Judgment : 1. Invoking Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the respondents proceedings in his letter No.A2/35574/89, dated 111. 1992 and to quash the said proceedings dated 111. 1992 of the respondent and to direct the respondent to allot the petitioner either a residential or a commercial plot in Sampath Nagar Phase I and II Scheme, Erode and to pass such further or other orders as this Court deems fit. 2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits. 3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavit and the counter affidavit 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 the respective parties during the course of their arguments. I have also perused the decisions and judgments relied on by the parties in support of their respective cases. 4. In the above fact and circumstances of the case, the only point that arises for consideration in this case is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petitions or not. 5. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit are as follows: The respondent herein has acquired a vast extent of land in Erode Town for construction of dwelling houses by the Housing Board. The entire agricultural lands belonging to the petitioner herein measuring 9.24 acres in S.No.409/10, 413/3 and 413/5 Erode Town and Village has been acquired. He made objections to the acquisition proceedings at the time of enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The entire agricultural lands belonging to the petitioner herein measuring 9.24 acres in S.No.409/10, 413/3 and 413/5 Erode Town and Village has been acquired. He made objections to the acquisition proceedings at the time of enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. According to him, he is entitled for the allotment of the house site on the basis that he is an erstwhile owner of the acquired land. The respondent and the acquiring authorities had also assured the petitioner that he would be allotted a vacant house site in Sampath Nagar, Erode on the basis that he is an ex-owner of the acquired land. The Housing Board also constructed dwelling houses on the acquired lands and such construction of the Houses are made in a phased manner. The petitioner herein gave a representation on 15. 1989 and 19. 1992 to the respondent for allotment of a vacant house site to him as an ex-owner of the acquired land. But it is the case of the petitioner that as there was no action taken by the respondent, he filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.5289 of 1991 before this Court praying for a direction to the respondent to allot a vacant site. This court also by its order directed the respondent to dispose of the application of the petitioner in accordance with law within three months. Subsequent to the disposal of the writ petition, the respondent herein by his letter dated 111. 1992 informed the petitioner that this Court had passed final orders in W.M.P.No.8482 of 1992 in W.P.No.3717 of 1988 directing the respondent to allot plot No.48-B to Tmt.Karuppayee Ammal. Except this site, no other residential plot is available in Sampath Nagar and therefore the Board is not in a position to consider the petitioners request made in his applications dated 15. 1989 and 19. 1992 for allotment of a plot in Sampath Nagar, Erode, and further that the site No.56 referred to in the application dated 19. 1992 is a shop site and as per rules the shop sites/commercial sites are allotted only through sealed tender and public auction. As against this order of the respondent, the petitioner herein having no other alternate remedy except to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court, has filed the present writ petition. 6. 1992 is a shop site and as per rules the shop sites/commercial sites are allotted only through sealed tender and public auction. As against this order of the respondent, the petitioner herein having no other alternate remedy except to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court, has filed the present writ petition. 6. The impugned order of the respondent is hereby challenged by the petitioner herein on the grounds that the respondent had exercised his powers in an arbitrary manner in passing the impugned order especially after keeping the application of the petitioner for more than three years, that there is no justification for the respondent to reject the request of the petitioner for allotment of a site keeping the application in abeyance for three years and that it is also their case that in many cases where the residential plot was not available the respondent had allotted commercial plots to the ex-owners. The following are such instances: .(i) Chooliammal was allotted Plot No.21-B. .(ii) A. Marappam was allotted plot No.21-C these are in Periyar Nagar, Phase II scheme. (iii) Ponnusamy was allotted Plot No.18-A. .(iv) M. Karuppanna Gounder was allotted Plot No.34-B .(v) A. Chellappa Gounder was allotted Plot No.45-A these are in Sampath Nagar, Phase II Scheme. It is the categoric case of the petitioner that out of the abovesaid plots, the plots mentioned in ((i) (ii) and (iii) are commercial plots in the original plan. The plots (iv) and (v) are ear-marked for public use. Wherever the commercial plots were allotted, the allottees were directed grievance that the respondent has not stated as to why the petitioner should not be allotted a commercial site. According to him he is willing to pay the market rate as other allottees. It is also the specific contention of the petitioner herein that the conduct of the respondent in allotting commercial sites to some of the ex-owners and in rejecting the request of the petitioner that no residential plot is available, would amount to arbitrary exercise of power and allotment is made to his whims and fences. Further, this would also amount to violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. It is also his contention that the respondent might have been annoyed by the conduct of the petitioner in approaching this Court and that would be the main reason for the passing of the present impugned order. Further, this would also amount to violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. It is also his contention that the respondent might have been annoyed by the conduct of the petitioner in approaching this Court and that would be the main reason for the passing of the present impugned order. According to the petitioner still plot Nos. R-49-B, R-33 and R-57 are unsued and unallotted and that the respondent may be directed to allot any one of the plots referred to above to the petitioner. Further it is his categoric case that the petitioner herein is not seeking for the allotment on a regular basis, but he is seeking for the allotment on a priority basis, since he is an ex-owner of the land that had been acquired and also that the entire agricultural lands of the petitioner had been acquired and as such the petitioners claim should be considered on priority basis. 7. Per contra, in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent inter alia it is contended by them that the entire land cost has been paid to the petitioner and he has also received enhanced compensation amount awarded by the Sub Court, Erode. The petitioner has made a representation for the allotment of residential plot under Ex-land-owner category for which he has been recommended for allotment of site No.R-56 earmarked for shops to the Board on 2. 1990 in response to the judgment dated 28. 1992 in W.P.No.5289 of 1991. Since the land/ site R-56 situated in EVK.Sampath Nagar has been earmarked for shops as per approved lay-out, the Board has negatived his request due to the reason that the site will be disposed off only through sealed tender and public auction vide Board Letter Ref.A2/35574/89, dated 111. 1992 and a copy on intimation letter sent to the petitioner. According to them the representation dated 15. 1989 and 19. 1992 have not been considered as there are no residential plots available and hence the petitioner has been informed to participate at the time of conducting sealed tender cum public auction. It is also their case that some of the ex-land owners have been allotted plots based on the High Court/Judgment in W.P.No.13449 of 1988, dated 1. 1988 and in response to Government orders who is competent authority. Hence, the respondent has not acted or exercised his power arbitrarily. It is also their case that some of the ex-land owners have been allotted plots based on the High Court/Judgment in W.P.No.13449 of 1988, dated 1. 1988 and in response to Government orders who is competent authority. Hence, the respondent has not acted or exercised his power arbitrarily. It is also their case that there is also no norms laid down that ex-owners should be allotted land for dwelling purpose. Therefore according to them the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Having seen the entire material available on record and from the facts and circumstances of this case and also from the claims and counter claims made by the rival parties the following are the admitted facts: The only prayer of the petitioner herein either a residential or a commercial plot in Sampath Nagar, Phase I and II Scheme, Erode. Such claim has been made by the petitioner as ex-owner whose entire agricultural land measuring 9.24 acres has been acquired by the respondents for the said scheme. Further such representation having such prayer had been pending with the respondent for about 11 years and even to direct the respondents to consider the same, the petitioner herein was forced to knock the doors of this Court and in spite of all these things and the specific orders issued by this Court in earlier proceedings, the respondents did not take any steps in this regard. It is the case of the respondent that as per the order of this Court they allotted one plot to one Karuppayammal the petitioner in that case and after that there is no other residential plot available in Sampath Nagar and that therefore the Board is not in a position to consider the petitioners request made in his applications. However, in this case it is significant to note that it is the strong case of the petitioner herein that in many cases where the residential plot was not available, the respondent had converted the commercial plots into House sites and allotted to the ex-owners and they have furnished such details also. By virtue of the interim orders issued in this writ petition, some plots are kept aside without allotting them to anyone pending disposal of the writ petition. By virtue of the interim orders issued in this writ petition, some plots are kept aside without allotting them to anyone pending disposal of the writ petition. Even according to the respondents such plots are still remain unallotted and because of the interim orders passed by this Court in this writ petition and other similar writ petitions. According to the respondents contention in those writ petitions by way of counter affidavit sites R-49, R-33, R-57 and R-55, R-46 and R-47 are the vacant. In similar cases, this Court has ordered the respondent to allot certain sites to the petitioners in the said similar writ petitions. That being so, one of the remaining such plots should be allotted to the petitioner herein. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that recently in G.O,No.694, dated 8the June, 1988 the Government has given permission for change of use from commercial use into residential use in case of one M.Ponnusamy in the same scheme and he has been allotted R.48-B and one K.M.Karuppannan has been allotted plot in S.No.409/11B Part and 413/11 Part by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1608, dated 12. 1988. 9. Further from the facts of these cases, it is very clear that the representatives of these petitioners claiming allotment of sites on the basis of ex-owners of acquired lands has been kept in abeyance by the respondent for so many years and to activate such representation, the petitioner had to approach this Court and even after that, the respondents have not taken any constructive steps. Further in this case it is clear that even though the respondents refused the claim of the petitioner herein saying that there are no residential plots available, a perusal of the records shows that in many cases, where the residential plot was not available the respondents had allotted commercial plots to the ex-owners. Such particulars also have been furnished by the petitioner herein. Therefore, it is contended by the petitioner herein that the respondents might have been annoyed by the filing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein and others against the respondents and that would be the main reason for the passing of the present impugned order. Such particulars also have been furnished by the petitioner herein. Therefore, it is contended by the petitioner herein that the respondents might have been annoyed by the filing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein and others against the respondents and that would be the main reason for the passing of the present impugned order. It is contended by them that as on date admittedly still plot Nos.R-33, R-57, R-46 and R-47, etc., are unused and unallotted and that therefore the respondents may be directed to allot any one of the plots referred to above to the petitioner herein. They also contend that the petitioners are not seeking for the allotment on a regular basis, but they are seeking for the allotment on a priority basis since they being ex-owners of the land that has been acquired and also that the entire agricultural lands of the petitioner had been acquired and that therefore the petitioners should be considered on priority basis. In the above facts and circumstances of these cases, I see every force in the above contentions raised by the petitioner. It is admitted that this Court has ordered the respondent to allot certain plots to the petitioners before this Court in similar writ petitions. Apart from them R-33, R-46, R-57 etc., are still available for allotment. However, it is transpired from the parties that in R-33 and R-57 etc., some constructions are there and only R-46 is unused and unallotted to anybody and that therefore it is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said plot R-46 may be allotted to the petitioner herein. Therefore in the above circumstances of the case the said plot R-46 may be allotted to the petitioner herein. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that such plot allotted to the petitioner herein also should be properly converted into residential plots as done in the case of one Ponnusamy vide G.O.Ms.No.694, dated 6. 1988 and based on the said G.O. itself the above allotment of plot to the petitioner herein shall be subject to usual terms and conditions prescribed by Tamil Nadu Housing Board in its allotment rules as prevailed on the date of this petitioners first representation in this regard. I see every force in the above contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I see every force in the above contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also significant to note that this Court has taken the similar view in similar writs in W.P.Nos.19151 and 19951 of 1992. 10. In support of their contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein relied on the following decision: 1. Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P. Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P. Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 92, wherein it was held that in Land Acquisition cases, towards rehabilitation of evictees, directions can be given by the court. 2. Order of this Court in W.P.No.19058 of 1993, dated 24. 1994, wherein Kanagaraj, J., has held thus: “Therefore I direct the first respondent to consider the name of the petitioners and if there are no insurmountable difficulties to convert the available commercial plots into residential plots and allot the same to the petitioner, orders in this regard shall be passed within twelve weeks from today. The writ petition is ordered in the above terms. No costs.” 11. On behalf of the respondents also the order made by this Court in W.P.No.14380 of 1992, dated 11. 2000 has been relied on. But that was a case wherein the petitioner therein did not approach the Housing Board for the relief sought for at appropriate time and the manner and he outright filed the said writ petition and hence that was dismissed. But in this case, it is very clear that the petitioner herein again and again approached the respondents seeking the claim but as it failed, he has come to this Court. Therefore, in such circumstances, the decision relied on by the petitioners squarely apply to the facts of the present case whereas the decision relied on by the respondents is not of any help to them. 12. Therefore, in such circumstances, the decision relied on by the petitioners squarely apply to the facts of the present case whereas the decision relied on by the respondents is not of any help to them. 12. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons and in the facts and circumstances of this case and also in view of my above discussion with regard to the various aspects of this case and also in view of the above decisions and G.O. relied on by the parties, I am of the clear view that the petition herein has clearly made out a case in his favour and that therefore, the order impugned in this writ petition has to be quashed as the same is arbitrary and there is no justification for the respondents to keep his applications pending for several years and then to reject. Thus the writ petition succeeds and the same deserves to be allowed as prayed for. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, as prayed for. No costs. Consequently W.M.Ps.Nos.29625 of 1992 and 6451 and 6452 of 1997 are dismissed.