the auction in favour of the 4th respondent and in W.P. No. 12826/91, the petitioners are praying for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 2nd respondent relating to the order in Memo No. P1/72754/89 dated 4-3-91 and to quash the same in so far as it relates to plot No. 5164 of Arignar Anna Nagar. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition No. 8234/91, the first petitioner expired and his LRs. respondents 2 to 4 therein were brought on record and they are the petitioners in the other W.P. also. 4. In support of the writ petitions, the petitioners herein have filed separate affidavits narrating all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petitions and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for, per contra, the respondents have filed separate counter-affidavits rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits. 5. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. I have also perused the contents of the affidavit and the counter-affidavits together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. 5. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. I have also perused the contents of the affidavit and the counter-affidavits together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the learned counsel appearing for respective parties during the course of their arguments. 6. In the above factual position of the case, the only common point that arises for consideration, in these cases, is as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow these writ petitions or not. 7. The short facts of the case of the petitioners herein, as seen from their affidavits are as follows : The deceased Muthusamy, the 1st petitioner in W.P. No. 8234, viz., the husband of the 2nd petitioner therein and the father of the 3rd and 4th petitioners therein applied for allotment of a plot in Madras city on 27-1-87. He made subsequent applications on 15-2-86 as well as 12-10-1987. By order in G.O. Ms. No. 1950 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 28-12-1987, the Government of Tamil Nadu allotted Plot No. 5164 at Arignar Anna Nagar, Madras in his favour. In and by the same order the Government made allotment of plot Nos. 5164, 5165, 5166 and 5167 of Arignar Anna Nagar in favour of four individuals including him. He had been requesting the Housing Board to put him in possession of Plot No. 5164 as per the order of the Government. Even though he made written representation in this regard on 3-2-1988, 25-4-1988, 17-5-1988, 17-6-1988, 23-7-1988, 27-9-1988. 29-5-1990, 4-9-1990. 25-10-1990, 29-1-1991. He was not put in possession of the plot. Ultimately by letter No. P1/38423/90 dated 1-4-1991 the 2nd respondent herein informed the petitioner that by letter No. 8484/N1/88-1 dated 19-2-1988, the Government cancelled the allotment. On enquiry he came to under- stand that the contents of the above said letter of the 2nd respondent dated 1-4-1991 are not correct. But that was ordered by the Government in the letter No. 8484/N1/88 dated 19-2-1988 is that the implementation of allotment of plot No. 5164 in his favour was postponed and that there was no warrant for the conclusion of the Housing Board that the allotment of Plot No. 5164 was cancelled. It is stated by the petitioner that by order in G.O. Ms. It is stated by the petitioner that by order in G.O. Ms. No., 341 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 30-3-1990 the Government of Tamil Nadu issued positive direction that the allotment of plot No. 5164 in his favour to be implemented. On receipt of letter of the 2nd respondent dated 1-4-1991, he made a representation to the 2nd respondent setting out the correct facts. Even though his allotment was not cancelled the Housing Board highhandedly auctioned the Plot No. 5164 in favour of the 4th respondent in March 1991 in an illegal and arbitrary manner. By letter No. P1/38423/91 dated 3-5-1991, the 2nd respondent has forwarded his representation dated 12-4-1991 to the Government with a recommendation to allot an alternative plot. In view of the allotment made by the Government in his favour on 28-12-87 he has missed several opportunities of acquiring a house property in Madras. He acted upon the order of the Government to his detriment and therefore the respondents are not entitled to go back and they are barred by the principles of equitable estoppel. The auction said to have been held in favour of the 4th respondent is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. Therefore, the same will have to be ignored. It will not confer any right on the 4th respondent. The auction held by the Housing Board in favour of the 4th respondent is against the specific orders of the Government and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore the same is void ab initio. At no point of time, the respondents 1 to 3 informed him that the plot No. 5164 of Arignar Anna Nagar, Madras would be brought to auction. At no point of time the petitioner herein was furnished with a copy of the proceedings under which the plot was auctioned in favour of the 4th respondent. The petitioner is entitled to be put in possession of Plot No. 5164 of Arignar Anna Nagar, Madras. He is also entitled to get the sale deed for the said plot executed and registered by the 3rd respondent in his favour and he is willing to make the payment of the value of the plot calculated on the allotment rate basis as it prevailed in 1987 on hearing from the Housing Board. He is also entitled to get the sale deed for the said plot executed and registered by the 3rd respondent in his favour and he is willing to make the payment of the value of the plot calculated on the allotment rate basis as it prevailed in 1987 on hearing from the Housing Board. Aggrieved by the illegal action of the respondents and having no other remedy open, the 1st petitioner herein filed W.P. No. 8234 of 1991. 8. In the meanwhile subsequent to the filing of W.P. No. 8234/91 the first petitioner herein died on 23-7-1991 due to heart attack and the petitioners 2 to 4 came on record as the LRs. of the deceased first petitioner. Further a true copy of the order of the Housing Board confirming the auction in favour of the 4th respondent in Memo No. P1/72754/91 dated 4-2-1991 is made available. Therefore it has become necessary for the petitioners 2 to 4 in the previous petition and the petitioners in W.P. No. 12826/91 to file the above writ petition specifically challenging the order of the Housing Board confirming the auction in favour of the 4th respondent to avoid any technical objections in the future. In the said petition also it is contended by the petitioners that the auction in favour of the 4th respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction and the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. It is also their case that the order of the 2nd respondent confirming the allotment in favour of the 4th respondent not served either on the petitioners herein or the 1st petitioner in the other writ. It is also their specific case that possession of the plot was handed over to the 4th respondent only when the order of injunction was granted by this Court in W.M.P. No. 12503/91 was in force, and since the possession was handed over in violation of the order of injunction the 4th respondent will not be entitled to take advantage of the fact that the 4th respondent was put in possession of the site. 9. It is admitted by the respondents that the Government have issued order for the allotment of Plot No. 5164 Vide G.O.Ms. No. Housing 1950 dated 28-12-87 to the first petitioner in W.P. No. 8234/91. 9. It is admitted by the respondents that the Government have issued order for the allotment of Plot No. 5164 Vide G.O.Ms. No. Housing 1950 dated 28-12-87 to the first petitioner in W.P. No. 8234/91. But according to the respondents the Government subsequently issued an order in letter No. 8464/NI/88, dated 19-2-88 that the allotment made in respect of the plot No. 5167 was alone to be given effect. Accordingly the Board has not allotted the Plot No. 5164 to the 1st petitioner in W.P. No. 8234/91 and the Board has also not allotted the other two plots viz. 5164 and 5166. No further G.O. for this plot was received by the respondents 2 and 3. It is the case of the respondents that as the Government has instructed to give effect only to the plot No. 5167 alone, the Board has taken further action to put the Plot No. 5164 to its original use-commercial purpose as per the approved MMDA layout since this plot has not been allotted by the Board. Hence the plot was auctioned openly for commercial purposes and the Highest bidder has paid the full cost and taken over the plot and the plot is not in his possession. It is also the case of the respondents that the open auction for Plot No. 5164 was conducted after giving wide publicity including publishing in Newspapers as Housing Board rules and then allotted to the highest bidder. The highest bidder has paid the full cost bid amount and taken over the plot. The plot is now within the highest bidder's possession and all sale deeds have also been executed in favour of the present allottee on 5-6-92. It is contended by the respondents that since no allotment order was issued by the Board to the petitioner, the question of transfer of plot to the legal heirs does not arise and also that the open auction was conducted after giving wide publicity as per rules and hence it is legally valid. Further it is the specific case of the respondents that no allotment order was issued by the Board to the petitioner and hence the question of payment to TNHB does not arise. It is also their case that as per the original approved layout this plot is for commercial purposes it was auctioned, and the same was alloted to the highest bidder. It is also their case that as per the original approved layout this plot is for commercial purposes it was auctioned, and the same was alloted to the highest bidder. The highest bidder has paid the full cost and the plot was handed over to him and the allottee is in legal possession of the plot and the deed has also been executed on 5-6-1992. Hence it is prayed by the respondents that there is no merit in these writ petitions, and that therefore they have to be dismissed. 10. Having seen the entire material available on record and in the facts and circumstances of these cases and from the claims and counter-claims of the parties herein the following are the admitted facts : Plot No. 5164 in question in these writ petitions has been originally allotted to the first petitioner in W.P. No. 8234/91 by the government vide G.O.Ms. No. Housing 1950 dated 28-12-97. But subsequently the Government issued an order in letter No. 8464/N1/88, dated 19-2-88 that the allotment made in respect of the Plot No. 5167 was alone to be given effect. Therefore the 2nd respondent has not allotted the plot No. 5164 to the petitioner herein and the board has also not allotted the other two plots viz. 5165 and 5166. There is no dispute with regard to the above facts. It is the case of the respondents that in spite of the so-called G.O. Ms. No. 1950 dated 28-12-1987, since the Government has instructed to give effect only to Plot No. 5167 alone, the Board has taken further action to put the plot No. 5164 to its original use-commercial purpose as per the approved MMDA layout since this plot has not been allotted by the Board. Hence the plot was auctioned openly for a commercial purpose and the highest bidder, viz., the 4th respondent herein had paid the full cost and taken over the plot and the plot is now in his possession and sale deed has also been executed in favour of the present allottee on 5-6-92. Therefore there is no merit in these petitions and pray that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 11. Whereas it is the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that admittedly in G.O.Ms. Therefore there is no merit in these petitions and pray that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 11. Whereas it is the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that admittedly in G.O.Ms. No. 1950 dated 28-12-1987 the government of Tamil Nadu allotted Plot No. 5164 in favour of the first petitioner and in spite of repreated requests made by the first petitioner, he was not put in possession of the plot. Subsequently in letter No. 8484/N1/88-81 dated, the Government had ordered that the allotment made to one particular individual in the said G.O. 1950 alone be given effect to and that therefore it is clear that the implementation of allotment of Plot No. 5164 in favour of the 1st petitioner was postponed and that there is no warrant for the conclusion of the Housing Board that the allotment of Plot No. 5164 was cancelled. It is also the contention of the petitioners that by order in G.O.Ms. No. 341 Housing and urban development Department dated 30-3-1991 the Government of Tamil Nadu issued positive direction that the allotment of plot No. 5164 in favour of the petitioner has to be implemented, that even though the allotment was not cancelled the Housing Board high handedly auctioned the plot No. 5164 in favour of the 4th respondent in January 1991 in an illegal and arbitrary manner, and that therefore, according to the petitioners the auction held by the Housing Board in favour of the 4th respondent is against the specific orders of the Government and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Further in support of their case, the learned senior counsel relied on a judgment of this Court made in W.P. No. 11850 of 1991 on 1-10-92. 12. It is no doubt true that by Government order dated 28-12-1987 the plot No. 5164 was allotted in favour of the first petitioner herein. Subsequently the Government issued an order in letter No. 8464/N1/88 dated 19-2-88 that the allotment made in respect of the Plot No. 5167 was alone to be given effect. Therefore accordingly the Board has not allotted the plot No. 5164 to the first petitioner herein and also not allotted the other two plots viz., 5164 and 5166. Subsequently the Government issued an order in letter No. 8464/N1/88 dated 19-2-88 that the allotment made in respect of the Plot No. 5167 was alone to be given effect. Therefore accordingly the Board has not allotted the plot No. 5164 to the first petitioner herein and also not allotted the other two plots viz., 5164 and 5166. As the Government has instructed to give effect only to the plot No. 5167 alone, the Board has taken further action to put the Plot No. 5164 to its original use-commercial purpose as per the approved MMDA layout since this plot has not been allotted by the Board. Hence the plot was auctioned openly for commercial purposes and the highest bidder has paid the full cost and taken over the plot and the plot is now in his possession. It is also significant to note that sale-deed has also been executed in favour of the present allottee on 5-6-92. It is the contention of the respondents that the open auction was conducted after giving wide publicity as per rules and hence it is legally valid. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I see every force in the said contention of the respondents. Therefore it is very clear that the fourth respondent herein has taken the property in a public auction as he being the highest bidder, he paid the entire amount, the sale deed also has been executed in his favour. That being so his possession cannot be interfered with. 13. In this context, it is contended by the petitioners that the possession of the plot was handed over to the 4th respondent only when the order of injunction was granted by this Court in W.M.P. No. 12503/91 was in force and that therefore since the possession was handed over in violation of the order of injunction, the 4th respondent will not be entitled to take advantage of the fact that the 4th respondent was put in possession of the site. But it is significant to note that the allottee has paid the full amount and taken over the plot on 2-7-1991 whereas the interim injunction notice was served by the Court and received by the 2nd respondent on 3-7-91. But it is significant to note that the allottee has paid the full amount and taken over the plot on 2-7-1991 whereas the interim injunction notice was served by the Court and received by the 2nd respondent on 3-7-91. That apart it is also significant to note that even though interim injunction was granted in W.P. No. 823 of 1991 after knowing the above facts of the case this Court has vacated the injunction on 19-7-1991. Therefore, in such circumstances, the contentions raised by the petitioners in this regard also cannot be accepted. Therefore all these circumstances of these cases, clearly go to show that the 4th respondent has purchased the Plot No. 5164 in a public auction as being the highest bidder and accordingly he took over the possession of the plot in question and above all sale deed also has been executed in his favour on 5-6-92. In such circumstances of the case, there is no need at all to interfere with the possession of the 4th respondent herein. For the very same reason the 2nd respondent has also rejected the request of the petitioners for allotting the said plot in their favour as per his letter dated 1-4-91. 14. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons and in the facts and circumstances of this case and also in view of my above discussions with regard to the various aspects of these cases and also in the light of the decision relied on by the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the petitioners herein have failed to make out any case in their favour and that therefore there is no need at all to interfere with the impugned orders of the respondents challenged in these writ petitions. Thus both the writ petitions fail and the same are liable to be dismissed for want of merits. 15. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently WMP No. 19336 of 1991 also is dismissed. Petitions dismissed.