The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to afford sufficient opportunity to the parties involved before making a decision and to ensure that the decision is not influenced by any exparte decree.

Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the 1st Respondent in Proceedings No. Na.Ka.No.8366/87 E3 dated 20.02.2001 and consequently to direct the 1st Respondent to issue allotment of Plot No.279 G.K.M. Colony, Chennai-82 to the Petitioner.

2. Petitioner was allotted Plot No.279 in G.K.M. Colony, Konnur village, Purasawalkam-Perambur Taluk measuring an extent of 2228 sq.ft. (207 sq. Mts.) by allotment No.142/81 dated 22. 1984. 1st Respondents Board also given no objection to the Petitioner for obtaining electricity service connection, drainage and metro water connection and other basic amenities. Petitioner was also put in possession of Plot No.279. Entire sale consideration was paid by the Petitioner to the Respondents 1 and

2. But the sale deed was not executed.

3. Petitioner is the wife of late Kanniah Naidu. Kanniah Naidu had one brother by name Saminathan. 3rd Respondent Selvarangam is none other than the son of the said Saminathan. Selvarangam is the allottee of adjacent Plot No.280.

4. 3rd Respondent Selvarangam has filed suit in O.S.No.1292/1987 on the file of II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for Specific Performance and for injunction restraining the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent from interfering with his possession in respect of suit property thereon. The said suit O.S.No.1292/1987 was decreed exparte.

5. Referring to the decree in O.S.No.1292/1987, 1st Respondent has passed the impugned order in Proceedings Na.Ka.No.8366/87 E3 dated 20.02.2001 cancelling the allotment order in favour of the Petitioner for Plot No.279.

6. Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. Natarajan Pushpalatha has submitted that no notice was served upon the Petitioner before passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that 3rd Respondent is the allottee of adjacent Plot No.280 and that he could claim no right in Plot No.279. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submit that Petitioner has paid the entire sale consideration to the Respondents 1 and 2 and while so, 1st Respondent was not justified in cancelling the allotment order without even affording opportunity to the Petitioner.

7. 3rd Respondent Selvarangam though served has neither entered appearance nor filed his counter. His name has been printed in the cause list.

8. Heard Mr. Bhuvanesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2.

9. By perusal of records, it is seen that the impugned order was passed solely by referring to the Judgment in O.S.No.1292/1987. When the 3rd Respondent is the allottee for Plot No.280, it is not known how he could claim right and possession in respect of Plot No.279 also. 1st Respondent should have afforded opportunity to the Petitioner by issuing notice before taking any decision. Since the Petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

10. In the result, the impugned order made by the 1st Respondent in Proceedings Na.Ka.No.8366/87 E3 dated 20.02.2001 is set aside and this Writ Petition is allowed. 1st Respondent is directed to afford sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner as well as 3rd Respondent by sending notice and pass appropriate orders. 1st Respondent shall take decision without being influenced by the exparte decree passed in O.S.No.1292/1987. 1st Respondent shall pass orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.