Judgment This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned notice of the third respondent, dated 15.11.2012, and the letter of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.1224/2012/Sa.Pa.(1), dated 05.11.2012. 2. The petitioner was a successful bidder in respect of Plot No.B1, measuring an extent 4,320 sq.ft., Kannan Nagar, Thanjavur, in the auction conducted on 07.10.2002 by the third respondent. The petitioner and three others participated in the open auction conducted by the third respondent on 07.10.2002. The petitioner was declared as the highest bidder for a sale consideration of Rs.5,34,816/-. The petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.1,84,985/- on 07.10.2002 and subsequently, the petitioner has paid a total sum of Rs.4,39,831/- on various dates. 3. According to the petitioner, he is a physically challenged person and was not able to attend his personal work on regular basis, and hence he had deputed his friend, Mr.Baskaran, who was also present along with him and assisting him during the public auction, to pay the balance amount to the third respondent Society. However, by mistake, the third respondent issued receipts in the name of said Baskaran. The said Baskaran gave a letter to the third respondent, stating that he has paid the amounts only on behalf of the petitioner and gave an affidavit of undertaking that he has no objection to transfer the said receipts in the name of the petitioner. 4. After receipt of the entire amounts in the year 2004, the third respondent executed a sale deed only on 18.07.2012, in the name of the petitioner, bearing Document No.3405 of 2012. After execution of the sale deed, the third respondent handed over possession to the petitioner. On 14.09.2012, the Deputy Tahsildar, Thanjavur, transferred patta in the name of the petitioner. From that date onwards, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. 5. While so, the third respondent cancelled the sale in favour of the petitioner, by his letter dated 15.11.2012 referring to the proceedings, dated 05.11.2012 and G.O.(Ms)No.224, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 27.11.2009. The said cancellation was without any notice to the petitioner. The third respondent having received the full amount in the year 2004 itself, cannot cancel the sale deed in the year 2012 stating that the petitioner violated Condition No.3 of auction notice. Therefore, the petitioner prayed for quashing the order of cancellation. 6. The said cancellation was without any notice to the petitioner. The third respondent having received the full amount in the year 2004 itself, cannot cancel the sale deed in the year 2012 stating that the petitioner violated Condition No.3 of auction notice. Therefore, the petitioner prayed for quashing the order of cancellation. 6. The second respondent filed counter affidavit denying the various averments made by the petitioner. According to the second respondent, as per terms and conditions of auction, the successful bidder must pay 50% of the cost of the plot on the date of auction. The bid of the petitioner for Rs.5,34,816/- was highest and it was accepted. The petitioner ought to have paid Rs.2,67,408/-, being 50% of the cost of the plot on the date of auction. But the petitioner has remitted only Rs.1,94,985/-. He has paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- on the date of public auction as EMI. Therefore, the petitioner paid only a sum of Rs.1,84,985/- and violated Condition No.3 of auction notice. 7. The second respondent Regional Deputy Registrar (Housing), Thanjavur, finding the irregularities committed by the third respondent Society, directed the third respondent to cancel the allotment of B-1 Plot and initiate action to cancel the registration of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. The second respondent pointed out that the Society has violated Condition No.3 of auction sale and Bye-law No.46(J) of the third respondent. Plot No.B1, measuring an extent of 4,320/- sq.ft., was allotted by the Society on 07.10.2002. The petitioner has not paid the cost of the plot till 31.03.2012 and thereby, violating Condition No.3 of public auction sale and Bye-law 46(J) of the third respondent. Therefore, the third respondent initiated action, terminating the allotment of Plot No.B1 and the sale to the petitioner. Therefore, the cancellation of sale is valid and legal. 8. Heard Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 9. I have perused the pleadings and considered the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 10. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the sale in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the impugned order, dated 15.11.2012 of the third respondent based on the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 05.11.2012. 10. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the sale in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the impugned order, dated 15.11.2012 of the third respondent based on the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 05.11.2012. The reason given by the third respondent in the proceedings is violation of Condition No.3 of the auction notice and Bye-law 46(J) of the third respondent. As per Condition No.3, 50% of the bid offered by the petitioner ought to have been paid on the date of auction itself i.e., 07.10.2002. The petitioner did not comply with the said condition. Further, as per Bye-law 46(J) of the third respondent, the petitioner ought to have paid balance amounts within three months from the date of allotment i.e., on or before 07.01.2003. The petitioner has violated this condition. The respondents 2 and 3 did not take any action and did not cancel the allotment at that time. On the other hand, they received five payments from K.Baskaran from 19.07.2004 to 03.08.2004. According to the respondents 2 and 3, the amount was kept in suspension account. But the third respondent transferred the said amount to the account of the petitioner on 31.03.2012, based on an Affidavit of undertaking of K.Baskaran, dated 27.01.2012. On receipt of these amounts, the third respondent executed sale deed on 18.07.2012 registered as Document No.3405 of 2012 and handed over possession to the petitioner. 11. The third respondent by the impugned order, dated 15.11.2012, cancelled the sale deed as per instructions of the second respondent, dated 05.11.2012. No notice was issued to the petitioner. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forth his case. This is in violation of principles of natural justice. Further, the third respondent received five payments totalling Rs.4,39,831/- between 09.07.2004 and 03.08.2004. For the reasons best known to the third respondent, the said amount was kept in suspension account. Subsequently, based on the affidavit of undertaking of K.Baskaran, the third respondent transferred the said amount to the account of the petitioner. The third respondent did not cancel the allotment of the petitioner in the year 2002 or before 07.01.2003 i.e., expiry of three months from the date of allotment viz., 07.10.2002. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 12. The third respondent did not cancel the allotment of the petitioner in the year 2002 or before 07.01.2003 i.e., expiry of three months from the date of allotment viz., 07.10.2002. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 12. In view of the fact that the entire sale consideration was paid and the sale deed had been executed in favour of the petitioner and the impugned order was passed without notice to the petitioner, the impugned orders are set aside. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.