JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed to call for the records relating to the impugned order/Letter No. 16/16762/06 dated 24.01.08 issued by the first respondent and quash the same consequently direct the respondents to take appropriate steps to make available the sale deed of the plot No. 82 measuring 49.14 sq. mtrs. situated at Ponni Street , Bharathi Nagar, Taramani, Chennai - 113 in consonance with the agreement entered already on 04.09.1996 by the petitioner with the second respondent without any deviation in measurements. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the Chairman of Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board dated 24.1.2008. In that proceedings, the Chairman, in response to the representation of the petitioner has stated that the measurement of the lands in Plot No.76, 82 and 82 are based on the approval given by the Member Secretary, CMDA in proceedings L2/34015/01, dated 7.6.2002. In that approval plan, Plot No.76, is standing in the name of Boopal/Ellapppan, measuring to an extent 36 sq. Meter. In respect of Plot No.81 allotted to Venkatesan/Ellappan, the extent is 36 sq.meter and in respect of plot No.83 allotted to Patchappan/Ellappan, the extent of land is 81 sq.meter. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the allotment in favour of Patchaippan, the brother of the petitioner is in excess and the petitioner has been deprived as the extent of land is not equal. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Slum Clearance Board states that all the three brothers stepped into the shoes of the Ellappan, the original encroacher and they were given individual allotment based on the extent of the land occupied by them and their representation. The allotment given to the individuals is based on the approval given by the CMDA. In the impugned order, it has been stated that the plan cannot be modified contrary to the plan approved by the CMDA and it will be given only in terms of the plan approved by the CMDA. 5. The grievance of the petitioner in this case is primarily against the allotment in favour of one of his brothers stating that he has been given larger extent of land than that of the petitioner. Petitioner counsel referred to certain proceedings. This fact is disputed by the respondents. 5. The grievance of the petitioner in this case is primarily against the allotment in favour of one of his brothers stating that he has been given larger extent of land than that of the petitioner. Petitioner counsel referred to certain proceedings. This fact is disputed by the respondents. It is also to be noted that the petitioner is an allottee of the Government land, which was originally encroached and in order to regularise the encroachment, the Government thought it fit to grant patta on certain terms. The matter primarily involves adjudication of disputed question of facts with regard to the extent of land held by each of the brothers and the nature of allotment said to be done based on consent letter given by the petitioner, which is denied by the petitioner. 6. This Court is of the opinion that no relief can be granted by this Court in this case where disputed question of facts are raised. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to approach competent forum if he so desires. No costs.