Judgment Both the writ petitions, designed as Public Interest Litigations, have been filed by the same petitioner -Association, against the respondents, for the removal of encroachments in tank bed lands comprised in S.No.583, 583/2A1C and 583/2D1B in Ambattur by invoking the provisions of Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachments Act, 2007, to restore the lands in their original position, and also to quash the G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue Department dated 29.04.1950, which granted assignment of land in favour of the 20th respondent in W.P.No.12929 of 2012 and 7th respondent in W.P.No.30837 of 2012 viz., T.I. Cycles, Chennai. 2. The writ petitioner has stated that the Ambattur Lake situated in Ambattur Taluk, Thirvullaur District is a rain fed reservoir, covering approximately 450 acres, and providing drinking water to the surrounding areas located in Thiruvallur District and also to the Chennai City Corporation. It is also a main source of ground water in that locality. It has been stated that in the year 2009 a large tract of land had been acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on the south-west side of the tank bed for housing purpose, which had primarily affected the ground water level in the Ambattur locality. That apart, many influential persons have started extracting ground water by erecting huge unauthorised borewells for their water business. This started causing major depletion in the availability of groundwater in that locality. The decision of the Housing Board to acquire land in the lake for housing purpose, followed by the other individual encroachers, shrunk the lake to just 100 acres. Due to the large extent of encroachments made in and around the lake, out of the two weirs, which were used to retain water and regulate its flow, one disappeared and only the other one is available now. 3. It has been stated that the lands comprised in Ambattur Tank Bed in S.No.583 had been sub divided into three parts i.e., 583/1, 583/2, and 583/3. The lands comprised in S.No.583/2 admeasuring to an extent of 56.55 acres had been classified as tank bed, lands comprised in S.No.583/1 admeasuring to an extent of 10 acre 49 cents had been classified as Punjai lands and lands in S.No.583/3 admeasuring to an extent of 2.7 acres had been classified as Manavari. The lands comprised in S.No.583/2 admeasuring to an extent of 56.55 acres had been classified as tank bed, lands comprised in S.No.583/1 admeasuring to an extent of 10 acre 49 cents had been classified as Punjai lands and lands in S.No.583/3 admeasuring to an extent of 2.7 acres had been classified as Manavari. According to the writ petitioner, the 20th respondent in W.P.No.12929 of 2012 and 7th respondent in W.P.No.30837 of 2012 viz., M/s.T.I. Cycles had purchased the lands situated in S.Nos.583/1 and 583/3 alone admeasuring to an extent of 12.56 acres by virtue of a sale deed dated 01.12.1949 vide Doc.No.3092 of 1949 registered on the file of Sub Registrar, Chengalpattu, and constructed a factory in the said land. The 21st respondent in W.P.No.12929 of 2012 and 8th respondent in W.P.No.30837 of 2012 viz., the Indian Railway Welfare Organisation had purchased 11.88 acres of lands from the T.I. Cycles in the year 2004 in the same Survey Nos.583/1 and 583/3 and obtained layout permission. According to the writ petitioner, the T.I. Cycles had actually sold the tank bed lands comprised in S.No.583/2 in favour of the Indian Railway Welfare Organisation by misleading survey numbers and boundaries of the lands. It has been stated by the writ petitioner that the lands situated in Ambattur tank bed had been specifically classified as Tank Bed in the ‘A’ Register maintained by the Revenue Department. According to the writ petitioner, the lands comprised in Tank Beds cannot be utilized or converted for any other purpose, except for which they have been classified. It has been stated that the lands comprised in Ambattur Tank Bed in S.No.583/2 admeasuring to an extent of 56.55 acres had been classified as Tank Bed in the ‘A’ Register maintained by the Revenue Department. The T.I. Cycles is the owner of the lands to an extent of 12.56 acres comprised in S.Nos.583/1 and 583/3 and not the lands in S.No.583/2, which is classified as Tank Bed. But, the T.I.Cycles by wrongly describing the boundaries of lands, actually sold around 12 acres of land comprised in S.No.583/2, which is classified as Tank Bed, to the Indian Railway Welfare Organisation in the year 2004. Therefore, the said sale is illegal and non est in the eye of law. But, the T.I.Cycles by wrongly describing the boundaries of lands, actually sold around 12 acres of land comprised in S.No.583/2, which is classified as Tank Bed, to the Indian Railway Welfare Organisation in the year 2004. Therefore, the said sale is illegal and non est in the eye of law. According to the petitioner, the T.I. Cycles had illegally encroached upon the classified tank bed lands and also sold out a portion of the same by mis-describing the boundaries. 4. The purchaser viz., the Indian Railway Welfare Organisation illegally obtained the lay out permission in respect of the said tank bed land by mis-representing to the planning authorities as if it is seeking lay out permission in respect of lands comprised in S.Nos.583/1 and 583/3, which are classified as Punjai and Manavari lands. The authorities of the 10th respondent in W.P.No.12929 viz., Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority without verifying the facts granted lay out permission on 25.07.2011. Therefore, the writ petitioner challenges the said lay out permission dated 25.07.2011 as per se illegal and contrary to the provisions of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. According to the writ petitioner, the lands situated in S.Nos.583/1 and 583/3 to an extent of 12.56 acres are classified as Punjai and Manavari respectively, and the remaining extent of 56.55 acres of lands situated in S.No.583/2 is classified as tank bed. Therefore, nobody can claim any right whatsoever other than 12.46 acres comprised in S.Nos.583/1 and 583/3, and when T.I. Cycles had acquired title only for 12.56 acres and is still remaining in the possession of the same, it is not possible for T.I. Cycles to convey 12.46 acres in favour of the Indian Railway Welfare Organisation. Therefore, according to the writ petitioner, T.I. Cycles encroached the lands classified as Tank Bed, and hence, the transaction is per se illegal. According to the writ petitioner, T.I. Cycles had encroached more than 20 acres of lands in the tank bed. 5. It has been stated that the T.I. Cycles had obtained exemption from the Urban Land Ceiling Department for utilising the said lands for industrial purpose vide G.O.Ms.No.554, Revenue Department dated 25.04.1986, which was subsequently extended by G.O.Ms.No.531, Revenue Department dated 30.05.1997 upto 2000. Thereafter, in the year 2004 it sold the land in question to the Indian Railway Welfare Organisation. It has been stated that the T.I. Cycles had obtained exemption from the Urban Land Ceiling Department for utilising the said lands for industrial purpose vide G.O.Ms.No.554, Revenue Department dated 25.04.1986, which was subsequently extended by G.O.Ms.No.531, Revenue Department dated 30.05.1997 upto 2000. Thereafter, in the year 2004 it sold the land in question to the Indian Railway Welfare Organisation. The Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling, Poonamallee had also recommended to the Government to acquire the lands in question immediately by his letter Na.Ka.E./677/2002 dated 24.05.2004. The C.M.D.A. without verifying this aspect granted permission for layout. The 7th respondent in W.P.No.12929 of 2012 viz., the Director, Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax has also not initiated any action against the T.I.Cycles in pursuance of the recommendations made by the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling, Poonamallee. 6. It has been stated that the members of the petitioner association had earlier filed a civil suit in O.S.No.522 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Ambattur seeking permanent injunction against the T.I. Cycles, the Indian Railway Welfare Organisation and the State agencies from converting the usage of the lands in question, but the said suit was dismissed for default. 7. It has been further stated that in order to protect the fundamental right to water guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India the encroachments made by the aforesaid respondents should be removed immediately. Aggrieved by the illegality committed by the aforesaid respondents, the writ petitioner-Association has made several representations to the official respondents, arrayed in the writ petitions, but none of them initiated any action on the erring respondents. Therefore, having no other alternative the Writ petitioner - Association has preferred the present writ petitions. 8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 20th respondent in W.P.No.12929 of 2012 viz., the T.I. Cycles it has been categorically stated that it was the absolute owner of the lands comprised in S.No.583/1 measuring an extent of 10.49 acres and in S.No.583/3 measuring an extent of 2 acres and 7 cents in Ambattur Taluk. The lands in S.No.583/1 and 583/3 were purchased by the 20th respondent by a registered Sale Deed from one A.G. Mangavalli Thayar Ammal and others vide Sale Deed dated 01.12.1949, while the other lands were purchased by different sale deeds. The lands in S.No.583/1 and 583/3 were purchased by the 20th respondent by a registered Sale Deed from one A.G. Mangavalli Thayar Ammal and others vide Sale Deed dated 01.12.1949, while the other lands were purchased by different sale deeds. A patta bearing No.420 was also issued in favour of the 20th respondent in respect of the lands in S.Nos.583/1 and 583/3. It has been stated that the 20th respondent is in continuous ownership and possession of the aforesaid lands for over 5 decades. The 20th respondent sold a portion of the land measuring an extent of 9.86 acres in S.No.583/1 and 2.02 acres in S.No.583/3 to the Indian Railway Welfare Organisation through a sale deed dated 12.03.2004. After selling the above extent of land, the 20th respondent retained a portion of land measuring 0.63 acres in .No.583/1. There is no misdescription of the boundaries by the 20th respondent. The Indian Railway Welfare Organisation had also applied for building approval for construction of 140 dwelling units for its members in the land so purchased by them. Meanwhile, a suit in O.S.No.327 of 2007 came to be filed before the District Munsif, Ambattur by one Vijay Dhayanidhi claiming that the properties in S.Nos.583/1 and 583/3 were being used as a playground by the local people, and therefore, they should not be converted into dwelling units. The 20th respondent T.I.Cycles entered appearance in the said suit and also filed an application in I.A.No.2012 of 2004 seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. on the ground that there is absolutely no cause of action. The said application was allowed on 26.07.2007 and the plaint was also rejected. Suppressing the said fact, the present writ petitions were filed under the guise of public interest. Moreover, the plaintiff in the said suit viz., Vijay Dhayanidhi is none other than the Vice President of the writ petitioner Association. 9. In the additional counter affidavit filed by the 20th respondent viz., T.I. Cycles it has been stated that even after the sale of its private lands the company is still operational. As far as the prayer for the cancellation of assignment of lands in favour of the 20th respondent, it has been stated that the lands assigned in favour of the 20th respondent have been classified as Punjai lands, and they have a clear and valid title to the same. As far as the prayer for the cancellation of assignment of lands in favour of the 20th respondent, it has been stated that the lands assigned in favour of the 20th respondent have been classified as Punjai lands, and they have a clear and valid title to the same. The land over which the factory is situated is also classified as industrial use by the C.M.D.A., and the allegation of the writ petitioner Association that the lands have been re-classified only for the purpose of benefiting 21st respondent is without any basis. It has been further stated that only to further the private interest of certain members of the writ petitioner-Association, since they failed in their earlier attempts to thwart the developmental activities of the 20th and 21st respondents, they moved the present writ petitions, and therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 10. The District Collector, Thiruvallur District in his counter affidavit stated that as per the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ambattur the T.I.Cycle Company was assigned with an extent of 43.24 acres comprising S.Nos.583/2A1C and 583/2D1B by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue Department dated 29.04.1950 on collection of cost of Rs.8648/- @ Rs.200/- per acre along with Rs.6,000/- towards the cost of three wells which were available at the time of assignment, and that the TI Cycle factory is functioning only on the above said two survey numbers. This fact has also been confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ambattur and Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records on their joint inspection of the lands. The writ petitioner is mistaken, and the petitioners contention that the sale has been made by misdescribing survey numbers and boundaries of the lands is incorrect. When the main contention of the writ petitioner itself is proved to be baseless and not maintainable, the subsequent proceedings such as planning approval by CMDA is beyond the challenge and has no holdings. It has been further stated that the writ petitioner has placed his submissions relying on the A Register, which has not been updated with the subsequent developments. According to this respondent, a major portion of the land viz., 43.24 acres in S.No.583/2 has been converted into patta land and sub-divided as 583/2A1C (41.32 acres) and 583/2D1B (1.92 acres) and classified as Dry. According to this respondent, a major portion of the land viz., 43.24 acres in S.No.583/2 has been converted into patta land and sub-divided as 583/2A1C (41.32 acres) and 583/2D1B (1.92 acres) and classified as Dry. The said lands were re-classified as patta land and were assigned to TI Cycles company after collecting the costs, as stated above. The assignment patta for the above said extent of 43.24 acres was also issued by the then District Collector, Chengalpattu during 1950 as ordered by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.1300, Revenue Department dated 29.04.1950. Thus, the writ petitioners contentions are baseless, and accordingly, writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 11. The 15th respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Ambattur in his counter affidavit stated that he along with Assistant Director (Survey), Thiruvallur District and Tahsildar, Ambattur inspected the S.Nos.583/1A and 583/3, which are classified as dry lands, on 16.06.2012, and after inspection they found that the constructions put up by the 21st respondent Indian Railway Welfare Organisation are entirely falling within their patta land. He also filed the said Inspection Report along with his counter affidavit. 12. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record. Before entertaining a writ petition as Public Interest Litigation, the Court has to be satisfied with the credentials of the petitioner, the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by the petitioner, and such information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. As held by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions the Court has to strike a balance between the two conflicting interests viz., the public and the private interest. The Supreme Court has time and again observed that public interest litigation contemplates legal proceedings for vindication or enforcement of fundamental rights of a group of persons or community which are not able to enforce their fundamental rights on account of their incapacity, poverty or ignorance of law. Personal interest, grudge or enmity cannot be enforced through the process of the court in the garb of public interest litigation. If such petitions are entertained, it would amount to abuse of process of the court, preventing speedy remedy to other genuine petitioners from the court. In a series of decisions the Supreme Court has highlighted the scope and object of the public interest litigations. If such petitions are entertained, it would amount to abuse of process of the court, preventing speedy remedy to other genuine petitioners from the court. In a series of decisions the Supreme Court has highlighted the scope and object of the public interest litigations. Keeping the same in mind, we have to examine, at the outset, as to whether the petitioner has genuinely taken the cause of the public at large. 13. In the instant cases, the writ petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the authorities of the State (official respondents) to remove the encroachments made in the tank bed lands comprised in Survey Nos.583, S.No.583/2A1C and 583/2D1B in Ambattur by invoking the provisions of Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007 and to restore the tank bed lands forthwith to protect the fundamental right to water and healthy environment. 14. It has been brought to our notice that before the instant writ petitions were filed by the petitioner Association, a suit was filed against the respondents being O.S.No.327 of 2004, a copy of the plaint has also been enclosed along with the typed set, from which it reveals that one Mr. Vijay Dhayanidhi filed the aforementioned suit before the District Munsif, Ambattur praying a decree and judgment against the - a) defendants 1, 2 and 6 from converting the present classification from playground to any other purpose; b) defendants 3 and 6 from granting any approval to anyone in respect of any proposed construction in the suit property except for sports purposes; c) defendants 4 and 5 from alienating, encumbering or putting up any construction in the suit property except for sports purposes; d) from effecting any power supply for any construction to be made in the suit property except for sports purposes. 15. The respondent Nos.20 and 21 in W.P.No.12929 of 2012 and respondent Nos.7 and 8 in W.P.No.30387 of 2012 viz., M/s.T.I. Cycles and Indian Railway Welfare Organisation were arrayed as respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the said suit. In the said suit the T.I. Cycles viz., the respondent 20 in W.P.No.12929 of 2012 has filed an application in I.A.No.2012 of 2004 praying to reject the plaint in the said suit. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur by her order dated 26.07.2007 allowed the I.A. and rejected the plaint. In the said suit the T.I. Cycles viz., the respondent 20 in W.P.No.12929 of 2012 has filed an application in I.A.No.2012 of 2004 praying to reject the plaint in the said suit. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur by her order dated 26.07.2007 allowed the I.A. and rejected the plaint. The relevant portion of the said order dated 26.07.2007 is reproduced herein below:- “O R D E R This petition is filed on 23.06.2007 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC praying to reject the plaint and for exemplary costs. 2) The averments in the petition in brief: The petitioner is the 4th defendant in the suit and the 4th defendant is M/s.Tube Investments India Limited. The 1st respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction and the same is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected under order 7 rule 11(a), (b) and (d). In fact, the 1st respondent/plaintiff father had originally filed suit O.S.24/04 for the same relief in respect of S.No.583/1 and 583, Ambattur Village and when the present petitioner/4th defendant made serious objections, the father of the 1st respondent/plaintiff had filed a memo stating that a dispute had been settled out of court. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed and by adopting the same practice the 1st respondent/plaintiff had filed the present suit for the same relief, which is not at all maintainable. The petitioner/4th defendant is the absolute owner of 12 acres and 56 cents comprised in S.No.183/1 and 183/3, Ambattur Village having purchased the same under the sale deed dated 01.12.1949. The petitioner/4th defendant has been in continuous possession of the same and it has been fully fenced with pucca compound wall and lake. Since, the petitioner decided to sell the said land, the 5th respondent agreed to purchase the same and later on a sale deed dated 12.03.2004 was executed in favour of the 5th defendant conveying an extent of 11 acre 88 cents and as on date, the property owned by the petitioner/4th defendant has been conveyed to the 5th defendant. At this stage, the present suit has been filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff and the 1st respondent/plaintiff has no right in the suit property. The suit itself is an imaginary one since at no point of time, the 1st respondent/plaintiff had purchased the suit property and at no point of time, the suit property was used by the 1st respondent/plaintiff. At this stage, the present suit has been filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff and the 1st respondent/plaintiff has no right in the suit property. The suit itself is an imaginary one since at no point of time, the 1st respondent/plaintiff had purchased the suit property and at no point of time, the suit property was used by the 1st respondent/plaintiff. Hence, the prayer sought for in the suit is not maintainable and is liable to the rejected. 3) The averments in the counter in brief. The petition is not maintainable in law and on facts. The lands in question in the suit was exempted from the ceiling laws purely for the expansion of industrial process and for court activities and the petitioner/4th defendant in order to cheat the government and innocent purchaser suppressing the condition clause had sold the land. In this situation, this petition for rejection of plaint has been filed and there is no merit in the present petition and is liable to be dismissed. 4) Point for consideration: Whether the petition can be allowed? 5) The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is the 4th defendant in the suit and the 4th defendant is M/s.Tube Investments of India Limited and the 1st respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1, 2 and 6 from converting the present classification of suit schedule land from playground to any other purpose; restraining the defendants 3 and 6 from granting any approval to anyone in respect of any proposed construction in the suit property except for sports purpose; restraining the defendants 4 and 5 from alienating, encumbering or putting up any construction in the suit property except for sports purpose and from effecting any power supply for any construction to be made in the suit property except for sports purpose and the same is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a), (b) and (d). He further argued that in fact, the 1st respondent/plaintiff father had originally filed suit O.S.No.24/04 for the same relief in respect of S.No.583/1 and 583, Ambattur Village and when the present petitioner/4th defendant made serious objection, the father of the 1st respondent/plaintiff had filed a memo stating that the dispute had been settled out of court, and ultimately, the suit was dismissed and by adopting the same practice the 1st respondent/plaintiff had filed the present suit for the same relief, which is not at all maintainable. He further argued that the petitioner/4th defendant is the absolute owner of 12 acres and 56 cents comprised in S.No.183/1 and 183/3, Ambattur Village having purchased the same under the sale deed dated 01.12.49 and the petitioner/4th defendant has been in continuous possession of the same and it has been fully fenced with pucca compound wall and since the petitioner decided to sell the said land, the 5th respondent agreed to purchase the same and later on a sale deed dated 12.03.04 was executed in favour of the 5th defendant conveying an extent of 11 acres 88 cents and as on date, the property owned by the petitioner/4th defendant has been conveyed to the 5th defendant and at this stage, the present suit has been filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff and the 1st respondent/plaintiff has no right in the suit property and the suit itself is an imaginary one since at no point of time, the 1st respondent/plaintiff had purchased the suit property, at no point of time, the suit property was used by the 1st respondent/plaintiff and the prayer sought for in the suit is not maintainable and the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless and no relief of declaration has been sought for, and hence, is liable to be dismissed. He further argued that since for the same identical suit property the father of the 1st respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit and the same had been not pressed, and the present suit is not maintainable, and prayed that the petition may be allowed, and since the Tahsildar, Ambattur, the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling, Ambattur, Ambattur Municipality, Indian Railways Welfare Organisation, CMDA and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board are added as party, and they are government bodies petition u/s.80(2) CPC has to be filed, but the same has not been filed by the respondent/plaintiff, and the suit may be rejected, and relied on the citation 2003(1)CTC 186, 1998 (2) SCC 72. 6) In spite of sufficient opportunities granted to the plaintiff to put forth his case, no arguments was put forth on behalf of the 1st respondent/plaintiff. 7) On perusal of the plaint, the plaintiff had prayed for a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1,2 and 6 from converting the present classification of suit schedule from playground to any other purpose; restraining the defendants 3 and 6 from granting any approval to anyone in respect of any proposed construction in the suit property except for sports purposes; restraining the defendants 4 and 5 from alienating, encumbering or putting up any construction in the suit property except for sports purpose, and from effecting any power supply for any construction to be made in the suit property except for sports purpose. But no documents have been filed by the plaintiff to substantiate his case. Further, it is evident that the suit property has been now sold to the 5th defendant and since, the 5th defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property, the plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs against the true owner. Further, the 1st respondent/plaintiff had not substantiated his case through oral and documentary evidence, and hence, this Court feels that the petitioner had proved that the plaint is fit for rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, and hence the petition is allowed. 8) In the result, this petition is allowed and the suit is hereby rejected.” 16. After the dismissal of the aforesaid suit, the plaintiff Vijay Dayanidhi along with other members formed the petitioner-Association in the name “Ambattur Zone Residents Welfare Association”, got it registered on 26.04.2012, and he made himself as its Vice President. 8) In the result, this petition is allowed and the suit is hereby rejected.” 16. After the dismissal of the aforesaid suit, the plaintiff Vijay Dayanidhi along with other members formed the petitioner-Association in the name “Ambattur Zone Residents Welfare Association”, got it registered on 26.04.2012, and he made himself as its Vice President. After the formation of the said Association, the present writ petitions were field under the guise of public interest litigation, taking a totally different stand and seeking a declaration that the land in question is a tank bed and it was illegally converted as a dry land. Curiously enough, by a separate writ petition as public interest litigation, viz. W.P. No.30837 of 2012, the petitioners have challenged an assignment which was made by the Government in the year 1950. 17. Considering the facts narrated hereinabove, we are of the definite opinion that the writ petitions have been filed with a mala fide intention, and they are purely vindictive in their nature and at no stretch of imagination can be said to be genuine and bona fide petitions. Hence, these writ petitions cannot and ought not to be entertained. 18. Besides the above, the allegations made by the writ petitioner regarding the nature of the land has been fully denied, not only by the private respondents viz., respondent Nos.20 and 21, but also by the authorities of the Sate, namely the District Collector, Thiruvallur District and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ambattur. It has been categorically stated by them in their counter affidavits that the land in question was classified as dry land as far back as in the year 1950 itself. The District Collector, Thiruvallur in his counter clearly stated that an extent of 43.24 acres in S.No.583/2 has been converted into patta land and sub-divided as 583/2A1C (41.32 acres) and 583/2D1B (1.92 acres) and re-classified as patta land and were assigned to the 20th respondent-T.I. Cycles. The assignment patta for the said extent of land to the 20th respondent-T.I. Cycles was also issued by the then District Collector, Chengalpattu during 1950 as ordered by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O. Ms. No.1300, Revenue Department dated 29.04.1950. 19. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the definite opinion that these writ petitions cannot be entertained as public interest litigation and they are liable to be dismissed. No.1300, Revenue Department dated 29.04.1950. 19. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the definite opinion that these writ petitions cannot be entertained as public interest litigation and they are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed, for the reasons assigned hereinabove. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.