Judgment :- Allotment of Plot No.155 is the subject matter of several litigations between the parties. Petitioner seeks Certiorarified Writ of Mandamus to quash the Proceedings of the 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.No.E8/32774/97 dated 23. 2004 and to direct the 1st Respondent to allot Plot No.155 to the Petitioner. .2. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition are as follows:- .Plot No.155 in Malligaipoo Nagar, Chennai was allotted to the Petitioners father Kannan. 2nd Respondent was in occupation of a portion of the Plot and there was dispute between the allottee and the 2nd Respondent. 2nd Respondent filed suit O.S.No.1080/1986 against the Petitioners father praying for declaration of ownership of the property in his possession. The said suit was dismissed on 30.11.1990 and the 1st Respondent allotted the entire Plot 155 to the Petitioners father Kannan. .3. 2nd Respondent filed W.P.No.19366/1992 challenging the allotment made in Na.Ka.No.28089/91/E4 dated 111. 1992 in favour Kannan against the Board and the said Kannan. The said Writ Petition was dismissed on 11. 2000 and the 2nd Respondent filed Appeal in W.A.No.2237/2000 and the same was allowed on 26.06.2001. While allowing the Writ Appeal, Court has directed the Board to give proper notice to both sides and conduct enquiry and then take a decision. 4. 1st Respondent sent the impugned notice dated 23. 2004 to the Petitioner whereby Board decided to sub-divide the Plot and allot the respective portion occupied by the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent. According to the Board, 2nd Respondent was living in the disputed portion from the year 1965 onwards and the Board decided to sub-divide the Plot for the portion occupied by them. 5. The Petitioner challenges the impugned notice contending that Board ought to have considered the Judgment rendered by the Civil Court in O.S.No.1080/1986 dismissing the suit filed by the 2nd Respondent which was confirmed in A.S.No.230/1990. The impugned order is challenged on the ground that the 1st Respondent has not assigned any reason for coming to the conclusion of sub dividing the Plot and allotting respective portions and therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. 6. 1st Respondent filed counter stating that as per the G.O.Ms.No.1100 dated 29.08.1980 and G.O.No.672 dated 7. 1985 of H. & U.D. Department, parties are entitled to get allotment for the portion in their occupation. 6. 1st Respondent filed counter stating that as per the G.O.Ms.No.1100 dated 29.08.1980 and G.O.No.672 dated 7. 1985 of H. & U.D. Department, parties are entitled to get allotment for the portion in their occupation. During enquiry, 2nd Respondent was found to be living in the disputed portion from the year 1965 onwards and therefore impugned notice was sent to sub-divide Plot No.155 as per the respective portion occupied by the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent. 7. 2nd Respondent filed counter stating that as per the said G.O.No.672 dated 7. 1985 of H. & U.D. Department, he is entitled to allotment and is entitled to get the benefit for grant of Patta. According to the 2nd Respondent, Civil Court as well as High Court upheld his possession of property in question and therefore, Petitioner is not eligible for allotment for a portion of property in occupation of the 2nd Respondent. .8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. A. Muthuraman, contended that 2nd Respondent was only a tenant and in G.O.Ms.No.1100 dated 29.08.1980 only guide line was issued and therefore is not applicable to the facts of the case. The learned counsel would further submit that when Civil Court has already determined the issues between the parties the 1st Respondent/Board was not right in dividing the property by applying G.O.Ms.No.1100. It was further argued that Petitioners father was the only allottee and he was in occupation of the entire post and the said G.O. cannot be applied which aspect was not kept in view by the 1st Respondent. 9. The Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent, Mr. Y. Bhuvanesh Kumar, contended that based on the direction given in W.A.No.2237/ 2000 the Board has conducted enquiry and thereafter issued the impugned notice dated 26.03.2004 and the same cannot be challenged. The learned counsel for the 1st Respondent has further submitted that as per G.O.No.672 dated 10.07.1985, the H. & U.D. Dept. Person who were occupying the Plot prior to the cut off date i.e: 30.06.1984, are entitled to be regularized and to get an allotment for the portion occupied by them and therefore the impugned notice ordering to sub dividing the Plot No.155 cannot be challenged. 10. Taking me through the judgment in O.S.No.1080/1986 and A.S. No.230/1991 the learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent, Mr. 10. Taking me through the judgment in O.S.No.1080/1986 and A.S. No.230/1991 the learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent, Mr. S.A. Hafiz, submitted that the suit filed by the 2nd Respondent came to be dismissed on the ground that he has not established the plea of adverse possession the learned counsel further submitted that the Civil Courts upheld the possession of the 2nd Respondent and taking note of the occupation of the 2nd Respondent applying G.O.Ms.No.1100 dated 29.08.1980, the Board has rightly taken the decision to sub-divide the Plot and the same cannot be challenged. 11. There is no denying that Plot No.155 in Malligaipoo Nagar, was allotted to the Petitioners father Kannan. According to the 2nd Respondent he was in occupation from 1965 a portion of Plot No.155 as a tenant. 12. Earlier 2nd Respondent has filed O.S.No.1080/86 for permanent injunction restraining the writ petitioner and the Special Tahsildar from raising objection for issuing patta to the 2nd Respondent in respect of the suit property in Plot No.155. The said suit was dismissed and the same was confirmed in the appeal in A.S.No.230/91. .13. The learned counsel for the Petitioner mainly laid emphasis upon the judgment in O.S.No.1080/86. The contention of the writ petitioner is that when the Civil Court has determined the relevant issues between the parties, the 1st Respondent/Board cannot ignore the judgment of the Civil Court and was not right in issuing the impugned order dated 26.03.2004. 14. By reading of judgment in O.S.No.1080/86 and A.S.No.230/91. The 2nd Respondent appears to have taken the plea:- .(i) From 1965 he was in a portion of the Plot as a tenant. .(ii) In 1976 he has purchased the property and he has perfected his title by adverse possession. The courts negatived the plea of adverse possession and dismissed the suit for declaration. But Civil Courts found that the 2nd Respondent is in occupation of a portion of the property. In A.S.No.230/91 the Appellate Court has held that the 2nd Respondent has not produced documents to prove the adverse possession. While recognizing the possession of the 2nd Respondent in a portion of Plot No.155, Civil Courts dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the 2nd Respondent has not proved the plea of adverse possession. 15. Subsequent to the judgment of the Civil Courts, 2nd Respondent filed W.P.No.19366/1992 challenging the allotment order in Board proceedings in Na.Ka.No.28089/91/E4 dated 111. While recognizing the possession of the 2nd Respondent in a portion of Plot No.155, Civil Courts dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the 2nd Respondent has not proved the plea of adverse possession. 15. Subsequent to the judgment of the Civil Courts, 2nd Respondent filed W.P.No.19366/1992 challenging the allotment order in Board proceedings in Na.Ka.No.28089/91/E4 dated 111. 1992, against the Board and the said Kannan. The said writ petition was dismissed on 11.01.2000. The 2nd Respondent has filed the appeal in W.A.No.2237/2000 and the same was allowed on 26.06.2001, and the order in writ petition was set aside. The Division Bench had directed the Board to give proper notice to both side and conduct the enquiry and then to make a decision. 16. Kannan died on 010. 1999. After issuing notice to the parties and upon enquiry, the Board has arrived at the conclusion that the 2nd Respondent was living in the disputed portion from 1965 and the Board decided to sub-divide the Plot and allot the respective portions occupied by them and accordingly sent the impugned notice dated 26.03.2004 to the Petitioner. 17. The impugned order was passed in the light of G.O.Ms.No.1117, dated 27.06.1979. The said G.O relates to Slum improvement of Madras Urban Development Project under World Bank scheme and grant of conditional patta to slum dwellers. As per the said G.O, person in occupation would be entitled to grant of patta relevant clause of the said G.O. reads as under: i) In cases where an encroacher has constructed a number of houses, huts and let them out to other hut dwellers, the lease-cum-sale agreement will be entered in to only with the actual occupant of the hut. No lease-cum-sale agreement will be entered in to with any person who is not residing in the concerned slum area. ii) Each slum dweller will be allotted a minimum of 20 square metres of house site. If in the process, the number of occupant, is found to be more than the number of available Plots, the selection of persons for allotment of Plots will be made casting lots. ii) Each slum dweller will be allotted a minimum of 20 square metres of house site. If in the process, the number of occupant, is found to be more than the number of available Plots, the selection of persons for allotment of Plots will be made casting lots. The surplus occupants will be allotted sites in the same slum area in vacant sites are available; otherwise they will be accommodated in nearby areas iii) Eviction of tenants by the owners of the super structure after 1st October, 1978 is treated as irregular and the evicted tenants should be put back in the same house/hut. 18. Admittedly 2nd Respondent was a tenant in a portion of Plot No.155 for quite long time. Character of his possession as a tenant was also upheld by the Civil Courts. Having regard to the actual possession of a portion of the property and applying G.O.Ms.No.1100 dated 29.08.1980, the 1st Respondent/Board was right in passing the impugned order of sub dividing Plot No.155 into two portions as per the occupation of the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. The front portion in occupation of the 2nd Respondent has been sub-divided as 155A and the rear portion sub-divided as 155B. The sub division was also approved by the Corporation. The plan after sub division was also produced for perusal of the Court. 19. Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent/Board has submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, petitioners mother Subbammal, had approached the Board got transfer of the Plot in her name on 012. 2006 and also got the sale deed executed for the entire Plot on 112. 2006. The Board is said to have issued a show cause notice dated 20.02.2008 seeking for her explanation as to why the said sale deed should not be cancelled. Since the impugned order effecting sub division as per occupation of the parties is now upheld. The Board is at liberty to cancel the sale deed and execute two sale deeds one in favour of the legal heirs of deceased Kannan and another sale deed in favour of the 2nd Respondent in respect of their respective portions in their occupation. 20. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. The 1st Respondent/Board shall cancel the sale deed dated 112. 2006 in favour of Subbammal. 20. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. The 1st Respondent/Board shall cancel the sale deed dated 112. 2006 in favour of Subbammal. The 1st Respondent is directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the legal heirs of Kannan and in favour of the 2nd Respondent as per sub division effected in the impugned order. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.