Disposed

Mr.C.Selvaraj v. State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC8 Sept 2014WP/25176/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two-writ petition and review applications concerning slum rehabilitation and road encroachments were disposed of. The Court directed authorities to exercise necessary measures to formulate a scheme and clear encroachments within three months, holding that clearance must align with the Slum Areas Act.

What did the court decide?

Directing authorities to formulate rehabilitation scheme and remove encroachments within three months; cases disposed of.

Mr.C.Selvaraj Vs State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 8-9-2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.25176 of 2009
and
REVIEW APPLICATION Nos.8 and 9 of 2010 in
W.P.Nos.18101 and 18375 of 1997
and
M.P.Nos.1 of 2009 and 1 and 1 of 2010
1.C.Selvaraj
2.A.Thirunavukkarasu
3.Mallika
4.Mariappan
5.Uma
6.D.Suryanarayanan
7.P.Sampath
8.Ravanamma
9.Amsa Rajasekar
10.Kuppu
11.Devi
12.Vijaya
13.A.Subramanian
14.A.Jayalakshmi
15.Muppatha
16.Yamuna
17.Appa Rao
18.Sathyanarayanan
19.K.Valli
20.Kantha
21.Jayachandran
22.Amsa
23.Janaki
24.G.Lalitha
25.N.Gopalan
26.Rajeswari
27.Ravanammal
28.R.Bapu
29.Nagasatheesh
30.R.Usha
31.Kumaresan
32.Lakshmanan
33.Koti
34.Sakthivel
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
35.Kathyayini
36.Perumal
37.Y.Subbarao

¶8

38.Prabhavati 39.Muniammal 40.Venkatesan 41.Samuganeedhi 42.Anand 43.Veerappan 44.Kondiah 45.Mohan 46.Chinnappa Rao 47.Jaya 48.Ellappan .. Petitioners in WP 25176/2009 vs 1.State of Tamilnadu Rep. By its Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Water Supply Development Fort St. George, Secretariat Chennai 600 009 2.The Chairman Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board Kamarajar Salai Chennai 600 005 3.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Ripon Building, Chennai 600 003 4.T.Ali Basha (R4 impleaded as per order dated 25.8.2010 in MP No.1/2010) 5.O.Kumaravel Asan (R5 impleaded as per order dated 11.6.2012 in MP No.2/2012) .. Respondents in WP 25176/2009 M/s.Rangarajapuram Samuga Nala Seva Sangam Rep. By its Secretary Ramadoss No.42, Rangarajapuram Main Road Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024 .. Applicants in Rev.A.8 & 9/2010 .vs. 1.T.Elangovan 2.O.Kumaravel Asan 3.S.N.Patel 4.S.Subramaniam 5.S.Sundararajan 6.G.Duraikannu .. Respondents 1 to 6 in Rev.A.8/2010 7.T.Ali Basha 8.M.Noorullah Khan 9.K.Mohamed Ansar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10.M.Lakshmi .. Respondents 1 to 4 in Rev.A.9/2010

¶9

11.The Corporation of Madras Rep. By Commissioner Ripon Buildings, Madras 3 12.The Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board Rep. By its Chairman Chepauk, Madras 5 13.The Tamilnadu Electricity Board Rep. By its Chairman Anna Salai, Madras 2 14.The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Rep. By its Chairman Chintadripet, Madras 2 15.The State of Tamilnadu through the Secretary Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department Fort St. George, Chennai 9 .. Respondents 7 to 11 in Rev.A.8/2010 and Respondents 5 to 9 in Rev.A.9/2010

¶10

W.P.No.25176/2009 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to formulate a Scheme for the slum dwellers of Sherkhan Thottam for construction of tenements and allot the tenements to the petitioners in the same area namely Sherkhan Thottam Slum in Puliyur Village Town Survey No.10, Chennai.

¶11

Review applications filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure praying to review the order passed in W.P.Nos.18101 and 18375 of 1997 dated 8.1.2008.

¶12

PRAYER : Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for a direction to call for records relating to the order passed by the Corporation of Chennai, the first respondent herein in its reference No.A8.Na.Ka.No.A6/6736/96, dated 05.8.1996 and direct the first respondent to remove and vacate the unauthorised encroachment of hut dwellers and restore the 50 ft. Road lying between the Vathiyar Thottam on the west and sherkhan garden on the east, Arya Gowder Road, on the south and Director's colony IV Main Road and Rangarajapuram Road on the North situate in Rangarajapuram, Kodambakkam, Madras-24 and restore the said 50 ft. Road to the petitioners and other residents of Vathiyar Thottam and Sherkhan Garden respectively .

¶13

For Petitioners in WP 25176/2009 and For Applicant in Rev.A.8 & 9/2010 : Mr.Sathia Chandran

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.S.T.S.Moorthy Government Pleader for R1 in WP 25176/2009 and for R11 in Rev.A.8/2010 and R9 in Rev.A.9/2010

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

Mr.S.P.Prabakaran for R2 in WP 25176/2009 and for R8 in Rev.A.8/2010 and R6 in Rev.A.9/2010

¶17

Mr.A.Nagarajan for R3 in

¶18

WP 25176/2009 and for R7 in Rev.A.8/2010 and for R5 in Rev.A.9/2010

¶19

Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Senior Counsel for M/s.A.L.Gandhimathi for R4 in WP 25176/2009 and for R1 in Rev.A.9/2010

¶20

Mr.S.Mohan for R5 in

¶21

WP 25176/2009 and for R2 in Rev.A.8/2010

¶22

COMMON ORDER

¶23

(Order of the Court was made by THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶24

The writ petition has been filed by 48 petitioners claiming to be dwellers of Sherkhan Thottam in Puliyur Village, Chennai seeking directions against the respondents more specifically the Slum Development Authority, to formulate a Scheme in respect of the slum for it's rehabilitation by construction of tenements. In effect, what has been prayed for is an in situ rehabilitation in the area.

¶25

2.The review applications have been necessitated in the earlier writ petitions on account of the residents of the area wanting removal of encroachments which are said to have occurred on the roads.

¶26

3.It is the case of the petitioners in the writ petition that those orders were passed in the absence of full disclosure by the Slum Development Authority. In this behalf, a reference has been made to a Notification dated 29.12.1971 under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971. The Schedule to the Notification however states that the area notified is T.S.No.10 measuring 17 grounds and 582 sq. ft. It is thus the case of the petitioners that insofar as the inhabitants of this area are concerned, they cannot simply be categorized as encroachers on land and are entitled to rehabilitation as per the provisions of the said Act.

¶27

4.The affidavits filed by the Slum Development Authority as well as the orders earlier passed by this Court show that the rehabilitation measure has possibly gone much beyond the area specified and alternative accommodations are being made available to persons who have been issued allotment letters, but apparently are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ refusing to move to Okkiyakduraipakkam. The nature of facilities there and the rehabilitation being carried out has been dealt with by us in W.P.No.6039 of 2011 where we have upheld the measure.

¶28

5.Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that so far as the people who may be inhabiting the area beyond 17 grounds and 582 sq. ft. of T.S.No.10 are concerned, he holds no brief because he is claiming rights only in respect of that area which forms part of the Notification.

¶29

6.The stand of the learned Counsel for respondent No.4 in the writ petition is that in the context of the said Act, a judgment has been delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.CHANDRU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS AND CONNECTED MATTER (AIR 1986 SC 204). This was in the context of Section 11 of that Act qua slum dwellers and pavement dwellers and it was observed that the Supreme Court was satisfied that the Government was taking steps for improving slums and for providing alternative accommodations and thus no writ or direction was liable to be issued.

¶30

7.In our view, all that is required to be observed qua inhabitants of the aforesaid land is that the area having been declared as slum, the provisions of the said Act would apply and thus any measure of clearance/rehabilitation would have to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

¶31

8.The concerned authorities will endeavour to carry out necessary exercise within a period of three months from today.

¶32

9.The writ petition and review applications accordingly stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs stand closed.

¶33

Sd/Asst. Registrar(CO) Dt.18/09/14 /true copy/

¶34

Sub Asst. Registrar. nsv To:

¶35

1.The Secretary to Government

¶36

Municipal Administration and Water Supply Development Fort St. George, Secretariat Chennai 600 009

¶37

2.The Chairman

¶38

Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board Kamarajar Salai Chennai 600 005 3.The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Ripon Building, Chennai 600 003

¶39

4.The Chairman Tamilnadu Electricity Board Anna Salai, Madras 2

¶40

5.The Chairman Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Chintadripet, Madras 2 +1cc to Mr.Sathyachandran ,Advocate SR.No.42732 +1cc to Mr.S.P.Prabhaharan , Advocate SR.No.42336 + 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO 42523 +1cc to Mr.A.L.Ganthimathi ,Advocate SR.No.42461 +1cc to Mr.S.Mohan , Advocate SR.No.42457 KU(CO) ka 18/09 W.P.No.25176 of 2009 and REV.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2010 and connected M.Ps Dt: 8-9-2014

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mr.C.Selvaraj v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.C.Selvaraj v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.Rajan Vs the District Collector

P.Ettikkan Vs The Union of India

V.R.Othisamy Vs the District Collector

Tidel Park Coimbatore Ltd. Vs the Consolidated Construction

J.Venkatesh Kumar, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Vidhya Sagar Charitable Trust Vs the State of Tamil Nadu