Judgment :- 1. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the Orientation Sketch issued in favour of the 3rd respondent, qua his Flat No. 38 / 2 & 4, 12th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai. 2. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board sponsored Housing Improvement and Building Schemes under the Tamilnadu Housing Board Act, by acquiring vacant sites and putting up buildings thereon, consisting of several flats. One such scheme was promoted by the Tamilnadu Housing Board in the year 1968. The acquired land was divided into parts and phases. The 11th Avenue, Ashok Nagar scheme was Part-1 and Phase-1, comprising of various plots, where a number of flats were constructed by the Tamilnadu Housing Board. The flats were constructed in such manner that the ground floor had two tenements and 1st floor would comprise of two tenements. Each was sold independently to allottee. 3. The land around the building and the terrace of the building shall be used commonly by the owners of the respective apartment of the said building. The flat bearing Door No.F4 in Block No.39 in Town Survey No.14, Block No.71 of Kodambakkam Village, 11th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, shown as D.No.39/4, New Door No.59/4, was originally allotted to Mr. S.P.Swaminathan, S/o. Rama Subbiah. The flat was sold to him on 18.04.1991. The flat bearing Door No.F2 was allotted to one Mr. D.Srinivasan, S/o. T.N.Dhanakodi, which was sold vide registered sale deed dated 09.01.1991. 4. The flat bearing Door No.F1 in Block No.39 was allotted by the Tamilnadu Housing Board to one Mr. Palaniappan and was sold to him vide sale deed dated 04.08.1986. Whereas the flat bearing Door No.F3 in the block was allotted to Mrs. Kanakadurga vide sale deed dated 11.01.1990. The flat was subsequently sold by Mrs. Kanakadurga to one Mr. Sahul Hameed. The aforesaid owners of the 4 flats forming part of Block No.39, are the absolute owners of the respective apartments and were in common enjoyment of the land around the building and terrace of the building in Block No.39. 5. The second petitioner purchased the Flat No.F4 in 1st floor together with the proportionate undivided share of land from the said S.P.Swaminathan vide sale deed dated 18.11.2004. Whereas petitioner No.1 purchased Flat No.F2 in the ground floor together with the proportionate undivided share from Sahul Hameed on 03.11.2005. 5. The second petitioner purchased the Flat No.F4 in 1st floor together with the proportionate undivided share of land from the said S.P.Swaminathan vide sale deed dated 18.11.2004. Whereas petitioner No.1 purchased Flat No.F2 in the ground floor together with the proportionate undivided share from Sahul Hameed on 03.11.2005. Similarly the second petitioner purchased F3 in 1st floor from Sahul Hameed vide sale deed dated 12.12.2005. The petitioners thus have become owners of four flats. 6. The petitioners applied to the Corporation of Chennai for name transfer, which was accepted and the ownership of 4 flats have been entered in the name of petitioners. The petitioners were desirous of demolishing the existing building and putting up a new construction thereon. Accordingly, the petitioners approached respondents for obtaining building plan approval and they were in need of the Orientation Sketch, showing the Block No.39 at Ashok Nagar, Chennai. 7. The second respondent, on the request of petitioners, measured the land with reference to the original parent records and prepared Orientation Sketch on 11.01.2010, showing common boundaries between Block No.39, which belongs to the petitioners and Block No.38, which belongs to the third respondent. The petitioner accordingly applied for building plan sanction. When the application of the petitioners was being processed, and the petitioners had also paid requisite fees, for demolition and reconstruction of the building, permission was granted on 05.07.2011. 8. The case of petitioners is that the petitioners received a letter dated 06.07.2011 on 13.07.2011 from the 2nd respondent, stating therein that there was discrepancy in the Orientation Sketch, issued to the petitioners, which was required to be rectified at their end. The petitioner was accordingly to return the Orientation Sketch to the Office of the second respondent, so that revised Orientation Sketch can be furnished to the petitioners. 9. It is also case of petitioners that reply was sent to the letter addressed by respondent No.2, asking them to point out the exact discrepancy in the Orientation Sketch, which was issued to the petitioners. The stand of petitioners is that there was no discrepancy in the Orientation Sketch. The representation was not accepted, as the stand taken earlier was reiterated by respondent No.2. 10. The submission of petitioners is that thereafter nothing was heard. It is also submission of petitioners that the Orientation Sketch of respondent No.3 is not correct, as respondent No.3 has encroached upon the additional lands. The representation was not accepted, as the stand taken earlier was reiterated by respondent No.2. 10. The submission of petitioners is that thereafter nothing was heard. It is also submission of petitioners that the Orientation Sketch of respondent No.3 is not correct, as respondent No.3 has encroached upon the additional lands. It is also submission that there was no prior survey or measurement before grant of the Orientation Sketch to respondent No.3. The Orientation Sketch of respondent No.3 was 7 feet width property upto a breadth of 62 feet and 3 inches have been shown to be falling in the share of respondent No.3, though it falls in Block No.39. 11. The case of petitioners is that they are only seeking quashing of the Orientation Sketch of respondent No.3. 12. The writ petition is opposed by respondents by filing a separate counter The respondent No.3 in the counter is denying the allegations of petitioners and has taken a specific stand that the Orientation Sketch of respondent No.3 is in order and no area of petitioners has been encroached by respondent No.3. Whereas the stand of respondent nos. 1 & 2 is that the writ petition is premature, as the petitioners have been repeatedly requested to hand over the Orientation Sketch for rectification, but the petitioners have chosen not to answer to their requests and no Orientation Sketch has been returned for verification and rectification of error, if any. 13. The contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that the Orientation plan issued to the respondent No.3 includes certain area covered under the Orientation plan issued to the petitioner. 14. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 is that the Orientation plan of the petitioners is not correct, therefore, the petitioner was directed to send Orientation plan for issuing them correct Orientation plan as per the records of the Housing Board by taking note of the area sold to the petitioner or their predecessors. 15. This stand of the respondent No.1 cannot be accepted. It was not open to the respondent No.1 to first issue a Orientation plan to respondent No.3 by including land which stood allotted to the petitioners, and thereafter call the petitioners to submit Orientation plan for correction, to justify the orientation plan issued to the respondent No.3. 16. 15. This stand of the respondent No.1 cannot be accepted. It was not open to the respondent No.1 to first issue a Orientation plan to respondent No.3 by including land which stood allotted to the petitioners, and thereafter call the petitioners to submit Orientation plan for correction, to justify the orientation plan issued to the respondent No.3. 16. The respondent No.1 being a statutory body, is bound to follow the procedure of law. If any changes are required to be made in the Orientation plan of the petitioners, it was necessary for the respondent to issue show cause notice pointing out the error in the Orientation plan, to enable the petitioners to contest the proposed action. 17. It was not open to the respondent No.1 to give Orientation plan to the respondent No.3 covering areas which were covered under the Orientation plan of the petitioners and call the petitioners to submit their Orientation plan for correction. 18. The procedure adopted by the respondent No.1 therefore, is violation of law, as the petitioners are directed to part with their property without following due process of law. 19. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Orientation plan issued to the respondent No.3 is ordered to be quashed. The petitioners and the respondent No.3 are directed to submit their Orientation plans to the respondent No.1. 20. The respondent No.1 shall call both the parties for hearing, and thereafter, issue fresh Orientation plans to the petitioners as well as the respondent No.3 as per the records maintained in the office, to match with the sale deeds/assignment deed issued to the respective parties. 21. The petitioners and the respondent No.3 through their counsel are directed to appear before the respondent No.2 on 24.05.2012 at 10.00 A.M. 22. Needless to say that it shall be open to the aggrieved party to challenge the final order, in accordance with law, if so advised. 23. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No cost.