JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is the President of Saidapet Depressed Class Co-operative House Site Society Limited, registered on 16.06.1970, under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and started functioning from 10.08.1970. The said Society consists of 64 members of whom 45 members are from Hindu Adi Dravida Community (Harijan Community) and the rest belongs to other depressed communities (such as 2 are Burma Refugees, 2 are Srilanka Refugees, 2 washer-men and 5 barbers). The petitioner's sole object was to acquire house sites for the members of the Society who belongs to economically weaker section of the society and landless. 2. The petitioner has submitted that the land measuring 1.76 acres (totally 32 grounds) bearing Survey No.23/1 in T.S.No.23 part, Block No.12, situated in Kothawal Chavadi Street, Saidapet, Chennai and within the Registration Sub-District of Saidapet originally belonged to one R.Venugopal and Veeraraghavan. The said petitioner Society entered into an agreement of sale for the sale of the 32 grounds of the land to the petitioner's Society for valuable consideration. Out of 32 grounds of land, 16 grounds jointly belonged to the said R.Venugopal and Veeraraghavan and the remaining 16 grounds belonged to one Late Shri. R.Govindarajulu Chetty. The petitioner purchased the land measuring the above said 16 grounds belonging to Veeraraghavan and R.Venugopal under a registered sale deed dated 27.02.1974. Pursuant to the sale deed, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the land in the above said survey number. As far as the land pertaining to Late Shri. R.Govindarajuly Chetty is concerned, a sale deed was executed on stamp papers on 27.02.1974 and the document was presented to the Sub-Registrar, Saidapet. However, the Sub Registrar, Saidapet, insisted upon the production of Income-Tax Certificate by Late Shri. R.Govindarajulu Chetty. But, Late Shri. R.Govindarajulu Chetty failed to produce the same. On the execution of the sale deed, the petitioner was put in possession of the property. The sale deed was originally kept pending by the Sub-Registrar, but subsequently returned the same for non-production of the Income-Tax Certificate by Late Shri. R.Govindarajulu Chetty. 3. The petitioner has further submitted that in the mean time, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act came into force with effect from 03.08.1976. The competent authority under the said Act, declared out of 16 grounds, the authorized officer passed final declaration and acquired 2567 sq.meters in the said vacant land. 3. The petitioner has further submitted that in the mean time, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act came into force with effect from 03.08.1976. The competent authority under the said Act, declared out of 16 grounds, the authorized officer passed final declaration and acquired 2567 sq.meters in the said vacant land. The remaining area has not been acquired by the Government. In order to protect the interest of the Society, the Society has also filed a suit against the Government in O.S.No.8158 of 1988 for a declaration that the said property does not vest with the Government under the above Act. At the same time, Late Shri. R.Govindarajulu Chetty has also filed writ petition in W.P.No.14239 of 1988 before this Court, to quash the said proceedings. The said Late R.Govindarajulu Chetty has also obtained interim stay of the order. But, however, on a negotiation made by the petitioner and the said Late R.Govindarajulu Chetty with the Government Officers, it was originally agreed to lease the land since the property was going to be given to the petitioner's society and hence the then Government of Tamil Nadu felt that under the directive principles of State Policy, the petitioner Society should be encouraged. In that view, the then Government of Tamil Nadu agreed for the closure, but insisted the suit as well as writ petition should be withdrawn. Accordingly, both the petitioner and the said Late Shri. R.Govindarajulu Chetty withdrew the respective suit / writ before the Court of Law. But, unfortunately the President's Rule was imposed and after the President's Rule, the Government did not fulfill its promise. In the meantime, taking advantage of the situation, the said Late Shri.R.Govindarajulu Chetty prayed for a fresh agreement and insisted upon payment of further money. For that, the said Late Shri. R.Govindarajulu Chetty cunningly met the President of the plaintiff Society to include the difference in higher price as a consideration for improvement i.e., further a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- in addition to Rs.34,350/- already paid by way of sale consideration during the execution of the earlier sale deed dated 27.02.1974. Furthermore, the said Late R.Govindarajulu Chetty also obtained a sum of Rs.10,000/- immediately on the execution of the agreement of sale, dated 25.07.1991 which was executed by the petitioner and the said Late R.Govindarajulu Chetty agreeing to sell the property and again on 27.07.1991, he also obtained another sum of Rs.5,000/-. Furthermore, the said Late R.Govindarajulu Chetty also obtained a sum of Rs.10,000/- immediately on the execution of the agreement of sale, dated 25.07.1991 which was executed by the petitioner and the said Late R.Govindarajulu Chetty agreeing to sell the property and again on 27.07.1991, he also obtained another sum of Rs.5,000/-. But, when the matter is about to be over, suddenly on 07.10.1994, the said Late R.Govindarajulu Chetty, sent a notice enclosing a pay order for Rs.49,350/- stating that the contract was cancelled. Immediately, the petitioner sent a letter dated 28.12.1994 to him and returned the Pay Order to him stating that he should execute the Sale Deed. It is also pointed out by the petitioner that not the entire 16 grounds were taken over by the Government and only 12 grounds have been taken and the balance 4 grounds are necessarily to be executed in favour of the petitioner. In that view, the petitioner stated that the cancellation of contract is final. Therefore, the petitioner has no other alternative but to write a letter dated 06.04.1995 stating that the cancellation is illegal and the petitioner is entitled for execution of the sale deed. Without prejudice to the contentions, the petitioner has encashed the demand draft and stated that it is instituting a suit before this Court for Specific Performance of Contract. 4. The petitioner has further submitted that in the mean time, Late R.Govindarajulu Chetty has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the above said Act, for exempting the lands. In that, the petitioner Society has got impleaded as a party respondent. The appeal filed by the said Late R.Govindarajulu Chetty was dismissed under order No.J2/39096/94, dated 02.05.1995 by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. Against that, the said Late R.Govindarajulu Chetty filed W.P.No.11423 of 1995. The petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has already purchased adjoining lands to the extent of 16 grounds for the construction of house sites to the members and also entered into sale agreement with Mr. R.Govindarajulu Chetty for purchase of 16 grounds. The petitioner has further submitted that out of 16 grounds belonging to Late R.Govindarajulu Chetty, the Government has acquired land to the extent of 2567 sq.meters in Survey No.23/1 in Saidapet on 26.07.1993, under Tamil Nadu Land (Ceiling) Act as surplus lands. R.Govindarajulu Chetty for purchase of 16 grounds. The petitioner has further submitted that out of 16 grounds belonging to Late R.Govindarajulu Chetty, the Government has acquired land to the extent of 2567 sq.meters in Survey No.23/1 in Saidapet on 26.07.1993, under Tamil Nadu Land (Ceiling) Act as surplus lands. Since then, the petitioner's society has been constantly and consistently pursuing the matter with the Government to allot the 2567 sq.mts for construction of house sites for the members of the petitioner's society who are landless, economically weaker and belonging to Scheduled Caste and Tribes. On many occasions, the Government higher officials of various Departments have written to the Government to allot the said 2567 sq.meters to the petitioner's Society but unfortunately, the Government did not pass orders despite knowing that it is the duty enshrined in the Constitution of India to allot the said land to the petitioner's society for their upliftment and for their livelihood. The petitioner on behalf of the Society, has represented before the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu with regard to allocation of surplus vacant land to the extent of 2567 sq.meters in Survey numbers 23/1 in Saidapet, on 05.06.2013. The Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling Department, Chepauk submitted a detailed report which was informed to the petitioner on 19.07.2013. Therefore, the petitioner applied for certain details under RTI Act to General Information Officer, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-5 and the following details were sought:- (i) To furnish the copy of the detailed report submitted by the Commissioner. (ii) The copy of Government Order, if any, issued in this regard. (iii) If the representation is yet to be considered, the details of the same. 5. The petitioner has further submitted that another representation dated 05.06.2013 was given to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in this regard narrating all the facts involved and the reasons for allocating the land to the petitioner's society which consists of mostly Hindu Adi Dravida Community and the rest belongs to other depressed communities. On 16.05.2013, a representation was given by the petitioner to the Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax, Chennai for considering the request of allocating the land to the extent of 2567 sq.meters. On 16.05.2013, a representation was given by the petitioner to the Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax, Chennai for considering the request of allocating the land to the extent of 2567 sq.meters. However, the Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax, as per their Letter Na.Ka.No.2872/2013/E2, dated 24.09.2013 informed that after examining the request of the petitioner's Society it has been decided that as per G.O.No.353, Revenue dated 30.06.2000, there is no priority in allotment of land to the Housing Co-operative Societies and therefore, the representation of the petitioner's Society is rejected. The impugned order has been issued by the first respondent based on the letter No.33232/NaneeU 1 (2) 2012-2, dated 22.07.2013 sent by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Tamil Nadu Government, the second respondent herein. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 6. The learned senior counsel Mr. K.V.Subramanian appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner's Co-operative House Site Society Limited is belonging to depressed class and it has been registered under the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act. The said Society started functioning from 1970 onwards. About 64 members have been enrolled in the Society and out of them 45 members are from Hindu Adi Dravida community and 2 members are Burma refugees, 2 are belonging to Sri Lanka refugees and 7 are belonging to the denotified community. The highly competent counsel has further submitted that the subject matter of the lands measuring upto 1.76 acres comprised in Survey No.23/1, situated at Kothawal Chavadi Street, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015, was originally belonging to one R.Venugopal and Veeraraghavan. The petitioner's Society entered into an agreement of sale for the said land. The petitioner's society had purchased the land measuring to an extent of 16 grounds under a registered sale deed dated 27.02.1974. The remaining 16 grounds are belonging to one R.Govindarajulu Chetty. After the purchase of the said land, the petitioner's society is in occupation and enjoyment as of now without any interference. 7. The very competent senior counsel has further submitted that the land to an extent of 16 grounds is belonging to R.Govindarajulu Chetty, and he had executed a sale deed on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Saidapet dated 27.02.1974 which is pending registration due to non-production of Income Tax Certificate. 7. The very competent senior counsel has further submitted that the land to an extent of 16 grounds is belonging to R.Govindarajulu Chetty, and he had executed a sale deed on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Saidapet dated 27.02.1974 which is pending registration due to non-production of Income Tax Certificate. However, on the strength of a sale deed executed by the erstwhile owner R.Govindarajulu Chetty, the petitioner's society is put in occupation. However, the sale deed executed by R.Govindarajulu Chetty is sustainable under law since there is no breach of conditions agreed by both parties i.e. Vendor and purchaser. Under these circumstances, the respondents, without following any procedure as per the Urban Land Ceiling Act, had declared that 2567 square meters has been acquired by them. The rest of the lands have not been acquired by the respondents. Therefore, the Society has filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.8158 of 1998 for declaration and injunction stating that they are in physical possession and enjoying the property as lawful occupants. 8. Subsequently on various dates the erstwhile owner received a sale consideration. Under the circumstances, the erstwhile owner has filed an appeal before the competent appellate authority, wherein the society had been impleaded as necessary party, but the said appeal has been dismissed and it was challenged by the erstwhile owner before this Court by way of writ petition. The respondent had acquired the said land to an extent of 2567 sq. meters as surplus lands dated 26.07.1993 without following Urban Land Ceiling Act. The petitioner society made several representations to the competent authorities attached to the State Government on various dates. The petitioner made a last representation on 16.05.2013 before the Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling which was rejected on 24.09.2013 stating that as per G.O.Ms.No.353 dated 30.06.2000, there is no priority in allotment of Land to the Housing Society. The said G.O. does not cover in the instant case since the petitioner's Society is consisting of 64 members, and as such each member and his family members are entitled to hold land to an extent of 500 sq. meters. As the erstwhile owner had failed to produce the Income Tax Certificate, sale deed registration was not done. However the petitioner's society has paid the sale consideration to the erstwhile owner. meters. As the erstwhile owner had failed to produce the Income Tax Certificate, sale deed registration was not done. However the petitioner's society has paid the sale consideration to the erstwhile owner. As such, there is a bad dispute and under the circumstances, the respondent is not permitted to initiate the Urban Land Ceiling Act in order to acquire the said land, since it has been occupied by members of the society from 27.02.1974. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable under law. Hence, the learned senior counsel has entreated the Court to allow the above writ petition. 9. The learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. M.S.Ramesh, appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner society has made a representation to the respondents to all of the surplus vacant land to its members. As per the G.O.Ms.No.353 dated 30.06.2000, the petitioner's society will not be given priority to all of the said lands, therefore, the impugned order has been passed and the petitioner's representation was rejected. 10. From the above discussion, the views of this Court is as follows:- (i) The need of the Registered Society consisting of 64 members, who do not have house sites is of paramount importance; besides both Governments main aim and objects are to provide house shelter to all weaker section of people. In the instant case, the 64 members belonging to weaker section of the society, Adi Dravida community, refugees and denotified persons. (ii) The Registered Society had purchased 16 grounds from the erstwhile owner R.Venugopal and Veeraraghavan under a registered sale deed dated 27.02.1974. From date of purchase, the petitioner's society members are in occupation and enjoyment. The subject matter of the land is also comprised in the same survey number i.e. S.No.23/1, is an adjacent land. The erstwhile owner R.Govindarajulu Chetty had executed a sale deed to and in favour of the petitioner's society on 27.02.1974, after receiving the full sale consideration. However, the said sale deed had been rejected for non production of Income Tax Certificate by the erstwhile owner. It reveals that the erstwhile owner R.Govindarajulu Chetty has wantonly and deliberately not produced the income tax certificate, and as such the sale deed is at an incomplete stage. However, the said sale deed had been rejected for non production of Income Tax Certificate by the erstwhile owner. It reveals that the erstwhile owner R.Govindarajulu Chetty has wantonly and deliberately not produced the income tax certificate, and as such the sale deed is at an incomplete stage. However, on the basis of sale deed executed by the erstwhile owner dated 27.02.1974, a civil dispute is going on between them before the Court of law as well as the competent authorities attached to the State Government. (iii) Under these circumstances, the respondents had acquired lands to an extent of 2567 sq. meters comprised in S.No.23/1, situated at Kothawal Chavadi Street, Saidapet, through order dated 26.07.1993 which is not valid. Hence the acquisition proceedings made by the respondents is set aside. In order to prove the dispute between the erstwhile owner and the petitioner's society, the society has made payments on three occasions for completing the said sale transaction. (iv) Just because the property is situated at a prime location in Saidapet it does not entail that the poor are to be barred from it, for that would cause caste discrimination. (v) The original sale deed which was executed on adequate stamp papers on 27.02.1974 is valid. The non production of Income Tax Certificate by the erstwhile owner does not affect the petitioner society's civil rights, besides, the terms and conditions of the sale deed dated 27.02.1974 is suitable for execution and is sustainable under law. (vi) As per the Tamilnadu Urban Land and Ceiling Act, a member of the society and his family members are entitled to occupy 500 meters. In the instant case, the subject surplus lands cannot be determined as surplus lands. Therefore, the respondents have no locus standi to follow G.O.Ms.No.353 Revenue dated 30.06.2000, for allotment of land on priority basis. (vii) The petitioner's society is at liberty to continue to be in the care and custody of the President who in turn provides house sites to its members as per the by laws. The legal heirs of the erstwhile owner, the late R.Govindarajulu Chetty has to comply by executing the sale deed as per the original sale deed executed on stamp papers on 27.02.1974 subject to a reasonable negotiation between the petitioner's society and the legal heirs of the late R.Govindarajulu Chetty. The legal heirs of the erstwhile owner, the late R.Govindarajulu Chetty has to comply by executing the sale deed as per the original sale deed executed on stamp papers on 27.02.1974 subject to a reasonable negotiation between the petitioner's society and the legal heirs of the late R.Govindarajulu Chetty. (viii) The respondents herein and the legal heirs of the late R.Govindarajulu Chetty are not permitted to challenge this Court order in order to protect the house site less poor persons consisting of Adi Dravida community, refugees, denotified community, weaker section of the economically backward other communities. In order to maintain the social justice, the poor members of the society should also be allowed to reside in the prime areas of the Metro city. (ix) As per the petitioner's society bye laws, the members of the society have to be provided minimum requirement of vacant land for the purpose of construction of house for residential purpose. This aspect has to be taken care of as per the Principle of Indian Constitution Law. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsels on either side and on perusing the typed set of papers, and the views expressed in (i) to (ix) as above, the above writ petition does generate sufficient force to allow it. Accordingly allowed. Consequently, the impugned order letter Na.Ka.No.2872/2013/E2, dated 24.09.2013, on the file of the first respondent is quashed. Therefore, the respondents and the legal heirs of the late R.Govindarajulu Chetty are not permitted to file an appeal or any other application in pursuant of this order. As such, this order is finalized. 12. In the result, the above writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.