Madras High Court
Sreedevi vs Tamil Nadu Small Industries on 27 September, 2021
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P. Nos. 31097, 31101, 31104, 31106, 31107, 31110, 31112, 31248,
31251, 31255, 31257, 31258, 31262, 31264, 31266, 31270, 31275,
31277, 31279, 31666, 31667, 31668, 31739, 31741, 31743, 31745,
31748, 31868, 31872, 31874, 32031, 32034, 34521 and 35656 of 2019
and
WMP Nos. 31217, 31222, 31225, 31226, 31227, 31229, 31233, 31397,
31388, 31411, 31399, 31396, 31404, 31392, 31423, 31421, 31417,
31420, 31955, 31951, 31874, 31943, 31873, 35227, 31875, 31947,
31945, 32112, 32109, 32116, 32281 and 32279, 36561 of 2019
W.P. No.31097 of 2019
Sreedevi ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.Tamil Nadu Small Industries
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Rep.by its Managing Director
SIDCO Corporate Office Building
Thir.Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate, Guildy
Chennai 600 032.
2.The Branch Manager Cum Estate Manager
Tamil Nadu Small Industries
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Rep.by its Managing Director
SIDCO Corporate Office Building
Thir.Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate, Guildy
Chennai 600 032. ...Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to
issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the petitioner is entitled for conveyance of
the tenement in No.8/51, SIDCO Industrial Estate Labour Quarters, Ambattur,
Chennai 600 058 to him as per the policy decision of the Government under
G.O.(MS).No.128 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 24.3.1997.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramamurthi
(In All WPs)
For Respondents : Mr.M.J.Jasee Mohamed
(In All WPs)
COMMON ORDER
The issue involved in all these Writ Petitions are common and hence they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order.
2.The petitioners in all these writ petitions have challenged the proceedings of the respondents initiated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975 [hereinafter referred as "the Act"].
3.The petitioners are claiming a right in the tenement by virtue of the original allotment made by the Government of Tamil Nadu providing for Housing to the workmen employed in various Companies located at Ambattur Industrial Estate. In the present case, some of the petitioners are the original allottees, some of them are the legal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ heirs of the original allottees and some are claiming right as the second 3 allottees to the tenements. The petitioners are also claiming occupation ranging from the year 1965 onwards. The petitioners are in occupation of plinth area measuring on an average of 550 sq.feet. The details with regard to each of the petitioner is given hereunder in a tabulated form.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P.No. 31097/2019 and Connected Batch Sree Devi and others …Petitioners Vs Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd Represented by its Managing Director and another …Respondents S. W.P.No. Tenement Plinth Year of Allottee Name Petitioner Name Basis of Claim No. No. Area Occupation
1. 31097/19 8/51 543.00 1967 Soundarapanidan (Died) Sree Devi Legalheir
2. 31101/19 11/75 543.00 1967 R.Sundararajan (Died) S.Jayanthy Legalheir
3. 31104/19 14/91 593.00 1975 C.Irudayadasan (Died) D.Augastin Legalheir
4. 31106/19 2/11 597.00 1977 J.Venkatramanan J.Venkatramanan Allottee
5. 31107/19 1/5 578.50 1972 M.Kunjukutty (Died) Eliamma Legalheir
6. 31110/19 6/35 578.50 1973 V.Paramasivam (Died) L.R. to be Allottee impleaded
7. 31112/19 2/11 578.50 1977 R.Viswanathan R.Viswanathan 2nd Allottee (no entry)
8. 31248/19 12/81 578.50 1995 Arumugham V.Kanniammal 2nd Allottee (no entry) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4
9. 31251/19 8/47 543.00 1996 R.Arumugham K.Piraviperumal 2nd Allottee (no entry)
10. 31255/19 150/24 461.50 1971 P.Madhavan (Died) Chandrika Legalheir
11. 31257/19 8/50 543.50 1967 V.Gangadaran Premavalli Legalheir (Died)
12. 31258/19 37 578.50 1997 M.Hussain T.Kannan 2nd allottee (no entry)
13. 31262/19 98 597.00 1967 P.V.M.George G.Rayan Legalheir (Died)
14. 31264/19 74 543.00 1965 M.Venkatesh M.ThirumalaiBabu Legalheir (Died)
15. 31266/19 29/182 461.50 1973 Gangadevi (Died) M.V.Santhosh Legalheir
16. 31270/19 54 543.00 1990 S.A.Kaliappan P.Ganesan 2nd Allottee (no entry)
17. 31275/19 15/99 597.00 1967 P.S.Subramanian S.Paneerselvam Legalheir (Died)
18. 31277/19 58 574.00 1973 T.Chinnadevar Pushpha Legalheir (Died)
19. 31279/19 110/17 461.00 1967 K.Veeraraghavan N.V.Venkatesh Legalheir (Died)
20. 31666/19 94 597.00 1969 P.G.Selvaraj (Died) S.Baskaran Legalheir
21. 31667/19 25/157 461.50 1988 R.Ramakrishnan R.Ramakrishnan Allottee
22. 31668/19 26/164 461.50 1982 V.Durai R.Ganesh 2ndAllottee(no entry) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5
23. 31739/19 72 543.00 1985 Perumal K.Dhanasekaran 2nd Allottee (no entry)
24. 31741/19 24/153 597.00 1993 S.Sethu R.Velusamy 2nd Allottee (no entry)
25. 31743/19 11/71 543 1973 M.K.Balu M.K.Balu Allottee
26. 31745/19 195 461.50 1973 N.Ravindran N.Balendran 2ndAllottee (no entry) (brother of allottee)
27. 31748/19 2/9 578.50 1996 Ramadoss S.Sundar 2nd Allottee (no entry)
28. 31868/19 32/196 578.50 1994 M.Vasantha T.Gopalakrishnan 2nd Allottee (no entry)
29. 31872/19 24/151 441.50 1994 Ravindra Nair Boothanathapillai 2nd Allottee (no entry)
30. 31874/19 30/184 461.50 1978 V.N.Balasubra- V.N.Balasubra- Allottee manian manian
31. 32031/19 155 461.50 1973 I.D.Gnanaraj I.D.Gnanaraj Allottee
32. 32034/19 2/12 578.50 1995 Kamala J.Rajesh 2nd Allottee (no entry) Gopalakrishnan
33. 34521/19 26 597.00 1967 T.Kanniappan V.Tamilselvi Legalheir (Died)
34. 36561/19 7/45 574.00 1967 A.V.Subbian A.V.Subbian Allottee
4.The specific case of the petitioners is that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.128, dated 24.03.1997, the Government took a decision to sell the tenements to the allottees by fixing a sale consideration and by imposing certain conditions. It is further stated that similarly placed allottees filed writ petitions https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6 before this Court and this Court disposed of the writ petitions by issuing directions by directing the respondents to consider the representations in line with the Government Orders. The petitioners are also seeking for the very same relief in these writ petitions.
5.The grievance of the petitioners is that impugned notices came to be issued by the second respondent as if, the petitioners are in unauthorised occupation of the tenements and hence show cause notice was issued under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners claim that the said Act, will not apply to the allottees and they have the right to get the tenements conveyed in their favour by virtue of G.O.(MS).No.128 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 24.03.1997.
6.Heard Mr.M.Ramamoorthi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.J.Jaseem Mohamed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
7.It is seen from records that the respondents had initiated proceedings pursuant to the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.10939 of 2018. This writ petition was filed seeking for a direction to remove the tenements on the ground that unauthorised occupants are grabbing the Government property. This Court while disposing of the writ petition by order dated 21.02.2019, directed the respondents to consider the complaint made in this regard and to take a decision in accordance with law. It is pursuant to this order, the impugned notice came to be issued to each of the petitioner under the Act. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7
8.The enquiry has to be conducted by the second respondent and it is for the second respondent to determine whether the petitioners have acquired a right to occupy the property and are entitled for the benefit under the Government Order or they are in unauthorised occupation and consequently are liable to be evicted in accordance with law. This exercise need not be undertaken by this Court since it involves considering the claim made by each petitioner. The occupation of the petitioners has been safeguarded by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court and such interim order can be directed to be continued till a decision is taken by the second respondent based on the explanation and materials submitted by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to the notice of this Court the stand taken by the respondents in the earlier writ petitions and specifically at para 6 of the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.10939 of 2018. The learned counsel submitted that many of the petitioners will fall within the criteria that has been explained in para 6 of the counter affidavit. Even insofar as this submission is concerned, it will be left open to the second respondent to consider the same while dealing with the claim of each of the petitioner.
9.In view of the above discussion, all these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
[a] The petitioners are directed to give their explanation / objection for the notice issued by the second respondent along with all the relevant materials https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. It is made clear that the time limit fixed by this Court must be strictly adhered to and no explanation will be entertained beyond the time limit fixed by this Court. It is left open to the petitioners to raise all the grounds.
[b] The second respondent is directed to consider the claim of each of the petitioner based on the explanation / representation accompanied by supporting materials and shall decide the claim on its own merits and in accordance with law after taking into consideration the relevant Government Orders wherever it is applicable.
[c] The second respondent shall also keep in mind the stand taken by SIDCO in the earlier writ petitions in the counter affidavit filed in those writ petitions, before taking a final decision.
[d] The second respondent is directed to pass final orders after affording opportunity to the petitioners, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation / explanation from the petitioners. and ;
[e] The interim orders already granted by this Court safeguarding the possession of the petitioners shall continue till final orders are passed by the second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 9
10.Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
27.09.2021
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes / No
KP
..
To
1.Tamil Nadu Small Industries
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Rep.by its Managing Director
SIDCO Corporate Office Building
Thir.Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate, Guildy
Chennai 600 032.
2.The Branch Manager Cum Estate Manager
Tamil Nadu Small Industries
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Rep.by its Managing Director
SIDCO Corporate Office Building
Thir.Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate, Guildy
Chennai 600 032.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
10
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.,
KP
W.P. Nos. 31097, 31101, 31104, 31106,
31107,31110, 31112, 31248, 31251, 31255,
31257, 31258, 31262, 31264, 31266,
31270, 31275, 31277, 31279, 31666,
31667, 31668, 31739, 31741, 31743,
31745, 31748, 31868, 31872, 31874,
32031, 32034, 34521 and 35656 of 2019
27.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/