The main legal point established in the judgment is that a decree obtained by the original landowners, which has reached finality, cannot be challenged through a writ petition, and the appropriate remedy for the appellant is before the civil forum.

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

1. The appellant herein is the writ petitioner and aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition in W.P.No.8671 of 2004 dated 01.04.2004, had preferred this writ appeal.

2. The facts which are necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are given here under:

The writ petition was filed by the appellant-Sangam challenging the vires of the Government order in G.O.(MS) No.121 Housing and Urban Development (LAIV(2) Department dated 09.03.2001 passed by the first respondent wherein the first respondent has directed the assignment of 50 cents of land to respondents 4 to 8 and other original land owners.

2. 1 The lands in T.S.Nos.2, 3 of Ward No.1, Block No.1 and Survey No.37/2 admeasuring an extent of 5.61 acres were acquired by the Government in the year 1972 for the purposes of the construction of houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board/the second respondent. Respondents 4 to 8 herein were the original owners of the acquired lands. After acquisition, the award came to be passed in Award No.3 of 1979 on 111. 1979 and possession of the lands was taken on 012. 1979.

2. 2 Respondents 4 to 8, not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, had sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and it was numbered as L.A.O.P.No.13 of 1980. In the reference, the quantum of compensation was further enhanced and respondents 4 to 8 had also received the same. On 012. 1979, the second respondent herein took possession of the lands acquired and thereafter, the second respondent had plotted out the entire area of 5.61 acres and the layout was also approved vide LP/R(SC)No.198/80 dated 27.01.1981 after leaving out open areas and common spaces as provided in the approved lay out. Thereafter, the second respondent had constructed 148 flats and sold out the same to the members of the appellant-Sangam and the members are in occupation and enjoyment of the respective flats. On 01.04.1983, an order was passed handing over the common areas, open spaces and amenities etc to the petitioner-Sangam, who are maintaining the same.

2. 3 As per the approved lay out, a portion of the land in T.S.No.2 and 3 of Ward No.1, Block No.1 in Survey No.37/2 in the South Eastern portion of the lay out and an extent of 7780 sq.ft were earmarked as open space in which the common well is situated, and it is also the drinking water source for the entire flats. The adjacent portion of the land admeasuring 14,520 sq.ft., though was initially earmarked for shops, was all along treated as open space for common enjoyment. According to the appellant-Sangam, the common area was earmarked as 10.25% and therefore, the second respondent-Housing Board is duty bound to leave the said portion as common area in terms of the Development Control Rules and the common area so calculated was 24,437 sq.ft.

2. 4 During January, 2004, some third parties claiming to be a flat promoters, authorised by respondents 4 to 8, attempted to survey and fence the abovesaid open space claiming that they have got permission from the third respondent to do so. Immediately, the appellant-Sangam contacted the third respondent, who informed them that the second respondent was taking steps to allot the said open space to the original land owners, who are respondents 4 to 8. Therefore, the appellant-Sangam had filed a suit in O.S.No.127 of 2004 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Salem against respondents 2 and 3 herein praying for injunction restraining the defendants thereon from executing any sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of anybody and pending disposal of the suit, had obtained an order of ad interim injunction in I.A.No.215 of 2004 on 13.02.2004.

2. 5 Respondents 2 and 3 filed written statement and counter in the suit as well as interlocutory application in I.A.No.215 of 2004 and from the averments, the appellant-Sangam came to know that respondents 4 to 8 herein had filed O.S.No.1866 of 1980 on the file of Court of District Munsif, S