JUDGMENT :

G.JAYACHANDRAN, SUNDER MOHAN, JJ.

PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters of Patent, against the order dated 18.03.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.5417 of 2008.

Since the issues involved in both the Writ Appeals are one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their description in the Writ Petition.

3. R.Ramasubbu, the appellant in W.A.(MD)No.598 of 2011 was forced to approach this Court by way of W.P.(MD)No.5417 of 2008 being aggrieved by the order of the first respondent/Registrar of Co-operative Societies [Housing], cancelling the allotment of the Plot, bearing No.B207, which was sold to him by the third respondent Society through the registered sale deed, dated 07.03.1986, for valuable consideration.

4. The first respondent passed a proceedings, dated 28.04.2008, cancelling the allotment for not complying the condition of putting up construction in the vacant site within a period of two years. The third respondent/Special Officer of the Housing Site Society, after cancelling the allotment, had allotted the Plot to the fourth respondent K.R.Subbaiah, who on receipt of the allotment order, had put up construction and resided in that house. Under the said circumstances, the Writ Petition has been filed on the ground that the sale deed executed pursuant to the allotment, cannot be unilaterally cancelled without serving proper notice and affording an opportunity to the allottee.

5. Claiming that after allotment of the Plot and transfer of property in his name, the writ petitioner started construction in the Plot by putting up foundation. Meanwhile, he was transferred and therefore, not able to continue the construction by supervising the same. However, the third respondent with mala fide intention has deliberately sent a notice dated 01.09.1993, regarding his proposal to cancel the sale deed, dated 07.03.1986, to the incorrect address in order to favour the fourth respondent.

6. Attributing malice on the conduct of the third respondent to favour the fourth respondent, the Writ Petition was filed for quashing the proceedings, dated 28.04.2008 and pass an order, directing the respondents 3 and 4 to hand over possession of the Plot, bearing S.No.234/2, Plot No.B207, Kalanivasal Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District, which was illegally sold to the fourth respondent without proper cancellation of the earlier sale deed.

7. The respondents 3 and 4 contested the Writ Petition by engaging a counsel and filing counter. According to them, the writ petitioner failed to comply the mandatory condition of allotment, since he has not completed construction within a period of two years of the allotment. After due notice, the allotment was cancelled and the Plot was re-allotted to the fourth respondent.

8. Questioning the cancellation of the sale deed, the writ petitioner instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.57 of 1996, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karaikudi and the same was dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction with an observation that the dispute has to be raised before the second respondent/Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies [Housing] as per the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 [hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''].

9. Challenging the said dismissal order, the writ petitioner filed A.S.No.49 of 1999 before the Subordinate Court, Devakottai. The said appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, the writ petitioner approached the second respondent/ Deputy Registrar under Section 90 of the Act challenging the proceedings of the third respondent, cancelling the sale deed stood in his name. The said appeal was allowed and the second respondent passed an award on 29.08.2007 declaring that the deed of cancellation dated 03.05.1994 against the writ petitioner and the sale deed made in favour of the fourth respondent on 23.05.1994 are invalid.

10. Being aggrieved, the fourth respondent preferre