WP/34629/2018 of S.Devi Vs The Chairman and Managing Director on 31 December 2018

1. The Chairman & Managing Director,Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,No.5, Kamaraj Salai,Chennai - 600 005.

2. The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,Rep. by its Assistant Secretary (Tenement),No.5, Kamaraj Salai,Chennai - 600 005.

3. The Executive Engineer,Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,T.P.Chatram, Division - 4,Chennai - 600 010.

... Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondentsto dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated27.11.2018 and consequently direct the respondents to allot aflat at Athipattu, Ambattur Taluk in the name of the Petitioner(S.Devi) within a date fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

This writ petition has been filed, seeking for adirection to the respondents to dispose of her representationdated 27.11.2018, with the consequential direction to the

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

respondents to allot a Flat at Athipattu, Ambattur Taluk, in hername.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she had madea representation dated 27.11.2018 to the respondents forallotment of tenement at Athipattu and she has been residing atDoor No.1175, Kakkanji Nagar Kudisai Paguthi, ICF, Chennai andin proof of her residence in the given address, she has producednecessary documents, such as Aadhar Card, Voter's Identity Cardand other documents. It is the further case of the petitionerthat the Slum Clearance Board had also recognized her residencyin the said address.

3. It is represented by the petitioner that in theBiometric list at Sl.No.60, one K.Ramani is shown to be theoccupier of the house at Door No.1175 by the Slum ClearanceBoard and the name of the petitioner did not find place. It isalso represented that one P.Devi, residing in Door No.1174 isthe mother of K.Ramani and the said K.Ramani is shown to be inoccupation at Sl.No.1175, which is against the policy of theGovernment that only one of the family members is entitled toallotment of tenement and as such, the act of the Government inallotting two tenements to two person, who belong to the samefamily, is unsustainable and unacceptable.

4. Per contra, it is contended by Mr.Prabhu,learned standing counsel for Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Boardthat during the course of enumerating process, even though thepetitioner's name has been shown as a resident of D.No.1175, onverification, it was found that petitioner was not actuallyresiding in that place and therefore, the names of balance leftout persons totalling 23 have been considered and accommodatedat Perumbakkam. It is further contended that as early as in theyear 2011, enumeration / bio metric system had taken place andnames have been enlisted and after a lapse of seven years, thepetitioner has come forward with an innocuous prayer to disposeof her representation.

5. Learned standing counsel appearing for therespondents drew the attention of this Court the communicationof the Slum Clearance Board, from which, it is very clear thatall persons, who resided at Kakkanji Nagar were considered asencroachers and they have no right at all and the Government hastaken steps to accommodate the encroachers in different placesand as the tenements at Athipattu have already been allotted toothers, other 23 persons, whose names find reflected in theCommunication dated 26.12.2018, have been allotted tenements atPerumbakkam.

6. In reply to the above submission, the learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a fraudhas been committed by the respondents and that the Door Numbershave been suitably altered in order to suit their convenience soas to accommodate the same family members at the same place,especially when K.Ramani was not residing in that place.According to the petitioner, her name also finds place in theenumerated / bio metric system.

7. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

8. It is not in dispute that all persons, who havebeen accommodated in Perumbakkam and Athipattu tenements wereencroachers in Kakkanji Nagar Kudisai Paguthi, ICF, Chennai. Theencroachers have been given alternate tenements with a conditionthat they should reside in that place only and that they have noright to demand a particular place in the area. At the sametime, the contention of the petitioner that more than one familymember cannot be alloted tenement in a particular place, cannotbe brushed aside, as according to the petitioner, Devi andRamani are relatives and they have been given a separateallotment in the same locality, which needs to be scrutinizedand verified. If it is found to be an error or incorrectallotment, it is open to the authorities to take necessary stepsto cancel the same, after affording opportunity to both of them,so that allotment given to one of them shall be cancelled. Thisdirection given to the authorities will not inure to the benefitof the petitioner to take a plea that she has to be accommodatedat Athipattu, as, admittedly, those, who have paid thebeneficiary contribution alone have been allotted alternatetenements and according to the respondents, the petitioner'sname did not find place in the enumerated / bio metric Systemand since she has not paid the beneficiary contribution, hername was not considered.

9. It is represented by the learned counsel forthe petitioner that she has been accommodated at Perumbakkam ontemporary basis and Mr.Prabhu, learned counsel for therespondents would submit that they are willing to provide herpermanent tenement at Perumbakkam with the same line ofconditions stipulated to others at Athipattu.

10. Considering the overall facts andcircumstances of the case, it is directed that in case it isfound that the petitioner was residing at Door No.1175,Kakkanji Nagar Kudisai Paguthi, ICF, Chennai - 600 038 and thatthe records have been either tampered or erroneously entered,the case of the petitioner may be considered, provided, she paysthe necessary charges that are required for getting tenement.

11. Before parting with the case, I am of the viewthat it is very unfortunate that the Government is giving apremium to the encroachers, by giving an alternate site. Thiswould amount to encouraging encroachments, so that theencroachers will definitely get an alternate site, where theycan reside at the cost of exchequer money, which has beencollected from the tax payers. The Government should ensure thatthis kind of encouragement with respect to the grant ofalternate shelter to encroachers should not be extended and thesame has to be stopped forthwith and allotment of alternatetenement is not going to give any solution to the problem.

12. It is pertinent to mention here that according tothe Comptroller and Auditor General of India’s (CAG) reporttabled in the Assembly, 23.9% of the Government Lands in ChennaiDistrict were encroached upon as of June last year; that theencroachments had serious consequences with private individualsgrabbing Government land and that lack of coordination betweenthe revenue and other line departments in the State is the mainreason for such encroachments. From the above report, it appearsthat “Be an encroacher, not a law abiding citizen” might be themotto of any Government in the State of Tamil Nadu.

13. With the above observation and direction, this WritPetition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, the connectedWrit Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

ars/dsaTo:

1. The Chief Secretary,Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

2. The SecretaryHousing and Urban Development Department,Fort st. George, Chennai-9.

3. The Chairman & Managing Director,Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,No.5, Kamaraj Salai,Chennai - 600 005.

4. The Assistant Secretary (Tenement),Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,No.5, Kamaraj Salai,Chennai - 600 005.

5. The Executive Engineer,Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,T.P.Chatram, Division - 4,Chennai - 600 010.

+2cc to Mr.A.R.Nixon, Advocate Sr.90115+1cc to Mr.S.Prabhu, Advocate Sr.477W.P.No.34629 of 2018rv[co]srg 29/01/2019