Judgment :- The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings C/931/96 dated 25.1.2001 of the 3rd respondent and quash the cancellation of the allotment as illegal and direct the respondents to confirm the petitioner's right over the property bearing plot No.4/211, A1 J.J.Nagar, West Mogappair, Anna Nagar, Chennai by executing necessary conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner states that in the year 1986, the respondent allotted a portion to the petitioner in Mogappair West Division bearing Plot No.4/211 under A1 Group, measuring about 30' x 13', ad-measuring 390 sq. feet, for which the respondent fixed the value at Rs.4,100/- which is payable in monthly installment at Rs.45/- per month for 240 months; that the respondent handed over the plot to the petitioner on 26.8.1986, and according to the scheme, the total sum payable is at Rs.10,800/-; that by letter dated 4.11.1989 the respondents permitted the petitioner to pay the said monthly instalment from 2.1.1989 and issued a passbook and on the basis of the allotment of plot, the Ambattur Municipality, by its proceedings dt.26.8.1986, permitted the petitioner to construct a house on the plot and the plan was approved; that though the petitioner was entitled to pay the amount by instalment at Rs.45/- p.m. she made the following sums as per the statement shown below: 1. Receipt No.91284 dated 12.12.88 Rs.1326/- 2. Bank Challan 20.11.89 Rs.1710/- 3. Bank Challan 25.04.91 Rs. 810/- 4. Bank Challan 16.08.91 Rs.3349/- 5. Bank Challan 16.08.91 Rs. 164/- 6. Bill No.0203905 24.09.91 Rs. 250/- 7. Bank Challan 24.09.91 Rs. 65/- 8. Bank Challan 24.09.91 Rs. 85/- 9. Bank Challan 01.02.92 Rs. 90/- 10.Bank Challan 26.03.92 Rs. 225/- 11.Bank Challan 06.03.92 Rs. 425/- 12.Bank Challan 02.06.92 Rs. 340/- 13.Bank Challan 02.06.92 Rs. 180/- 14.Bank Challan 12.12.92 Rs. 510/- 15.Bank Challan 14.12.92 Rs. 270/- 16.Bank Challan 01.02.93 Rs. 170/- 17.Receipt No.39981 16.06.93 Rs. 255/- 18.Receipt No.40419 16.06.93 Rs. 135/- 19.Total Rs.10,539/- 3. Bank Challan 24.09.91 Rs. 85/- 9. Bank Challan 01.02.92 Rs. 90/- 10.Bank Challan 26.03.92 Rs. 225/- 11.Bank Challan 06.03.92 Rs. 425/- 12.Bank Challan 02.06.92 Rs. 340/- 13.Bank Challan 02.06.92 Rs. 180/- 14.Bank Challan 12.12.92 Rs. 510/- 15.Bank Challan 14.12.92 Rs. 270/- 16.Bank Challan 01.02.93 Rs. 170/- 17.Receipt No.39981 16.06.93 Rs. 255/- 18.Receipt No.40419 16.06.93 Rs. 135/- 19.Total Rs.10,539/- 3. The further case of the petitioner is that even after the stipulated period of 20 years, the petitioner paid the entire instalment as per the terms and conditions; that even after the petitioner remitting the amount, the respondents issued letter dated 16.9.1991 stating that the petitioner's allotment was already cancelled due to non-payment of amount, and called upon her to remit a sum of Rs.250/- towards revocation fee along with the monthly instalment to revoke the cancellation order; that she did not receive any letter cancelling the allotment for non-payment of monthly arrears of installments; that though the petitioner has disputed the said revocation, she paid the revocation fee of Rs.250/- + Rs.65/- + Rs.85/- as directed by the respondents; that thereafter on 25.10.1991, the respondents issued a letter stating that the petitioner had not put up any construction over the property and called upon her to show cause as to why the allotment should not be cancelled, for which the petitioner replied that due to rainy season, she was unable to put up construction and requested the respondents to issue a NOC for the payments made so far so as to obtain bank loan to commence the further construction, since the bank insisted her to get NOC in order to sanction loan, but the respondents failed to do so; that in the meantime, the respondents gave a letter dt.27.4.2000 cancelling her allotment. 4.The petitioner would further submit that on her instructions, her counsel issued a notice to the respondents on 4.12.2000 calling upon the respondents to issue NOC and not to cancel the allotment, but the respondents, by their letter dated 25.1.2001, replied asking to pay the arrears of instalments, but the petitioner did not make any payment to the respondents in spite of reminders and finally, the respondents, stating that the petitioner has not constructed the house on the plot, had not paid the revocation fee and revoked the agreement, sold the property in auction to one J.Varadarajan for Rs.1,90,000/-; that the petitioner sent a letter dt.11.5.2001 calling upon the respondents to execute the sale deed in her favour since she had put up a construction over the said property during the year 2000 and the same was assessed to property tax and the petitioner is in possession of the property and she did not receive notice regarding the proceeding of the respondents dated 28.8.1998 cancelling the allotment and hence she has come forward with the above writ petition to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings C2/931/86 dt.25.1.2001 of the 3rd respondent and quash the same. 5. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, the standing counsel for the respondent Housing Board would argue on instructions. 6.In consideration of the facts and circumstances encircling the whole case, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what comes to be known is that it is an admitted case of the respondents that the petitioner was the original allottee of the subject matter and on the part of the respondents, they would come forward to say that she was in some arrears in the payment schedule given at the time of allotment of the land. But, on the part of the petitioner, she could come forward to ascert that it is false to state that there is some arrears for the plot allotted to her by the respondents, and that she had cleared all the instalments to the tune of Rs.10,539/- and in spite of such being the position, the respondents, with ulterior motives under the pretext that she had not constructed the house, as agreed upon within the prescribed time, started issuing notice and ultimately, had not only cancelled the allotment order, but also brought-forth the auction, in which, a third party had been the successful bidder for a sum of Rs.1,90,000/-, and therefore, on receipt of information of all the developments, the petitioner has come forward to file the above writ petition praying for the relief extracted supra. 7.The petitioner's case is that she had cleared all the dues to the Government, as per the schedule, starting from the year 1988 and ending up in the year 1993. Therefore, the respondents should have come forward to issue the 'No Objection Certificate' in her favour, but in spite of repeated requests made on her part, the respondents have failed to comply with issuing the No Objection Certificate in her favour. The petitioner would also allege that she had no intimation or prior notice of either cancellation of the allotment made in her favour, or had she been given any intimation with regard to the auction of the property, and therefore, would seek to quash the cancellation of the allotment, further directing the respondents to confirm the petitioner's right over the property. 8. A glance made into the order impugned dated 25.1.2001 would show that it is a reject order passed by the second respondent to the letter dated 22.12.2000 made on the part of the petitioner. It is not only the letter, but also a legal notice had been issued by the petitioner as on 7.2.2000, claiming NOC. But the impugned order dated 25.1.2001 would reveal that the site concerned was allotted in favour of the petitioner on 23.7.1986; that in spite of having intimated to effect the payment of the monthly instalments, first on 3.8.1998 and subsequently on 14.9.98 and since the petitioner did not come forward to pay the default amount, the allotment had been cancelled, as per order dated 28.9.1998. 9.The impugned order of the third respondent regarding the arrears of instalments committed on the petitioner is vague and indefinite. Further the second respondent is not in a position to point out the particular monthly instalment which the petitioner has defaulted, but simply said that the petitioner had some arrears, and without any prior legal notice, the allotment had not only been cancelled, but also the site had been brought to auction and auctioned in favour of one Varadarajan. 10. It could be seen from the very impugned order that the second intimation sent to the petitioner was dated 14.9.1998 and the cancellation of allotment had been made on 28.9.1998 i.e. 14 days of the date of intimation, the cancellation of allotment has been done on the part of the second respondent, But, on the part of the petitioner, she would come forward to allege that she did not get any communication regarding the cancellation, and under such circumstances, the notice said to have been issued to the petitioner seems to be an eye wash for the purpose of accounting and not an opportunity for the petitioner to get altered and initiate such legal measures. Therefore undoubtedly, the cancellation order dated 28.9.1998 has been passed in an arbitrary and highhanded manner by the second respondent, and so far as the second respondent is concerned, he is not able to definitely come out as to what is the default committed in the payment of the monthly instalments by the petitioner.The petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.10,353/-, but however, the second respondent stating that still there was a due of Rs.4,957/- would show a sum of Rs.5,865/ is due from the petitioner. 11.It further comes to be known that taking out other proceedings behind the back of the petitioner, the property had been brought to re-auction on 22.9.2000 and had been sold in favour of one Varadarajan for a sum of Rs.1,90,000/-, he being the successful bidder in the said auction, since there had been no regular cancellation of the allotment in favour of the petitioner as it had been arrived at in the foregoing paragraphs and the said cancellation order dated 28.9.1998 having become liable to be set aside, it is needless to mention that the consequent auction held on 22.9.2000 would automatically become liable to be set aside. 12. 12. In short, all the actions initiated by the second respondent in the manner aforementioned either regarding the cancellation order dated 28.9.1998 or regarding bringing the property for auction which is said to have been held on 22.9.2000, have all been tainted with illegallity, they can never be approved as legally done and both become liable only to be quashed, further issuing proper direction to the respondent in the circumstance of the case. In result, (i) The above writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. (ii) The cancellation order alleged to have been made on 28.9.1998 as per the order impugned herein dated 25.1.2001 and the subsequent auction held on 22.9.2000 are quashed including the impugned order made by the third respondent as per the proceedings in No.C.2/931/86 dated 25.1.2001. (iii)The respondents are hereby directed to ascertain the true accounts and cause production of the statement of accounts to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order so as to give an opportunity for the petitioner to arrive at her own conclusions regarding her stand pertaining to the statement of accounts and thereafter giving such opportunity for the petitioner to be heard , the second respondent is hereby directed to pass such orders pertaining to the arrears, if any ,and issue such notice of demand to the petitioner in the manner known to law and decide the same. (iv) However, there shall be no order as to costs. (v) Consequently, WP.Mp.No.16008 of 2002 is closed.