Judgment :- 1. This writ petition was filed by Mrs. R.Dhanalakshmi seeking a prayer for issuance of writ of certiorari, to call for the impugned order of the second respondent passed in Se.Mu.No.19973/E3/02 dated 20.12.2004, to quash the same, since the second respondent, through the impugned order, has allotted the road portion to the third respondent, as against the judgment dated 8.9.89 passed in A.S.Nos.666 & 667 of 1988 by the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, as confirmed by this Court vide judgment dated 22.2.2002 passed in S.A.Nos.587 & 588 of 1992. Pending the writ petition, the subsequent purchasers were also impleaded as party petitioners to the writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the first petitioner-R.Dhanalakshmi was the absolute owner of the house, ground and premises bearing Plot No.11, Original Survey No.89/02, Town Survey No.1/2, Block No.10, Maduraiswami Madam Street, Sembium. The husband of the third respondent, one Balasundaram, along with another person by name Kamalammal had illegally put up huts on the road portion in front of the petitioner's property blocking the entry to the road, as a result, when there was a civil dispute between the first petitioner and the third respondent's husband Balasundaram and another person Kamalammal, original suit was rightly filed in O.S.No.1562 of 1983 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai against the third respondent's husband Balasundaram and Kamalammal and also against the Corporation of Chennai praying for a direction to remove the unauthorised construction and also for permanent injunction on the only ground that the disputed area is a road portion, which is lying in front of the petitioner's property. When the trial Court dismissed the first petitioner's suit by judgment and decree dated 15.4.88, aggrieved by the same, when an appeal was filed in A.S.No.666 of 1988 before the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civll Court, Chennai, the first petitioner's appeal was allowed by the judgment and decree dated 8.9.89 by giving a clear finding and concluding that the place occupied by the third respondent's husband Balasundaram and another person Kamalammal is a road margin belonging to the Government and thereupon a decree for permanent injunction was passed directing the husband of the third respondent to remove the huts, so as to clear the encroached portion of the road for access to the property of the first petitioner. Even though a second appeal was preferred in S.A.No.587 of 1992 by both the husband of the third respondent and Kamalammal, this Court, by judgment dated 22.2.2002, dismissed the second appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.666 of 1988 dated 8.9.89. Even after the finality reached in the second appeal, an execution petition was also filed in E.P.No.212 of 1990 and an order was passed for removal of encroachment. Even thereafter, though the husband of the third respondent filed E.A.No.6211 of 2004 under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code making a false claim, the same was finally dismissed. 3. In spite of the repeated dismissal of the applications filed by the husband of the third respondent, the third respondent attempted to occupy the land. In order to help the third respondent's husband, the second respondent also passed the present impugned order dated 20.12.2004 allotting the land portion, which is a road poramboke, to the third respondent, who is none other than the wife of the second defendant in the suit. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition, as contended by the learned counsel, is that when the dispute between the first petitioner and the third respondent's husband was once and for all decided by a competent civil Court in A.S.No.666 of 1988 dated 8.9.89, as confirmed by this Court in S.A.No.587 of 1992 dated 22.2.2002 and the said judgments and decrees were also properly executed in E.P.No.212 of 1990, the second respondent ought not to have passed the impugned order allotting the land portion in favour of the third respondent, who is the wife of the second defendant in A.S.No.666 of 1988, as confirmed in S.A.No.587 of 1992. He pleaded further that if the order passed by the second respondent is allowed to stand, it is nothing but helping the second respondent to circumvent the judgments and decrees passed by the first appellate Court in A.S.No.666 of 1988 and this Court in S.A.No.587 of 1992 that came to be executed in E.P.No.212 of 1990. 4. He pleaded further that if the order passed by the second respondent is allowed to stand, it is nothing but helping the second respondent to circumvent the judgments and decrees passed by the first appellate Court in A.S.No.666 of 1988 and this Court in S.A.No.587 of 1992 that came to be executed in E.P.No.212 of 1990. 4. In reply, though a counter affidavit was filed by the third respondent stating that the first petitioner has no right to question the allotment order, in and by which the second respondent allotted the land portion, which originally belonged to the Government, on payment of cost and the third respondent had also paid the sale consideration to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, this Court is not able to agree with the stand taken by the second respondent in favour of the third respondent. The first petitioner as plaintiff filed the suit for removal of encroachment put up in front of her property that was forming part of road poramboke, and the civil Court, by going into the correctness of the prayer made by the first petitioner, decreed the suit in A.S.No.666 of 1988 by judgment dated 8.9.89 and this Court also in S.A.No.587 of 1992 by judgment dated 22.2.2002 confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, which gave a direction to the third respondent to remove the encroached portion in front of the first petitioner's property, which is a road poramboke. Therefore, when the competent civil Court had passed the judgment and decree, though the second respondent was not a party to the suit filed by the first petitioner, the Collector of Chennai was a party in the suit filed by the first petitioner. Therefore, when the District Collector, Chennai was a party and bound by the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.666 of 1988 dated 8.9.89, as confirmed by this Court in S.A.No.587 of 1992 dated 22.2.2002, it is highly improper on the part of the second respondent to flout the civil Court judgment and decree by passing the impugned allotment order in favour of the third respondent, who is the wife of the second defendant in the suit. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned order. 5. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned order. 5. It is pertinent to mention one another fact, namely, when the suit filed by the first petitioner was decreed by the first appellate Court in A.S.No.666 of 1988 dated 8.9.89, fortunately, both the District Collector and the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai were parties to the judgment and decree. The said judgment and decree were also again re-affirmed by this Court in S.A.No.587 of 1992 dated 22.2.2002. Above all, when the execution petition was filed for execution of the decree, the same was also allowed and as per the direction given by the executing Court, major portion of the huts put up by the husband of the third respondent on the road portion were removed on 17.12.2004. While so, the second respondent-Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board allotting the disputed land in favour of the third respondent, who is the wife of the second defendant-judgment debtor against whom both the first appellate Court and the second appellate Court as well the executing Court had passed orders for removal of the encroachment, is not only tantamounting to gross abuse of the process of law, but also abuse of the process of Court as well misuse of the official power by the officer concerned. Even though before the trial Court, first appellate Court and the second appellate Court, the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board was not a party, the District Collector and the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai were parties. Further, the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board not being a party before the civil Court does not give them licence to flout the judgment and decree passed by the competent civil Court, as they are also equally bound by the same. Therefore, as a law abiding authority, the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board should not have flouted the judgment and decree passed by the competent civil Court directing the removal of encroachment. Therefore, as a law abiding authority, the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board should not have flouted the judgment and decree passed by the competent civil Court directing the removal of encroachment. Therefore, by taking a serious view of the misuse in re-allotting the disputed portion in spite of the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court in A.S.No.666 of 1988 dated 8.9.89, as confirmed by this Court vide judgment and decree in S.A.No.587 of 1992 dated 22.2.2002, this Court, by looking at the action of the officer in flouting the judgment and decree passed by the competent civil Court, is constrained to direct the present Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, the second respondent herein to take suitable action against the officer concerned for passing the impugned allotment order allotting the land in favour of the third respondent by initiating appropriate departmental proceedings. Needless to mention that in case the officer concerned had retired from service, action shall be taken against such officer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. Accordingly, by setting aside the impugned order, the writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.4437 of 2005 is closed. No costs. Registry is directed to list the matter after six months for reporting compliance by the second respondent.