ORDER: 1. W.P.No.3614 of 2011 is filed by one M.Mari, owner of plot No.301 in N.S.K. 2nd Street, Nehru Nagar, Velacherry. In that writ petition, he had sought for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to forbear the 4th respondent from putting up any construction in the passage measuring to an extent of 2 meters breadth and 8 meters length leading to the petitioner's plot bearing No.301, N.S.K. 2nd street, Nehru Nagar, pending consideration of the representation made by the petitioner dated 15.12.2010 with the Estate Officer, Slum Clearance Board pursuant to the order passed by this court in W.P.No.1844 of 2011, dated 28.01.2011. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 15.2.2011. Pending the writ petition, in M.P.No.1 of 2011, this court had granted an interim injunction restraining the 4th respondent from putting up any type of construction either temporary or permanent construction of building or structure or shed or compound wall in the passage measuring 2 meters breadth and 8 meters length leading to the petitioner's plot No.301 in NSK 2nd Street. The injunction was confined only to the 4th respondent who is a private party by name Periasamy having adjacent plot No.302 in the same area. A counter affidavit was filed by the 4th respondent, dated 30.9.2012. 3. It is seen from the records that the same petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.1844 of 2011 seeking for a direction to the official respondents to take an action for removal of encroachment made by the 4th respondent (Periasamy) in the passage proceeding to the petitioner's plot No.301 and also the encroachment made in the petitioner's plot by considering the representation, dated 15.12.2010 and for consequential direction to the Slum Clearance Board to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the plot. The said writ petition was disposed of without notice to the 4th respondent Periasamy by directing the Standing Counsel for the third respondent to take notice. A direction was given to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 15.12.2010 after giving notice to the said petitioner as well as to the 4th respondent. The said writ petition was disposed of without notice to the 4th respondent Periasamy by directing the Standing Counsel for the third respondent to take notice. A direction was given to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 15.12.2010 after giving notice to the said petitioner as well as to the 4th respondent. Even during the pendency of the said representation being considered, the petitioner sent a further representation both to the Board as well as to the police stating that the 4th respondent hurriedly removed the thatched roof and constructing a concrete building and that for the police complaint, a CSR receipt was given to him. The photograph for removal of the thatched roof and attempting to put up the construction of permanent in nature was also produced. 4. The petitioner filed a contempt petition against all respondents for having allegedly disobeyed the interim order passed by this court. Along with the contempt, three sub application Nos.271, 272 and 273 of 2011 were also filed for various reliefs. When the contempt petition came up on 25.4.2011, this court directed notice to be served on the counsel appearing in the main writ petition. When the contempt came up on 6.6.2011, this court recorded that the 4th respondent Periasamy has filed a statutory appeal under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Act. Therefore, this court directed the State Government to dispose of the appeal filed by the 4th respondent after giving notice to all interested parties and adjourned the contempt petition to an another date. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 16.03.2012, this court directed the writ petitions to be posted together after getting orders. Thus, the matters were grouped together and posted before this court by the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 12.4.2012. 5. In the meanwhile, the State Government by G.O.(D)No.220, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 26.12.2011 had disposed of the petitioner's appeal, dated 28.2.2011. Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Government, the 4th respondent filed a writ petition being W.P.No.2608 of 2012. That writ petition was admitted on 6.2.2012 and an interim order of stay was granted for a period of four weeks. The said order was not extended thereafter. In that writ petition, the said Mari, who was the earlier writ petitioner, was shown as the 4th respondent. That writ petition was admitted on 6.2.2012 and an interim order of stay was granted for a period of four weeks. The said order was not extended thereafter. In that writ petition, the said Mari, who was the earlier writ petitioner, was shown as the 4th respondent. On notice, the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, on behalf of the second and third respondents, filed a counter affidavit, dated Nil (August, 2012). The earlier writ petitioner Mari being the 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit, dated 22.6.2012. 6. Heard parties. Since the writ petitioner in W.P.No.3614 of 2011 is trying to prevent the 4th respondent from putting up the construction and since the 4th respondent Periasamy having failed in his attempt to convince the State Government and having failed in his attempt to set aside the order of the Slum Clearance Board, it is necessary to deal with the case of the said Periasamy in W.P.No.2608 of 2012, which will decide the outcome of both the writ petitions as well as the contempt petition. 7. It is seen from the records that during the year 1988, the lands were acquired under the Tamil Nadu Urban Development Department Plan Scheme for Velacherry Nehru Nagar, Phase-2. The CMDA had approved the layout and allotments were made. As per the allotment made, K.Periasamy was allotted to plot No.302 and M.Mari, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.3614 of 2011, was allotted to plot No.301 in NSK 2nd Street, Velacherry. The lease cum sale agreement was entered into by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board with the allottees. Till such time the sale deed was executed, the allottees were only lessees of the plots allotted to them. Plot No.302 is situated facing NSK 2nd Street and the plot No.301 is situated behind plot No.302. As per the approved CMDA layout and sketch, on the northern side of plot No.302, there is a passage measuring 2 meters breadth and 8 meters length from the NSK 2nd street leading to the plot of M.Mari. It was stated by the said Mari that Periasamy had encroached the said passage by putting up a hut and was constructing a toilet. It was at this stage, Mari who was allotted to plot No.301 filed the writ petition being W.P.No.1844 of 2011 for removal of encroachment made by Periasamy, the petitioner in W.P.No.2608 of 2012. It was stated by the said Mari that Periasamy had encroached the said passage by putting up a hut and was constructing a toilet. It was at this stage, Mari who was allotted to plot No.301 filed the writ petition being W.P.No.1844 of 2011 for removal of encroachment made by Periasamy, the petitioner in W.P.No.2608 of 2012. This court directed the representation of the Mari dated 15.12.2010 to be enquired into and consequently directed the Slum Clearance Board to execute a sale deed in favour of Mari in respect of his plot. By order dated 28.01.2011, the said direction was given to the Estate Officer to consider the said representation. 8. The Estate Officer, i.e., the third respondent had issued Form-A notice dated 10.2.2011 under Rules 4 and 5 of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board (Properties Control and Administration) to Periasamy. As no reply was received from the said Periasamy, a final order dated 25.2.2011 was passed asking him to remove the encroachment and handed over the possession. Mari also filed W.P.No.3614 of 2011 seeking direction to the Slum Clearance Board to forbear the petitioner Periasamy from putting up any construction in the area to an extent of 2 meters breadth and 8 meters length leading to the 4th respondent plot and had obtained an order of interim injunction. It is at this stage, the Estate Officer wrote a letter dated 18.02.2011 to Periasamy not to put up any construction in the passage in the approved layout and asked him to remove the encroachment. The Assistant Secretary (Plots), Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board also wrote a letter on 11.3.2011 to the Executive Engineer asking him to take action to remove the encroachment. A further letter dated 2.5.2011 was also sent to the Executive Engineer asking him to inform the Board about the action taken to remove the encroachment. Challenging the action of removal passed by the Estate Officer, Periasamy filed an appeal under Section 59(1) of the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971 before the State Government. The State Government had dismissed the appeal and gave direction vide G.O.(D)No.220, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 26.12.2011, which became the subject matter of the writ petition. 9. It was contended by the Board that under Section 17, the State Government is vested with the power to acquire the land. The State Government had dismissed the appeal and gave direction vide G.O.(D)No.220, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 26.12.2011, which became the subject matter of the writ petition. 9. It was contended by the Board that under Section 17, the State Government is vested with the power to acquire the land. Under Section 18, the land acquired vest with the Government free from all encumbrances. After completing all formalities, the plan approved by the CMDA was prepared for Nehru Nagar Phase-2 and plots were laid out as per the layout. The allottees were entitled to occupy the plots as per the layout measurements. The sale deed would be executed as per the layout measurement only. Periasamy, who was only an allottee, is bound by the allotment order. It is only when the allottees apply for authenticated sketch, the no objection letter to put up the construction, to get electricity, sewerage and water supply connections will be furnished. The allottee was bound to occupy the plot as per the terms ad conditions of the allotment order, lease-cum-sale agreement and the approved layout. It was further alleged by the Board that the passage measuring 2 meters breadth and 8 meters length for the usage by the 4th respondent Mari on the southern side of plot was encroached by Periasamy and that he had put up the hut and asbestos sheet roof bathroom. The measurements on the ground showed that the petitioner Periasamy had encroached on all four sides of his plot. 10. It was the contention of Periasamy that the 4th respondent Mari was only having 126 square meters. Therefore, he cannot claim any extra land being allotted to him. Further, Periasamy contended that he was also in possession for over 45 years. Therefore, he was entitled to have the same possession when the allotment was made and that portion of land has to be considered as an adverse possession for over 12 years. 11. But, his contention that he is entitled to claim ownership cannot be accepted. The moment the State Government acquired the land under Section 17, the entire land vest with the State under Section 18 and that the petitioner cannot claim being a lessee that particular plot. After entering into lease-cum-sale agreement, he cannot claim a larger share of the plot. But, his contention that he is entitled to claim ownership cannot be accepted. The moment the State Government acquired the land under Section 17, the entire land vest with the State under Section 18 and that the petitioner cannot claim being a lessee that particular plot. After entering into lease-cum-sale agreement, he cannot claim a larger share of the plot. It has been found that the petitioner Periasamy had encroached the passage to an extent of 2 meters breadth and 8 meters length, which is the only passage for plot No.301. The Slum Clearance Board is entitled to remove the encroachment. Therefore, when they issued an eviction notice as per the provisions of the Act and the petitioner Periasamy having exhausted the appellate remedy, this court is not inclined to accept the contention of Periasamy that the plot is in his possession and he is entitled to get the sale deed for the said plot. 12. As already contended, only after the sale deed is issued by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, the question of ownership will arise. As of now, he is only a lessee and being in possession of the permissive occupation. Therefore, the State Government was correct in stating that both Periasamy and Mari, the two writ petitioners are entitled to get the sale deed only on the basis of the approved layout and in case, if they are not interested in getting the sale deed as per the the layout plan, the Slum Clearance Board is entitled to cancel the allotment as ordered by the State Government. 13. In the light of the above, there is no case made out by the petitioner in W.P.No.2608 of 2012. Accordingly, W.P.No.2608 of 2012 will stand dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. No costs. 14. In W.P.No.3614 of 2011, the petitioner (Mari) is entitled for allotment of plot No.301 only to an extent of original allotment of 126 square meter and the passage on the northern side of plot No.302 to an extent of 2 meters x 8 meters will remain as a vacant space. Even the petitioner Mari cannot make use of the same and it is kept only as a passage and that he cannot claim ownership for the said passage. Even the petitioner Mari cannot make use of the same and it is kept only as a passage and that he cannot claim ownership for the said passage. In plot No.302, if the space indicated in the original allotment order is not commensurate with the space available as per the layout, then Periasamy will be given a sale deed in respect of the space available in plot No.302. If the rates were originally calculated on the basis of the original allotment order, while entering into the sale deed, the price of the plot will be accordingly revised and he will be given the sale deed only for the space available as of now. If the allotment order of Periasamy showed larger area and the measurement as per the layout plan showed reduced area, then to that extent the sale price will get revised. W.P.No.3614 of 2011 will stand disposed of accordingly. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. No costs. 15. Contempt Petition No.682 of 2011 : Since this court has finally disposed of both the writ petitions, the question of entertaining the contempt petitioner will not arise. The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board is directed to carry out the order passed in both these writ petitions. Hence contempt petition No.682 of 2011 will stand dismissed. Consequently connected sub applications will stand closed. No costs.