Judgment :- The petitioner has come up with this writ petition to direct the Respondent to refund the amount of Rs.77,440/- paid by the petitioner dated 03.10.2007 through State Bank of India, Tenkasi under vide Challan No.72. 2. The petitioner is occupied 80 square meters of land to the Survey No.21/7, Tenkasi Taluk and residing there for 20 years. The Government issued a G.O.Ms.No.854, dated 30.12.2006 1(2) Department dated 30.12.2005 to regularise the encroachment made in the Government Land and living there for more than 10 years. The respondents after due enquiry directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.77,440/- as per the guidelines for issue of patta. As per the direction of the respondents, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.77,440/- through State of India. After the payment, the respondent issued patta in favour of the petitioner on 18.12.2007. 3. Subsequently, the Government by G.O.2D No.711, dated 30.11.2007 existing Annual Income ceiling limits for income was withdrawn and was directed the respondent to issue house site patta upto 4 cents in Rural area 2 1/2 cents in Municipal areas and 2 cents in Corporation areas. Therefore, under these scheme, the petitioner is entitled to patta at free of costs. As per the G.O., all persons, who has paid value of house site patta from 30.12.2006 will be reimbursed. The petitioner has paid the amount of Rs.03.10.2007. Therefore, she is eligible for refund of the amount. Therefore, she sent a representation to the second respondent on 23.03.2008 for refund of the amounts paid by the petitioner. The respondent did not re-pay the amounts. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. The first respondent has filed the counter affidavit denying the various averments made in the affidavit. The respondents stated that the petitioner is not eligible to get free house site patta. The petitioner is a retired teacher. Her husband Thiru.M.S.Durairaj is also retired police officer. Both of them getting pension from the Government. The petitioner's husband owning a house bearing No.81A/44, Malayan Street, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District. As per the G.O.No.854 in eligible persons must pay the value of the land as per the guideline register. In G.O.2D No.711 dated 30.11.2007 ceiling limit was withdrawn. But VIth clause of G.O., is not applicable to the persons in eligible for house site patta. The petitioner's husband owning a house bearing No.81A/44, Malayan Street, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District. As per the G.O.No.854 in eligible persons must pay the value of the land as per the guideline register. In G.O.2D No.711 dated 30.11.2007 ceiling limit was withdrawn. But VIth clause of G.O., is not applicable to the persons in eligible for house site patta. The respondents further stated that the representation given by the petitioner to the Tahsildar to refund a sum of Rs.77,440/- was rejected by the Memo No.B3/11319/07, dated 13.05.2008 and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard Mr. V.M. Balamohan Thambi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. S.Bharathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents reiterated the averments made in the affidavit and counter affidavit. 6. I have perused the materials on record and I have also considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 7. The Government has passed the orders for grant of house site patta to landless poor. The person or his family members owning a house are treated as ineligible persons to receive a house site patta. For grant of patta to a person in eligible, the value of the land as per the guideline must be fixed. On payment of such amounts house site patta can be granted to such person. 8. In the present case, the petitioner's husband is owning a house at Door No.81A/44, Malayan Street, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District. Therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for grant of free house site patta. Further, Tahsildar by his memo, dated 13.05.2008 bearing reference No.B3/11319/07, dated 13.05.2008 has rejected the representation of the petitioner for refund of the amount. The petitioner has not taken any further action against the said memo. 9. For the above reasons, the petitioner is not entitled the relief sought for in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No Costs.