Unilateral cancellations of plot allotments without notice violate principles of natural justice and are therefore legally void.

ORDER

The above writ petition has been filed for the following relief :

“to call for the records of the impugned communication of the 1^st respondent in N.K.No. 1890/2003/Sapa dated 22/08/2013 recommending for re- allotment of the property to the 4^th respondent and communication of the 3^rd respondent dated 24/10/2016 in N.K.No.4900/2016/Sapa-1 directing the 1^st respondent to take follow-up action pursuant to his recommendation and communication dated 22/08/2013 and the communication by the 1^st respondent to 2^nd respondent dated 23.06.2017 in N.K.No.1066/2016/Sapa and quash the same and forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in Plot No.A-15 in Kalanivasal, Karaikudi, Sivaganga District allotted by Tamil Nadu Government Officials Co-operative Housing Society MDA-HSG 45 by resorting to cancellation of allotment sale deed dated 09.05.1995 in his favour.”

2. The facts as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is hereinbelow set out :

2.1 The petitioner would submit that he was allotted Plot No.15-A in N.G.G.O.Colony, Kalanivasal, Karaikudi Town, Sivagangai District by the Karaikudi Government Servant Co-operative Housing Society. On 09.05.1995, a sale deed was also executed in his favour. Within two years of the sale, the petitioner in compliance of the bye-law of the society, had constructed a house which is assessed to tax.

2.2 It is the contention of the petitioner that the 4^th respondent and other persons who were allotted various plots had not complied with the conditions of the bye-laws of the society as well as sale deed and therefore, after issuing notices and a paper publication, the allotment was cancelled and the society had resumed possession of the property.

2.3 Thereafter, the plots were allotted to others and Plot No.15-A was originally allotted to 4^th respondent and after its cancellation, the same was allotted to the petitioner. Thereafter, the 4^th respondent has managed to get allotment in favour of the petitioner cancelled without notice to the petitioner. On coming to know about the said order, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.8050 of 2000. By an order dated 12.10.2000, the order of the 1^st respondent, Deputy Registrar was set aside and the matter was remitted back to him to conduct fresh enquiry after affording an opportunity to all the parties concerned. On 07.06.2002, the 1^st respondent conducted a fresh enquiry and confirmed the allotment and sale deed in favour of the petitioner and cancelled the sale in favour of the 4^th respondent on the ground that there is a violation of the conditions prescribed. The 4^th respondent thereafter preferred an appeal to the 3^rd respondent and by an order, dated 20.12.2014, the 3^rd respondent directed the 1^st respondent to enquire the 4^th respondent and had also made observations regarding the cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the 4^th respondent. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.No.3276 of 2005. By an order, dated 16.11.2007, this Court was pleased to quash the observations made by the 3^rd respondent with reference to the cancellation of sale deed in favour of the 4^th respondent and the 1^st respondent was directed to conduct enquiry afresh and pass orders after affording an opportunity including personal hearing to the parties.

2.4 It is the contention of the petitioner that for over 10 years, he had not received any notice from the respondents and his efforts to gather these details had drawn blank.

2.5 While so, the 4^th respondent had filed W.P.No.4642 of 2017 stating that the order directing reallotment of the plot has been obtained by him and the order had also directed the cancellation of the sale in favour of the petitioner. The 3^rd respondent had recommended to the 1^st respondent to this effect and the 3^rd respondent directed the 1^st respondent to