IN the HIGH COURT of JUDICATURE at MADRAS Dated
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 19.02.2018 Coram THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL AND THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.31114 of 2017 and W.M. P.No.34112 of 2017 1. S.Srinivasan 2. K.Lakshmanan 3. M.Ramu 4. Chinaponnu 5. Mariyammal 6. M.Dhandapani 7. S.Selvam 8. R.Arumugam 9. D.Jeeva 10.M.Rangasamy 11.M.Natarajan 12.C.Muthu 13.Murugan 14.S.Rajeswari 15.S.Ganesa Kumar 16.Ponnarasi 17.Annamalai 18.S.Venkatesan 19.Sekar 20.Rani Jayaraman 21.Selvakumar 22.R.Soundari 23.V.G.Kannaiyan 24.Krishnaveni 25.Ranganathan 26.Punniyakoti 27.Tamilvanan 28.S.Raja 29.A.Anjalai 30.M.Rapheal http://www.judis.nic.in 31.S.Saravanan Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) 2 32.B.Sekar 33.D.Ramesh 34.Navaneetham 35.Meganathan 36.J.Sumathi 37.Kumari 38.Krishnamurthy 39.A.K.Rajan 40.K.Natarajan 41.K.Arumugam 42.Dhanalakshmi 43.J.Valli 44.M.Arumugam 45.K.Lakshmi 46.J.A.Valli 47.Srinivasan 48.Annammal 49.S.Kumudha 50.N.M.Kabali 51.Thirumurthi 52.G.Kanniyappan 53.E.Muniyammal 54.Sanjai kumar 55.A.Anandan 56.Jayalakshmi 57.S.Saroja 58.P.Mohanaj 59.P.Saravanan 60.P.Mohanasundaram 61.P.Sekar 62.G.Chandrasekar 63.K.Velusamy 64.K.Vijayaraj 65.C.Vijaya 66.N.Vedagiri 67.S.Vasuki 68.N.Ganapathi 69.K.Ravi 70.D.Mani 71.Thiruvenkadam 72.Selvi 73.Poongavanam 74.Dhuraisamy http://www.judis.nic.in 75.Jagathambal Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) 3 76.Shanthi 77.Karunai Selvam 78.G.Sankar 79.K.Vasantha 80.G.E.Balan 81.A.Karupiah 82.P.Sivagami 83.M.Loganayaki 84.Rajaram 85.S.Muniyammal 86.M.Shanker 87.A.Arumugam 88.Malliga 89.S.Govindaraj 90.E.Kannan .. Petitioners Vs. 1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. By its Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009 2. The State of Tamilnadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Fort St. George, Chennai- 600009. 3. The Chairman and the Managing Director, Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai – 600 009 4. The Collector of Chennai Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 6000 001 5. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003 6. The Executive Engineer, PWD (WRO) (Araniyar Basic Division) http://www.judis.nic.in Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005 Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) 4 7. The Assistant Commissioner, Zone – XIII, Chennai Corporation Dr.Muthulakshmi Road, Adayar, Chennai – 600 020 8. The Executive Engineer, Division – VI, Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai – 600 018 9. The Tahsildar, Mylapore Taluk, Chennai – 600 028 10. Rajiv Rai ..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing Respondents 1 to 9 from evicting the Petitioners from their properties situated in Survey No.3961/3, Elango street, Govindasamy Nagar, Chennai – 600 028 and pass further orders. For Petitioners : Mr.Anirudh For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, for R1, R2, R4, R6 and R9 Special Government Pleader Mr.K.Soundarrajan, for R5, R7 Mr.S.Prabhu for R3 and R8 Mrs.M.R.Preethi for Mr.Roshan Balasubramaniam for R10 O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.] Petitioners have come forward with this Writ Petition, seeking to forbear the official Respondents from evicting them from the property, viz., in Survey No.3961/3, Elango street, Govindasamy Nagar, Chennai – 600 028. http://www.judis.nic.in Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) 5 2. The case of the Petitioners are as follows:- (i) Petitioners have been residing in Elango Street, Govindasamy Nagar, Chennai for more than 40 years and that the encroached area has been notified as 'Slum Area' by Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board as per G.O.(Ms) No.163 dated 28.02.1993. While so, the 10th respondent viz., Rajiv Rai has filed W.P.No.9494 of 2006 before this Court stating that he is the owner of the property in Re-Survey No.3957/2 and that there are several encroachments in Elango Street and sought for a direction to remove the encroachments in the said area. It has been found by the authorities that there are encroachments in the subject land in question. Hence, this Court, on 05.04.2006 directed the removal of encroachments in W.P.No.9494 of 2006. (ii) On 21.07.2006, the Commissioner of Corporation sent a communication to the 10th respondent and that the encroachments have been made in the land, which belongs to Public Works Department and that a letter was addressed to the Collector of Chennai for removal of encroachments. Yet another Writ Petition was filed by the 10th respondent in W.P.No.3273 of 2008, wherein, he had contended that he was residing in Elango street and that the respondents have to remove the encroachments within a time bound period. This Court, on 13.03.2008 in W.P.No.3273 of 2008 directed the authorities concerned http://www.judis.nic.in Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) 6 to remove the encroachments. However, the said order dated 13.03.2008 was challenged by some of the petitioners before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.25401-25403 of 2009. The Supreme Court had passed an order, dated 11.02.2011 with a direction to remove the encroachers after providing alternative accommodation. (iii) The Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board, by the proceedings No.G6/11928/2008, dated 01.01.2014, concluded that there are 366 encroachers. Therefore, only 366 persons were removed and the petitioners have not been removed, since they have not encroached the canal. In the meantime, the 10th respondent filed a Contempt Petition before the Supreme Court in Cont.P.Nos.844-846 of 2015 against the official respondents on the ground that they have disobeyed the orders of the Supreme Court passed in SLP(C) No.25401-25403 of 2009 dated 11.02.2011. (iv) Since the petitioners apprehended that they may also be removed from their property, they filed an Interlocutory Application for impleadment in the Contempt Petition. However, the Supreme Court in the Interlocutory Application filed by the Petitioners, on 23.10.2017, passed an order granting liberty to the Petitioners approach this Court and establish that they are not encroachers. The relevant paragraph is http://www.judis.nic.in Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) 7 extracted hereunder: “This Interlocutory Application for impleadment is dismissed without prejudice to the liberty available to the applicants to approach the appropriate forum in case they are not encroachers” (v) That apart, the petitioners' case is that the subject land in question originally belonged to PWD and the same was acquired by the Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board in the year 1973 and thereafter, the said land was allotted to them and hence they are not encroachers. However, the respondents have come forward with the contention that the subject land in question belongs to Slum Clearance Board, more particularly, the fact that the petitioners were residing for more than four decades was not been taken into account. Besides the above, fresh enumeration was done by the Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board and only 366 families, who were identified to be encroachers out of 625, approached this Court earlier and that P.W.D have no jurisdiction to evict the petitioners, who are in possession of the subject property by the allotment made by the Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board. (vi) The petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the http://www.judis.nic.in Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) 8 notification published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette G.O.Ms.No.163, Housing dated 28.02.1973 issued by the Tamilnadu Government Gazette Supplement to Part II-Section I, wherein, Sl.No.59 is mentioned as 'Govindasamy Nagar Slum, Part II' and the area noted is Block No.37, 3761-3 and the square meter referred to is 2,137 and 41.4. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that when the 10th Respondent filed a Writ Petition, the petitioners herein were made as parties and that there are two areas in and around Buckingham Canal and that the area in which the petitioners reside, viz., southern side is not one of the subject lands of encroachment. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners reiterated that a place has been allotted to the Slum Clearance Board and when liberty has been granted by the Apex Court in Contempt Petition C.Nos.844-846 of 2015 dated 23.10.2017, the petitioners have approached this Court to establish that they are not encroachers. He further submitted that all the persons have paid necessary property taxes and water charges and are possessing Aadhar card and other evidences to show that they are residents of that place and that to an extent of less than 500 Sq.Ft, http://www.judis.nic.in Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) 9 there is no need to obtain any permission or plan from any one, much less from the official respondents in the Writ Petition for constructing building. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to the communication from the Tahsildar, Chennai to the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai – 600 009, wherein it has been stated that 'another row of houses lying on the Southern Side of Elango street, are not abutting Buckingham canal etc., and that the plots were measured and each of the allottee is allotted with only 420 sq.ft and that they have constructed the building and lands have been allotted to them by the Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board' It is contended by the petitioners that when the area is notified as slum, the petitioners cannot be evicted by any one much less, the respondents in the writ petition.