Dismissed¶44

K.Stewens v. The District Collector

Madras HC19 Aug 2025WP/18907/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC, Writ Petition No.18907 of 2022, decided 19.08.2025 by N. Anand Venkatesh J: dismissal of petition challenging TN Slum Clearance Board proceedings dated 29.04.2022 refusing allotment of tenement in Dr. Santhosh Nagar Scheme, Egmore; petitioner resided adjacent to scheme area, missed enumeration (30.07.2018–December 2019); no vacant tenements among 560 EWS units (Rs.5,00,000/- contribution); no illegality found; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus refused; related reference WP. No.26426/2021.

What did the court decide?

The respondents had taken a very specific stand that the petitioner is not even a resident within the scheme area; even as per the petitioner's own affidavit, he and his family members were residing adjacent to the slum clearance building, so his claimed basis for allotment failed. ¶41

K.Stewens Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the 3rd respondent's proceedings dated 29.04.2022 rejecting the petitioner's claim for allotment of a tenement in the Dr. Santhosh Nagar Scheme, Egmore, suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court under Article 226.

¶44

Court's answer

¶41

Ratio / Principle

No particulars were available before the Court to show that any allotment had been made even for persons who did not reside within the scheme area, undercutting the petitioner's contention that some such allotments existed.

¶41

Key takeaways

The Court found no illegality in the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 29.4.2022 warranting its interference, and accordingly dismissed the writ petition with no costs.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (N. Anand Venkatesh, J.) — Writ Petition No.18907 of 2022, decided 19.08.2025 — Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board — allotment of tenement in reconstructed Dr. Santhosh Nagar Scheme, Egmore. The petitioner, who by his own affidavit resided adjacent to (not within) the scheme area, challenged the 3rd respondent's proceedings dated 29.04.2022 rejecting his claim and sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus directing allotment of a flat in the proposed construction. Held: enumeration of residents ran from 30.07.2018 to December 2019 and identified persons were already allotted flats; the respondents specifically stood that the petitioner was not a resident within the scheme area and that no vacant tenements remained (scheme reconstructed with 560 EWS tenements, Rs.5,00,000/- beneficiary contribution); no particulars showed allotments to non-residents. Finding no illegality in the impugned proceedings, the Court dismissed the writ petition with no costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 19.08.2025

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Writ Petition No.18907 of 2022

¶6

K.Stewens …. Petitioner

¶7

.Vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector Chennai District Singaravelan Maligai Rajaji Road Chennai 600 001.

¶9

2.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Kamarajar Salai Chennai 600 005.

¶10

3.The Assistant Secretary Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Kamarajar Salai Chennai 600 005.

¶11

4.The Superintendent, Division-4 Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board T.B.Chathiram, Chennai 600 010.

¶12

5.The Executive Officer Arulmigu Srinivasa Perumal Thirukoil Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments S.N.P.Koil Street, Egmore Chennai 600 008. .. Respondents

¶13

1 / 8

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the Respondents particularly the 3rd Respondent's proceedings dated 29.04.2022 vide Ref. Na. Ka. No. G2 / 13924 / 2021 and quash the same, consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to allot a house to the Petitioner in the proposed construction of flat houses in Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Area, situated at Dr. Santhosh Nagar, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 by the Respondents after considering the Petitioner's lengthy resident at No. 2/2 Slum Area Dr.Santhosh Nagar, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 in the slum area.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thanjan For Respondents : Ms.P.Aishwarya Government Advocate for R1 Mr.G.Sivakumar for R2 to R4

¶17

Mr.K.Karthikeyan Government Advocate for R5

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 29.4.2022 and for a consequential directing to respondents 1 to 4 to allot house to the petitioner in the proposed construction of flat houses in Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Area, situated at Dr.Santhosh Nagar, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶20

2.The case of the petitioner is that he along with his family were residing in the Slum Area at Dr.Santhosh Nagar, Egmore, Chennai, which is adjacent to the Tamil Nadu

¶21

2 / 8

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Slum Clearance Board Houses. They were residing for more than 40 years in that area. The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board started taking steps to demolish the adjacent buildings and to construct a new building in the said area. A survey was conducted and a list of residents in the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Houses was enumerated. According to the petitioner, even those persons who are living adjacent to the Slum Clearance Board Houses were enumerated. Since the petitioner and his family were not in station, they were not able to give their family particulars.

¶24

3.The petitioner approached the 3rd respondent and gave a representation. The 3rd respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 29.4.2022 rejected the claim made by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

¶25

4.The respondents 2 to 4 have filed counter affidavit. They have taken the following stand in the counter affidavit:

¶26

5.I further submit that, subsequently respondent Board have demolish the building during 2019 and started reconstruction work and in fact, each and every persons of families who were already identified all residing in the said scheme and no one has been omitted during such enumeration. At this juncture, the petitioner did not approach officials to get the temporary allotment. Hence, it shows that he is not at all a resident of the said scheme area. The

¶27

3 / 8

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

petitioner himself stated in his affidavit that he was residing at adjacent to the scheme area. He is not an allottee or residence of Dr.Santhosh Nagar Scheme. Hence, he is not entitled for allotment of tenement. Moreover, and in fact, the identity proof of such Ponniamman Koil area, which is in existence to the adjacent of our scheme area, people are also mentioned as Santhosh Nagar area in their identity proof, taking advantage of the same, some people were trying to misuse their identity proof to get the allotment in our scheme. similarly, the petitioner also trying to get the allotment in the same manner which is nullity in the Eye of Law and moreover, the petitioner is trying to get the allotment after the enumeration process was completed. Therefore, the claim made by the petitioner is unwarranted.

¶30

I further submit that, the petitioner himself admitted that he was resident at adjacent to the scheme area and in his affidavit and as such, the petitioner stopped from making any claim from our Board and more particularly it is unbelievable that he was out of station due to the family function at Dindivanam and mean time the Board has completed their enumeration process in fact, the enumeration process started from 30.07.2018 to December 2019 and hence, it is unbelievable that we have omitted the petitioner for taking our consideration for allotment, if really the petitioner is a resident in scheme area, then he would have been covered under the enumeration by the Board officials, which done over a period of nearly 17 months. Therefore, the allegations made by the petitioner is concocted stories to somehow to get the allotment based upon the false documents.

¶31

4 / 8

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

7 I humbly submit that, Dr Santhosh Nagar scheme has been reconstructed with 560 Economically weaker section tenements and the beneficiaries recommended by the Board have to pay beneficiary contribution of Rs.5,00,000/- and there is no such any vacant tenement to allot to any beneficiary and hence, we could not allot the tenement to the petitioner in Dr. Santhosh Nagar scheme.

¶34

8 I humbly submit that I hereby deny all the allegation made in para 3 to 10 of the affidavit except those which are specifically admitted hereunder and the petitioner called upon to prove the same. In fact, we have clearly sent a reply letter dated 29.04.2022, based upon the order passed in WP. No.26426/2021 by this Hon'ble court to the petitioner that the petitioner is not at all a resident of the scheme area and hence, we could not allot the tenement to the petitioner.

¶35

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶36

6.The specific case of the petitioner is that he and his family were residing adjacent to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Houses. The demolition and reconstruction pertained to Dr. Santhosh Nagar Scheme and for those persons who were occupying the flats belonging to the Slum Clearance Board. Enumeration was done and

¶37

5 / 8

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

according to the petitioner, he and his family were not in station and were not able to give their names.

¶40

7.The respondents have taken a very specific stand that the petitioner and his family were not residing in the scheme area. Enumeration was done and the persons whose names were identified have already been allotted the flats. The respondents have taken a very specific stand that there are no vacant tenements available and they are not in a position to allot any tenement to the petitioner in Dr. Santhosh Nagar Scheme.

¶41

8.In the considered view of this Court, the respondents have taken a very specific stand that the petitioner is not even a resident within the scheme area. Even as per the affidavit of the petitioner, he and his family members were residing adjacent to the slum clearance building. The petitioner seems to be claiming right on the ground that some of the allotments were ioner is specifically denied by the Slum Clearance Board. There are no particulars available before the Court to show that such allotment was made even for those persons who did not reside within the scheme area.

¶42

6 / 8

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

9.In the light of the above discussion, this Court does not find any illegality in the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 29.4.2022, warranting the interference of this Court and accordingly this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶45

19.8.2025

¶46

Index : Yes/No NCS : Yes/No KP

¶47

¶48

1.The District Collector Chennai District Singaravelan Maligai Rajaji Road, Chennai 600 001.

¶49

2.The Chairman

¶50

Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Kamarajar Salai Chennai 600 005.

¶51

3.The Assistant Secretary Tamil nadu Slum Clearance Board Kamarajar Salai, Chennai 600 005.

¶52

4.The Superintendent, Division-4 Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board T.B.Chathiram, Chennai 600 010.

¶53

5.The Executive Officer Arulmigu Srinivasa Perumal Thirukoil Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments S.N.P.Koil Street, Egmore Chennai 600 008.

¶54

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶55

7 / 8

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

¶58

Writ Petition No.18907 of 2022

¶59

19.8.2025

¶60