Madras High Court
The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board vs A.Thangamariyappan on 23 October, 2024
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
W.A.No.122 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
W.A.No.122 of 2022
AND
C.M.P.No.911 of 2022
1.The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
Rep. by its Chairman
No.5, Kamarajar Salai
Chennai 600 005
2.The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
Rep. by its Managing Director
No.5, Kamarajar Salai
Chennai 600 005
3.The Estate Officer
Estate Officer III
Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
Chennai 600 040 .. Appellants
Vs.
1.A.Thangamariyappan
2.K.Thulasi
3.Ritaflorence Jekapraj
4.R.Narayanan
5.G.Nandhagopal .. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.A.No.122 of 2022
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order
dated 06.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10536 of 2019.
For Appellant : Mrs.G.Thilagavathy
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Karthikeyan
Standing Counsel
For Respondents : Ms.M.Sneha
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)
This appeal is directed as against the order dated 06.01.2021 passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10536 of 2019, allowing the writ petition
filed by the respondents for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to
quash the order of the 1st appellant dated 08.02.2019 and the 2nd appellant's
resolution dated 17.10.2016 and for a direction to the appellants to allot the plot
which is in possession of the respondents in S.No.866/9, situated in New Anna
Nagar, Thanthai Periyar Nagar and Annai Sathya Nagar in Tirumullaivoyal
Village.
2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal
are as follows :
2.1. The respondents/writ petitioners are slum dwellers and it is their case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that they are residing in the land in S.No.866/9, Tirumullaivoyal Village,
consisting of three residential areas viz., New Anna Nagar, Thanthai Periyar
Nagar and Annai Sathya Nagar. It is the case of the writ petitioners that they
are very poor and downtrodden, apart from socially and economically backward
and they are in possession of the said survey land for more than three decades
by putting up a residential construction.
2.2. The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board (in short “Board”) was
entrusted to rehabilitate the slum dwellers, including the writ petitioners. Even
though several representations were submitted by the writ petitioners to show
that they are in possession in the said survey number by producing material
records like aadhaar card, ration card, property tax receipts, etc., the appellants
have not passed any orders on the representations.
2.3. However, by the order impugned in the writ petition, the
representation of the writ petitioners for allotment, was rejected on the ground
that their names are not found in the list of eligible persons prepared through
the Board's Engineer. However, in the same communication, the writ
petitioners were informed that the Board will take action for allotment, as per
the resolution of the Board dated 17.10.2016, in case the writ petitioners are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
willing to pay the guideline value as on date.
2.4. From the resolution of the Board dated 17.10.2016, it is seen that the
Board had resolved that the plots recorded as vacant in the original eligibility
list prepared during inception of Tamil Nadu Urban Development Programme
and Madras Urban Development Programme schemes, shall be allotted to the
persons who claim to live in the plot for more than 30 years continuously after
verification of field and relevant documents by collecting the present guideline
value of the plot towards the land value.
2.5. The appellants filed a counter affidavit stating that an enumeration
was taken for the entire area in the year 1989 and a list of eligible persons who
are eligible for assignment was prepared before the implementation of the
scheme. It is specifically contended by the appellants that the names of the writ
petitioners were not found in the eligible list and allotments were made only in
favour of those whose names were found in the enumeration list. It is further
stated that the writ petitioners were not residing there and hence, remaining
lands were notified as vacant, when the list was prepared.
2.6. Even though a specific contention was raised that the writ petitioners
have produced their aadhaar card and ration card as evidence to prove that they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
have obtained electricity connection and property tax had been paid, the
appellants reiterate their contention that the writ petitioners are now residing in
the plot which was notified as vacant land and the appellants will issue
allotment order in favour of the writ petitioners, only if they are willing to pay
guideline value of the plot.
2.7. It is pertinent to mention that one Thirulochana Kumari, who resided
in plot No.386 in Annai Sathya Nagar, like the writ petitioners, filed
W.P.No.40790 of 2016 against the appellants and sought allotment of a plot.
Even in the counter affidavit, it is admitted that pursuant to the order in the said
writ petition, an enquiry was conducted and the Board had issued allotment to
Thirulochana Kumari.
2.8. The same stand was taken in the earlier writ petition by the
appellants and therefore, the eligibility of another person, who was similarly
placed got assignment, pursuant to the directions of this Court is admitted by
the appellants. The learned Single Judge, after narrating the facts and
contentions of the respective parties, relying upon the order in W.P.No.40790
of 2016, directed the writ petitioners to make a fresh representation along with
their documents showing that they have been residing in the respective plots
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and on receiving such representations, the 1st appellant is directed to consider
the same and pass orders in accordance with law, in the light of the order
passed in the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.40790 of 2016. Aggrieved by the
same, the above appeal is preferred.
3. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record and the
records produced by the appellants.
4. From the sequence of events, it is not in dispute that the learned Single
Judge allowed the writ petition, following the decision in W.P.No.40790 of
2016. Since it is admitted that the petitioner in W.P.No.40790 of 2016 also got
allotment, pursuant to an enquiry as directed by this Court, the learned Judge
held that the writ petitioners who are similarly placed also should get the
benefit of the order. This order of the learned Single Judge is challenged before
this Court, mainly on the ground that the writ petitioners cannot be treated as
similar to the petitioner in W.P.No.40790 of 2016 and that the facts are not
identical.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that
the petitioner in W.P.No.40790 of 2016 was a person who sought allotment of a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
vacant plot and therefore, the order of allotment was made in her favour, after
enquiry. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel before us now that the
writ petitioners are in possession of the plots for quite sometime and therefore,
they are different from the petitioner in W.P.No.40790 of 2016.
6. The contention that the writ petitioners are not similar to the person
who filed the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.40790 of 2016, is incorrect and
misleading. This Court perused the entire order. The pleadings both in the
affidavit and counter in the writ petition is recorded in the order. The petitioner
in W.P.No.40790 of 2016 has pleaded the exact case as pleaded by the writ
petitioners. Similarly, the same stand taken by the appellants in this case was
taken in the earlier writ petition.
7. It is the case of the appellants in the earlier writ petition that they have
enumerated a list of eligible persons and the name of the writ petitioner therein
was not found in the list enumerated earlier in 1989. The appellants in the
present case have come forward with a list prepared in 1988 as a defence to
nonsuit the writ petitioners. The contention of appellant that a final list was
prepared in 1988, is of course borne out from the records. However, it is to be
noted that the appellants are permitted to enter into possession for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
implementation of the scheme, only after the proceedings of the Commissioner,
Land Administration dated 16.09.1994, permitting the Revenue Secretary to
hand over the possession to the Board.
8. It is seen that only after G.O.Ms.No.370 Revenue Department dated
09.07.1999, permission was granted for entering into possession for
transferring the land in favour of Board. Therefore, the list allegedly prepared
by the appellants is not an authenticated list, which this Court cannot rely upon.
It is to be seen that the appellants have produced before this Court the
proceedings of the District Collector, Chengalpattu, dated 08.01.1992, wherein,
it is stated that in respect of land in S.No.866 of Anna Nagar, Periyar Nagar,
Annai Sathya Nagar, the District Collector had made an assessment in 1992 and
found 714 encroachments and that all the encroachers identified were in
possession for more than 10 years.
9. It is admitted that the list prepared in 1988 by the appellants shows
only 697 names of eligible persons, who are found to be in encroachment. In
the report of the District Collector, it is stated that all those encroachers, who
are identified in possession are residing there for more than 10 years.
Therefore, this Court is unable to accept the submission of the learned Senior
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Counsel appearing for the appellants that the writ petitioners are not residing in
the property, merely because the writ petitioners name were not found in the list
prepared by the appellants in the year 1988.
10. This Court finds that the writ petitioners in W.P.No.10536 of 2019
are not different from the petitioner in the earlier W.P.No.40790 of 2016.
Therefore, the directions of the learned Single Judge, which is in tune with the
earlier order in W.P.No.40790 of 2016, cannot be faulted.
11. In view of the foregoing reasons, this writ appeal stands dismissed.
The appellants shall pass appropriate orders as directed by the learned Single
Judge, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.
[S.S.S.R.,J.] [A.D.M.C., J.]
23.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
gya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
AND
A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
gya
23.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
