JUDGMENT :

Paresh Upadhyay, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 6 December 2021 passed by learned single Judge recorded on W.P.No.7577 of 2012. This appeal is by the original writ petitioner.

2. The prayer clause in the writ petition reads as under:-

“Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned communication of the third respondent in Letter No.7/8816/98 dated 07.03.2012, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the Housing Plot bearing Plot No.112/5H in A.S.S.F.No.112/63 in Annathanapatty Village, Salem District after determining the final cost in accordance with law.”

3. Learned single Judge has not accepted any of these two prayers and has held that no interference is required in the order of the respondents - Housing Board ordering eviction of the original writ petitioner from the property.

4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had invested huge amount of about Rs.30 lakhs for repairing/ constructing the property in the plot, which he had received from his father. The appellant has retired from Government service as Record Clerk. It is submitted that mistakes were committed by the appellant, however, the order impugned in the writ petition was also not legal. It is submitted that even after the order passed by the respondent-authorities ordering eviction, the further statement by them shows exorbitant interest is asked for from the original writ petitioner which he may not be able to meet with. Reference in this regard is made to the statement dated 10.11.2021. It is submitted that some accommodation be granted by the Court for making payment. It is submitted that this appeal be entertained.

5. Learned Advocate for the Housing Board has submitted that after paying initial amount of few thousand rupees at the time of allotment, no payment is made by the writ petitioner. Attention of the Court is also invited to the finding recorded by learned single Judge that though there was lock and seal by the Housing Board, the writ petitioner not only broke open it and encroached it, he made further constructions and inducted other tenants to earn from that property. It is submitted that on the face of these facts, no interference be made and this appeal be dismissed. Attention of the Court is also invited to the contents of counter filed in the writ petition, which inter alia indicates that the writ petitioner was a Government servant and he was allotted the property in question under the Government Discretionary Quota. The appellant, except paying few thousand rupees, not even paid a rupee and approached different legal forums not to get final declaration in his favour but to keep the litigation alive, at some stage, and to allow / get it suspended/ dismissed.

6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under:

6.1 The point at issue before this Court is whether the relief sought for by the writ petitioner can be granted. So far, the order of the year 2012 ordering eviction is concerned, it is noted that the allotment itself was cancelled by the Housing Board, which is not the subject matter of the writ petition. The said cancellation is not even challenged before appropriate forum, instead the petitioner approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which is mere eye wash and going before a Civil Court is only to earn dismissal for non prosecution. Even the suit filed was only to get the relief to make a show that the matter is pending. Such a conduct of the appellant could not be countenanced.

6.2 The eviction ordered in the year 2012, was not for the first time. Earlier also the property in question was sealed and locked, which was again encroached by the petitioner.

7. The impugned order is quoted hereunder, with concurrence that the appellant could not be granted any re