Madras High Court
D. Prabu vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 2 March, 2017
Author: B. Rajendran
Bench: B.Rajendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.03.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN
W.P.Nos. 21562 to 21564 of 2015
--
1. D. Prabu
2. Nalini .. Petitioners in WP 21562
1. D. Marimuthu
2. M. Tamilselvi .. Petitioners in WP 21563
1. G. Durai
2. D. Desamuthu .. Petitioners in WP 21564
Versus
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
represented by its Secretary
Home Department
Fort Saint George
Chennai - 600 009
2. The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
No.5, Kamarajar Salai
Chennai - 600 005 .. Respondents in all WPs
Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to allot the houses to the petitioners in Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Buildings, Marina Thitta Pakuthi, Nochi Nagar, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004
For Petitioner : Mr. G. Veerapathiran
in all the Writ Petitions
For Respondents : Mr. S. Rajeswaran
Special Government Pleader for R1
in all the Writ Petitions
Mr. B. Kesavan for R2
in all the Writ Petitions
COMMON ORDER
In all these writ petitions, the petitioners pray for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to allot them houses in Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Buildings, Marina Thitta Pakuthi, Nochi Nagar, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions were residing at No.127, Nochi Kuppam, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. The petitioners occupation were recognised by the respondents by issuing voter identity card, ration card and also electricity service connection. During their occupation, in the year 2004, due to devastating Tsunami waves, they have lost their dwelling. The Government of Tamil Nadu, as a measure of rehabilitation, assured the petitioners and similarly other affected persons to allot them a dwelling unit to be constructed by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Buildings, Marina Thitta Pakuthi, Nochi Nagar, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. Till such time, the petitioners were allotted a temporary dwelling. On the basis of such assurance given by the respondents, the petitioners left their habitat and settled in the temporary shelter provided by the respondents in and by the proceedings dated 24.11.2010. After construction of the new building, the petitioners were called upon to produce documentary evidence to prove that they were displaced by the Tsunami waves during the year 2004 and accordingly, the petitioners have also produced the documentary evidence showing that they were displaced by reason of Tsunami waves and taken shelter in the temporary residence provided by the respondents.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that during the year 2011, the respondents have completed the new building meant for those who were affected in the Tsunami during the year 2004. After constructing such building, the second respondent allotted houses to similarly placed persons like the petitioners, however, the petitioners were not allotted houses. While so, on 10.03.2014, the second respondent called upon the petitioners to appear for an enquiry on 13.03.2014 and on that date, the petitioners also appeared before the second respondent and produced documentary evidence in support of their claim. Thereafter, the petitioners were not heard from the respondents for a long time and therefore, they have submitted a representation dated 24.03.2015 requesting the respondents to allot them houses in the newly constructed building. However, such representations were not considered by the respondents and therefore, the petitioners have come up with these writ petitions.
4. The second respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit contending inter alia that those whose dwelling were devastated by the Tsunami waves have been provided temporary tenement in Okkiyam Thuraipakkam Scheme and some of them have refused to accept such tenement in Okkiyam Thuraipakkam Scheme and exercised their option to reside at temporary shelter or in rental premises till the completion of new buildings. As regards the petitioners, they have refused to accept the allotment in Okkiyam Thuraipakkam Scheme and requested temporary shelter and they were issued with temporary allotment order on 01.12.2010. According to the second respondent, they have constructed new buildings with additional tenements to accommodate the original settlers as well as families living in huts. But the second respondent could not implement the proposals to construct a new construction at Nochi Nagar because of stiff opposition raised by the local residents at Nochikuppam and Srinivasapuram. Therefore, the financial aids received by the Government remained unutilised. Ultimately, the second respondent constructed 628 tenemants in Nochi Nagar. A committee was constituted at the State level to identify the displaced persons and accordingly, the committee identified 673 eligible families to be accommodated in Nochi Nagar. Initially, 45 families were given allotment at Okkiyam Thoraipakkam Scheme. Further, out of the remaining 628 units, allotment orders were issued to 534 families and who were occupying the old tenemants before demolitions at Nochi Nagar and 31 allotments were reserved for other categories such as those who have obtained interim order from this Court and whose cases are pending before the Court. Some of the cases for allotment were pending verification of the status of legal heirs of the deceased original allotments. As regards the petitioners, an enquiry was conducted to ascertain as to whether their claim was genuine or not. However during enquiry, the petitioners were found to be ineligible and therefore, they were not issued any allotment at Nochi Nagar. In such circumstances, the second respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
5. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respective respondents at length and perused the materials placed on record. It is seen from the records that the second respondent, in his proceedings dated 05.01.2017 enclosed a list of those who were alloted tenemants as per the various orders passed by this Court. As per the list enclosed, it is stated that out of 628 tenaments, 605 were allotted and there was 23 tenemants remaining to be allotted. Out of these 23 tenemants, 18 tenemants were reserved anticipating orders to be passed in WP No. 29242 of 2012 etc., which are pending before this Court. Similarly, 4 tenemants are kept reserved for those who are yet to produce satisfactory evidence to prove their status as legal heirs of the original allottes and one more allotment is reserved for administrative purpose.
6. It is further seen from the records that the petitiones were given financial aid for having been affected by the Tsunami waves. The petitioners were also called for an enquiry to ascertain their claim. However, they were not allotted houses on the ground that they are ineligible. It is seen from the communication dated 02.02.2017 of the second respondent that the petitioners were identified as having been affected by Tsunami waves when they were in occupation of the dwellings bearing numbers 188, 189 and 190 in Nochikuppam area. It is further stated that the second respondent could not proceed with construction at Nochikuppam area due to stiff opposition by the local residents. It is further stated that out of the 379 allottes from the 673 allottes, it was ascertained from the enquiry that they were not eligible for allotment at all and resultantly, after following the formalities, 245 allotments made to the ineligible beneficiaries were cancelled. Thereafter, out of the cancelled allotments, 144 persons were allotted in Nochikuppam area. It is further stated that even though the petitioners were allotted tenement in Thoraipakkam area, they have refused to accept such allotment and insisted for allotment in Nochikuppam area. It is further stated that proposals were sent to the Government for putting up additional construction in Nochikuppam area and it is pending with the Government. When once permission is accorded by the Government, the petitioners could be accommodated in such additional construction and therefore, the claim of the petitioners, at this stage, could not be considered.
7. It is evident from the above communication dated 02.02.2017 of the second respondent that the petitioners were originally in occupation of dwellings bearing numbers 188, 189 and 190 in Nochikuppam area and they were displaced due to Tsunami waves during the year 2004. In such view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitiones are ineligible for being accommodated in the tenemants constructed by the respondents. When the second respondent admitted that the petitioners were in occupation of the dwellings bearing Nos. 188, 189 and 190 in Nochikuppam area, the respondents are bound to consider the claim of the petitioners. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents can re-consider the claim of the petitioners for allotment of houses in their favour after affording them an opportunity of hearing. The respondents also consider accommodating the petitioners in the accommodation which were originally allotted in favour of some persons and which were subsequently cancelled on the ground that they are ineligible for such allotment. Such an exercise can be carried out by the second respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioners are also directed to produce all the documentary evidence in support of their claim for consideration of the second respondent.
8. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellabneous petitions are closed.
02.03.2017
rsh
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
To
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
represented by its Secretary
Home Department
Fort Saint George
Chennai - 600 009
2. The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
No.5, Kamarajar Salai
Chennai - 600 005
B. RAJENDRAN, J
rsh
W.P.No. 21562 to 21564/2015
02-03-2017
http://www.judis.nic.in