Judgment :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 herein to take possession of the properties comprised in Chennai, Adyar, Urur T.S. No.11, Block No.21 (Old Survey No.63) measuring Acre 2.27 and in T.S.No.9/1, Block No.21 (Old Survey No.63) measuring Acre 1.40, by conducting enquiry on the complaint preferred by the petitioner dated 02.07.2010 in accordance with law. 2. The brief facts, that are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition, are as follows:- (i) The petitioner is a physically disabled person and he is a practising Advocate. He was in active politics and contested three times for the State Legislative Assembly Election. He filed this writ petition for a common cause as Public Interest Litigation and the issue involved in this writ petition is with regard to the prime urban land measuring 3.67 acres on the Lattice Bridge Road, Adayar, which belong to Late Meera Bai Dawson, who died intestate on 16.12.2001 and as she is not having legal heirs, the property escheats to the Government of Tamil Nadu and that the said property is sought to be grabbed in private interest. (ii) The 6th respondent herein, who is the Managing Director of M/s.Tirven Garments Limited, was a debtor of Global Trust Bank now called as Oriental Bank of Commerce and he has obtained huge amount of loan from the said Bank by mortgaging the property at Villivakkam. Despite several demands made by the said Bank, the 6th respondent had failed to settle the amount due to the Bank. Hence, the Bank, for recovering the dues, filed an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-1, Chennai, in O.A.No.271 of 2001, against the 6th respondent and during the pendency of the same, the Bank had entered into compromise with the 6th respondent by filing a compromise memo. (iii) The 11th respondent, who is a third party purchaser of the properties at Villivakkam, which was mortgaged by the 6th respondent with the Global Trust Bank, has filed M.A.No.176 of 2002 in O.A.No.271 of 2001, wherein it is stated that for the purchase of the property at Villivakkam, he had paid a sum of Rs.92,52,500/-, which forms part of 25% of the sale price, viz., 3,70,10,00,000/-and the remaining amount would be paid after the vacant possession is handed over to him. It is also stated that due to large number of encroachments in the said land and most of them claiming adverse possession, vacant possession could not be handed over to the 11th respondent. (iv) As the 11th respondent paid a huge amount, they have entered into an agreement with the 6th respondent for exchange the property at Urur Village, (the property in dispute) in lieu of the property at Villivakkam subject to the stipulation that the 11th respondent would ready to deposit Rs.10,00,000/-for the purchase of the property at Villivakkam and the remaining amount would be paid after getting vacant possession; that they would purchase the rear portion of the Urur property for a sum of Rs.1.00 Crore with a further condition that they would purchase the front portion of the said property for a sum of Rs.2,77,00,000/-within 15 days from the date of completion of the sale of the rear portion of the property; that they are ready to deposit Rs.10,00,000/-as Earnest Money Deposit and that out of the total sum of Rs.92,52,500/- already paid by them, Rs.10.00 Lakhs may be retained as Earnest Money Deposit for the front portion of the Urur property and for the Villivakkam property and they would pay Rs.27,47,500/-i.e., the remaining amount of Rs.1.00 Crore towards the sale price within 15 days of the order passed by the Presiding Officer. (v) The Presiding Officer had agreed to the exchange of the property with a condition that if the Bank had any objection to the proposal, they should file an objection petition before the Recovery Officer vide order dated 25.06.2002. Accordingly, the Bank filed its objections before the Recovery Officer and as the agreement was reached before the Presiding Officer, the matter was referred to him. (vi) The Presiding Officer, after considering the objections filed by the Bank, disposed of the application by imposing certain conditions and pursuant to the same, the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, registered the sale certificates in favour of the 11th respondent, who after obtaining the sale certificates, proceeded to recover the possession of the said properties from the tenants and occupants, who in turn, being aggrieved by the proceedings, had filed W.P.Nos.39649 of 2002 and 27303 of 2003 and 17736 and 20357 of 2004 before the High Court, Madras. This Court, by order dated 21.03.2005, set aside the sale certificates on the ground that there was no sale of the said properties on 29.08.2001 or any other date in a manner known to law. (v) As stated earlier, the owner of the property in dispute, viz., Meera Bai Dawson, executed a Will on 30.11.1993, as per which, she appointed her husband and the partners of the Firm, Blackman Van Emden, as executors of her Will. After the death of Meera Bai Dawson, as her husband had predeceased her, respondents 7 and 8, who alleged to be the present partners of the said firm, have filed an application before the Hon'ble High Court of Justice, the District Probate Registry at Ipswich, to probate the Will and after getting orders for probating the said Will, they have filed an application before this Court for Ancillary Probate in O.P.No. 192 of 2003 and as per order dated 06.12.2004, Letters of Administration was issued in favour of them. Thereafter, they filed a suit in C.S.No.120 of 2005 before this Court against the 6th and 11th respondents, Global Trust Bank and the Registrar of Properties for the relief of declaration, to declare certain documents as illegal and consequential injunction through their Power Agent, P.Kanagaraj. (vi) Simultaneously, for the same cause of action, respondents 7 and 8 have filed a private complaint before the Eleventh Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, in Crl.M.P.No.435 of 2005 through their Power Agent P.Kanagaraj and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.629 of 2005 for the offences under Sections 465 and 467 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. But the said case was closed as 'civil in nature'. (vii) The 11th respondent filed an application in O.A.No.481 of 2005 in the aforesaid O.P.No.192 of 2003 for revoking/annulling the Letter of Administration granted in favour of the respondents 7 and 8 and the same was dismissed on the ground that the 11th respondent has no locus standi or caveatable interest over the said properties as the Sale Certificates were obtained fraudulently. Thereafter, the respondents 7 and 8 have filed a memo in C.S.No.120 of 2005 seeking withdrawal of the suit and the suit was dismissed only on 02.03.2007. Thereafter, the respondents 7 and 8 have filed a memo in C.S.No.120 of 2005 seeking withdrawal of the suit and the suit was dismissed only on 02.03.2007. Meanwhile, the respondents 7 and 8 have executed a registered sale deed, dated 22.02.2007, through their Power Agent, in favour of the 12th respondent in respect of the property in dispute for an undervalue sale consideration of Rs.20.00 Crores. One day prior to the aforesaid sale, viz., 21.02.2007, respondents 11, 12 and 13 have entered into a tripartite agreement in respect of the aforesaid property. (viii) Against the order, dated 21.03.2005, made in W.P.Nos.39649 of 2002, 27303 of 2003, 20357 of 2004 and 17736 of 2004, filed by the occupants of the property in dispute, thereby setting aside the sale certificate dated 09.08.2002, the 11th respondent has filed W.A.Nos.972 to 974 and 1012 of 2005 and during the pendency of the same, he has filed a compromise memo entered into between him and the rival parties, based on which, the writ appeal was disposed of in terms of the said compromise memo. In the mean time, the 12th respondent entered into an understanding in respect of the above said properties for a Mega Housing-cum-Commercial Project with the 14th respondent, who is a promoter and they jointly mortgaged the said properties with Indian Bank by depositing the title deeds and obtained a sum of Rs.100 Crores as project loan. (ix) The grievance of the petitioner is that all the above said sale deeds, transactions, Memorandum of Understanding etc. between the respondents 6 to 14 and other associates are illegal for the simple reason that Meera Bai Dawson is the real owner of the said properties and she died intestate without executing any document or Will in respect of the properties in India. As the said Meera Bai Dawson has no issues or legal heirs, under Article 296 of the Constitution of India, the said properties should vest with the State Government of Tamil Nadu and in such circumstances, the first respondent/Government is liable to take possession of the said properties. (x) In view of the above, the petitioner has preferred a complaint dated 02.07.2010 before the respondents 1 and 2 and other State and Central Government Officials for various reliefs in this regard. (x) In view of the above, the petitioner has preferred a complaint dated 02.07.2010 before the respondents 1 and 2 and other State and Central Government Officials for various reliefs in this regard. In fact, the petitioner has also filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.19095 of 2010 before the High Court seeking a direction to the Director General of Police and the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, to register the case on the strength of the above said complaint dated 02.07.2010, in which, the 6th respondent got himself impleaded as one of the respondents. This Court, by order dated 08.12.2010, directed the Deputy Commissioner, City Crime Branch, Chennai, to conduct enquiry on the petitioner's complaint and pursuant to the same, the Deputy Commissioner has registered a case against respondents 6 to 14 herein in Crime No.450 of 2011 for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the same is pending. (xi) Not satisfied with the way of investigation, the petitioner has filed Crl.O.P.No.4739 of 2011 before the High Court for transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation and the same is also pending consideration. The petitioner came to know from the letter dated 12.05.2012 of the 11th respondent addressed to the 12th and 14th respondents that they and their associates are making hectic efforts to get further loan in respect of the said property and to raise Mega constructions in the said properties for selling the same in the open market as if they have clear and unambiguous title. (xii) The grievance of the petitioner is that if they raise any construction, and sell the developed buildings and blocks to the public without any title, then the public will also suffer to a greater extent and may suffer irreparable loss. Moreover, the aforesaid properties are the properties of the State of Tamil Nadu and hence, the petitioner has sent a representation, dated 04.06.2012, to the respondents 1 and 2 to take over possession of the said properties and in the meantime, the petitioner requested the fourth respondent to suspend the approval/sanction of any building or project plan in respect of the said properties, but in vain. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition seeking the aforesaid direction. 3. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 4. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition seeking the aforesaid direction. 3. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 4. We have gone through the entire materials placed on record and given our anxious consideration in the matter. 5. On perusal of the entire records, we see no reason to entertain the writ petition for the reason that there are number of litigations pending at the instance of the petitioner both Civil and Criminal and also under the Arbitration Act. On going through the entire materials, we find that the petitioner himself is a developer and having interest over the property in dispute, he invented a novel method by way of filing the present writ petition to knock out others from this property and also for development purpose. 6. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the plea raised by the petitioner is not in the natural course, but it is a petition filed by him with an ulterior motive. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.