Judgment T.S. Sivagnanam, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.9092 of 2009 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-Association. 2. The appellant, an Association of Sri Lankan Repatriates at Chennai, started for the welfare of the Sri Lankan repatriates, filed the writ petition seeking to set aside the order passed by the third respondent-District Collector, Kancheepuram dated 4.3.2009 and for a consequential direction to regularise their possession in respect of certain house sites by grant of patta in the names of the respective members. By the order dated 4.3.2009, the request of the appellant-Association for grant of patta to its members in Survey No.131/10A1 of Palavakkam Village in Kancheepuram District was rejected on the ground that the said land is a patta land belonging to Burmese Repatriates and that alternative accommodation was intended to be provided to them at Kannagi Nagar, Okkiam, Thoraipakkam by allotting a plot to each of them. 3. The case of the appellant-Association was that the Government of Tamil Nadu provided house sites for 54 Sri Lankan expatriate families on the basis of the recommendations of the second respondent through the Tahsildar, Saidapet during 1983-1984, on which they had put up thatched sheds. The second respondent had also arranged for funds through Indian Overseas Bank for the purchase of cycle rickshaws for the livelihood of these families and they were also given identification certificates. The respective allottees were paying house tax to the panchayat from the year 1984, ration cards were issued in their names and electricity connections were also provided to their houses. Many of the members of the appellant-Association were engaged as coolies and some were employed in some private companies in and around Palavakkam, and considering their poverty, the Indian Overseas Bank also waived the loans granted to them. The female members of the Association joined in Women Self Help Groups and their children are studying in the nearby schools. The panchayat had also made arrangements to provide cement streets, streets lights and public water taps to their house sites. The female members of the Association joined in Women Self Help Groups and their children are studying in the nearby schools. The panchayat had also made arrangements to provide cement streets, streets lights and public water taps to their house sites. The alternate accommodation offered to the members of the appellant-Aassociation by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board at Okkiam-Thoraipakkam measures hardly about 100 square feet and is extremely insufficient for its respective members, as they were already in possession of a 600 square feet building in the present site and it was already under the occupation of illegal trespassers. 4. It was the further case of the appellant-Association that the adjacent lands to an extent of about 20 acres were allotted to the sixth respondent-Society, which formed layouts and sold it to its members. The sixth respondent-Society has nothing to do with the house sites allotted to the appellant-Association. Even though the said extent of land was allotted to the sixth respondent-Society purportedly for the benefit of Burmese repatriates, most of them have sold their house sites to local people for valuable consideration and no Burmese repatriates are residing there. In fact, the Government had originally acquired 24.57 acres of land under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and had assigned the same to the Burmese repatriates in the year 1968, dividing it into 322 plots and had constructed 87 small houses for them. But, instead of occupying the same, they have alienated their plots. When the respondents attempted to dismantle the houses put up by the members of the appellant-Association, they sent a representation dated 24.3.2008 and also filed a writ petition before this court in W.P. No.25612 of 2008, wherein this court had directed the respondents to consider their representation. It is on this direction, the impugned order, dated 4.3.2009 came to be passed. 5. Before the learned single Judge, the sixth respondent-Society contended that the Society was formed on 29.2.1968. Under the orders of the second respondent, in the year 1991, about twenty Sri Lankan refugees were temporarily permitted to stay in the land belonging to the Society. Thereafter, the Society filed W.P. No.38168 of 2002 seeking a direction to the revenue authorities to remove the encroachers. That writ petition was dismissed by this court on 9.10.2002 observing that the Society should move the competent civil court. Thereafter, the Society filed W.P. No.38168 of 2002 seeking a direction to the revenue authorities to remove the encroachers. That writ petition was dismissed by this court on 9.10.2002 observing that the Society should move the competent civil court. As against the dismissal of the writ petition, the Society filed W.A. No.477 of 2003, which was allowed and the respondents were directed to evict the encroachers. Pursuant to the directions, the District Collector, Kancheepuram gave notice to the appellant-Association to vacate the houses. But till such time they were allotted alternate accommodation by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, they were allowed to stay in the same land. It was thereafter, they were informed that they were allotted lands in Vengambakkam Village and that they should move to the said place. It is at this stage, another writ petition was filed before this court being W.P. No.36258 of 2004 challenging the eviction notice dated 5.10.2004, which was dismissed by this Court, but the encroachers were given three months' time for vacating the place. 6. The respondents filed their counter affidavit in the writ petition stating that the issue relating to the claim of Sri Lankan repatriates to get patta has already been concluded as there was a specific direction by the Court to evict them from the present place. The challenge of the appellant-Association had also been repelled by the Division Bench of this Court and the SLPs filed thereaginast had also been dismissed. Further, already the District Collector had given directions to the Tahsildar to evict the encroachers. It was stated in the counter affidavit that the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board has constructed nearly 3,500 houses for accommodating families evicted from Chennai city and that houses for each and every family of the appellant-Association was ready and available at Kannagi Nagar in Thoraipakkam village. The respondents contended that the claim of the appellant-Association that their members have been provided with basic amenities and that they been issued ration cards and identity cards cannot give them ownership of the land which admittedly belonged to the sixth respondent-Society which has been duly recorded in the village records and since it is a patta land, no free house sites can be given. It was the case of the respondents that a few members of the appellant-Association were permitted to occupy the land in Survey No.131/10A1 only as a temporary measure. 7. It was the case of the respondents that a few members of the appellant-Association were permitted to occupy the land in Survey No.131/10A1 only as a temporary measure. 7. The learned single Judge after hearing the case of the respective sides, observed that the appellant-Association has been moving this court in one garb or the other and have successively failed to get any relief; the matter had also been taken upto the Supreme Court and reached a finality. Therefore, the appellant-Association in a different name cannot be permitted to raise a settled issue all over again. The learned single Judge held that the endeavour of the appellant-Association in moving the Court for the very same relief in the fourth round cannot be countenanced and termed it a clear abuse of the process of the court. The learned single Judge also referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 S.C.C. 639 and K.D. Sharma vs. SAIL, (2008) 12 S.C.C. 481 to the effect that a person approaching a Court must come with clean hands and make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts before it; and that a false statement made in the Court or in the pleadings intentionally to mislead the Court and obtain a favourable order amounts to criminal contempt as it tends to impede the administration of justice; and that a Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further in any such matter if it comes to the conclusion that there has been abuse of the process of the Court. The learned single Judge ultimately came to the conclusion that the appellant-Association did not make out a case for entertaining the writ petition and accordingly dismissed the same. 8. Ms.R.Vaigai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-association assailed the impugned judgment passed by the learned single Judge as against the law and facts. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact the appellant-association, in the writ petition before the learned single Judge, claimed a consequential relief by regularizing the possession of the respective members of the appellant-association in respect of the house-sites and for issuance of patta in their respective names. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact the appellant-association, in the writ petition before the learned single Judge, claimed a consequential relief by regularizing the possession of the respective members of the appellant-association in respect of the house-sites and for issuance of patta in their respective names. Learned counsel submitted that earlier two writ petitions being W.P.Nos.29235 and 29330 of 2007 were filed challenging the eviction order issued by the District Collector, which were dismissed, and the said dismissal order was affirmed upto Supreme Court. But, the properties involved in those writ petitions are not the subject matter of the instant writ petition. Moreover, the associations which filed both the above mentioned writ petitions are different from the appellant-association. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent - 6 is a defunct society since 1970 and the society was dissolved. After the dissolution of the said society the properties of the society were vested with the State Government. It was only after the State Government become incharge of the properties, the same were alloted to the appellant-association. 9. We find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-association. Learned single Judge took notice of the writ petitions filed earlier by similar associations and the judgment delivered by this Court dismissing the said writ petitions was affirmed upto Supreme Court. Learned single Judge in paragraphs 9 to 11 of his judgment has observed that :- "9. In the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents, it was stated that the issue relating to the claim of Srilanka repatriates to get patta has already been concluded. There was specific direction to evict them from the present place. The petitioner's subsequent challenge in the name of the two new associations were also repelled by the another division bench and the SLPs filed by them were also dismissed. Further, already the District Collector had given directions to the Tahsildar to evict them. It is also stated that the house for every family of the petitioner association is ready and available at Kannagi Nagar in Thoraipakkam village. Their claim that they have been provided with basic amenities and have got ration cards and identity cards cannot give them ownership of land which belonged to the sixth respondent which has been duly recorded in the village account. As it is the patta land, no free house sites can be given. Their claim that they have been provided with basic amenities and have got ration cards and identity cards cannot give them ownership of land which belonged to the sixth respondent which has been duly recorded in the village account. As it is the patta land, no free house sites can be given. Some of the members of the petitioner association were allotted to occupy S.No.131/10A1 in Palvakkam village only as a temporary measure. The Slum Clearance Board had constructed nearly 3500 houses for accommodating the families evicted from the Chennai city. 10. In the light of the stand of the parties, it has to be seen whether the petitioner has made out any case for entertaining the writ petition. 11. It must be noted that in one garb or other, the petitioners have been moving this court and have successively failed to get any relief. The matter had also gone upto Supreme Court and had reached its finality. Therefore, by registering another association, the petitioner cannot raise an issue all over again. The petitioner's attempt to file the present writ petition for the very same relief in the fourth round cannot be countenanced by this court and it is a clear abuse of process of the court." 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the reliefs sought for by the appellant-association cannot be granted and the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant by placing reliance on an order of reference passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.309 of 2009 and W.P.No.13941 of 2009, dated 16.11.2010, tried to impress upon us that the issue involved in this appeal is identical and connected with the subject matter in W.A.No.309 of 2009 and W.P.No.13941 of 2009 and the matter has to be referred to a Full Bench and this appeal has to be tagged along with those cases to be heard by the Full Bench. 12. After having gone through the order of reference to the Full Bench we find no force in the submission of the learned counsel. 12. After having gone through the order of reference to the Full Bench we find no force in the submission of the learned counsel. The issue which has been referred for consideration to the Full Bench is (i) whether the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 is applicable to patta lands and (ii) if not, whether the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act can be made applicable even to patta land. In the said case, the Division Bench in para 15 of the order took note of the letter of the District Collector, dated 14.02.1993, who had specifically observed that the said site being patta land, the department could do nothing to remove the trespasses. After noticing the further facts placed before the Court, the Division Bench observed that the earlier Division Benches did not go into the question of applicability of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act in respect of private-patta land and those decisions were rendered as perincuriam. However in the instant appeal, the case of the appellant societyis that the purpose of providing shelter to Burma-India Repatriates lands were allotted and was abandoned by them by their alienation for valuable consideration and the members of the Appellant society are entitled to get regular patta on account of their continuous possession. In fact the prayer in the writ petition was for grant of patta. The District Collector in his counter affidavit has stated that members of the appellant are encroaches of patta land in S.F.No.131/10A1 which belongs to 6th respondent. Thus, we can safely conclude that the issue involved in the case referred to the Full Bench has no bearing on this appeal and the prayer to tag this appeal along with those cases deserves to be rejected. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P. Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 are closed.