Madras High Court
Veambzhaki vs The Commissioner on 29 April, 2025
2025:MHC:1713
WP.No.17354/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 09.07.2025 Delivered on 21.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA
WP.No.17354/2025
&
WMP.No.19667/2025
Veambzhaki
W/o.Tamilarasan
No.9, NSC Bose Road
Arul Sakthi Vinayagar Kovil
Broadway, Chennai 600 108. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner
Corporation of Madras
Ripon Building, Chennai 600 003.
2.The Managing Director
The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
No.5, Kamarajar Salai,
Chennai 600 005.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 03:28:42 pm )
WP.No.17354/2025
3.The Executive Engineer
The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
Rep.by its Managing Director
Division-II, No.5, Kamaraja Salai
Chennai 600 005.
4.The Assistant Engineer
Chennai Corporation
Zone No.V, Chennai 600 001. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 1
and 4 from disposing the petitioner from No.9, NSC Bose Road, Arul Sakthi
Vinayagar Kovil, Broadway, Chennai 600 108 without due process of law
and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner
representation dated 29.04.2025 and issue allotment order for alternative
accommodation in the 3rd respondent Water Basin Road Project on par with
similarly placed persons.
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 03:28:42 pm )
WP.No.17354/2025
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Suresh for Mr.S.Sarath Chandran
For R1 & R4 : Mr.M.Sureshkumar, AAG assisted by
Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu, Standing counsel
For R2 & R3 : Mr.G.Sivakumar
ORDER
(1)The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear respondents 1 and 4 from dispossessing the petitioner from No.9, NSC Bose Road, Arul Sakthi Vinayagar Kovil, Broadway, Chennai, without following due process of law and consequently, to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.04.2025, and to issue Allotment Order for alternative accommodation in the 3rd respondent Water Basin Road Project on par with similarly placed persons.
(2)The petitioner states that her husband's family is residing in the aforesaid address for more than four decades. The petitioner states that the Government of Tamil Nadu proposed to demolish the Kuralagam 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 03:28:42 pm ) WP.No.17354/2025 Building and the bus stand which is adjacent to the petitioner's aforesaid premises to construct a new multipurpose building. The petitioner further states that the 4th respondent assured the inhabitants of No.9, NSC Bose Road, while informing them of eviction, that each family would be provided alternative accommodation within the City limits. As the respondents assured alternative accommodation, the petitioner did not object to the eviction. While so, on 27.12.2024, without any prior intimation, the 4th respondent conducted Biometric Survey for the proposed issuance of allotment orders to the head of the female member of the family. According to the petitioner, on the said day, she and her husband had gone to work and therefore, they were not able to participate in the Biometric Survey. On coming to know of the survey, the petitioner's husband immediately submitted a representation to the respondents on 27.12.2024, requesting the respondents to conduct a fresh Biometric Survey and provide allotment for alternative accommodation to him. Even without considering the representation, the 3rd respondent issued allotment orders for alternative accommodation to all persons 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 03:28:42 pm ) WP.No.17354/2025 except the petitioner's family. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation on 21.03.2025, to the respondents in person to conduct Biometric Survey and issue allotment order in her favour. Despite the petitioner's representation, no action was taken. However, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the 4th respondent, on 26.04.2025, demolished the neighbouring houses, since the allotment orders for alternative accommodation were issued to them in the ongoing Water Basin Road Project. However, the petitioner's house was not demolished on account of the objection raised by the petitioner for fresh Biometric Survey. As the petitioner apprehended that the 4th respondent would demolish her house without any intimation, she sent another representation to the respondents on 29.04.2025, however, no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.
(3)The respondents 1 and 4 filed a counter affidavit stating that in the Southern side of the Broadway bus stand [Narayanappa Road adjoining TNPSC Road], 45 nos. of encroachers were identified and in the Northern 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 03:28:42 pm ) WP.No.17354/2025 side of the Bus stand [NSC Bose Road], 10 nos. of encroachers were identified. The respondents further submitted that the Greater Chennai Corporation, on 06.09.2024, informed the encroachers in the Southern side of the bus stand that Biometric Survey would be conducted on 10.09.2024 for allotment of alternative accommodation. Accordingly, Biometric Survey was conducted on 10.09.2024 and 45 nos. of encroachers in the Southern side of the bus stand were identified. Similarly, on the Northern side, information was given on 24.12.2024 that the Biometric Survey would be conducted on 27.12.2024. On that day, 10 nos. of encroachers were identified. The respondents submitted that the Biometric Survey was conducted only after prior intimation and the contentions of the petitioner, to the contrary, were unsustainable. The respondents submitted that at the time of Biometric Survey, the petitioner and her husband were not present and therefore, they were not eligible for allotment of alternative accommodation. It was also submitted that based on the Biometric Survey list, the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board issued temporary allotment orders to 55 encroachers in the newly 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 03:28:42 pm ) WP.No.17354/2025 under construction tenements at, Water Basin Road, Chennai. The respondents further submitted that each of the families identified for allotment of alternative accommodation were paid an amount of Rs.24,000/- to meet the emergency expenditures. It was submitted that if the writ petition is entertained, it would open the pandora's box for similar relief and that already 41 similar representations were pending with the respondents. The respondents therefore prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed as merit-less.
(4)During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents filed a Status Report stating that in the enumeration and Biometric Survey, neither the petitioner nor her husband participated since they were residing in some other address. The respondents further stated that the petitioner's mother- i-law, namely, Mrs.Anjalai and her sister-in-law namely Mrs.Kala were residing in the subject location / place and as they participated in the Biometric Survey, they were each allotted alternative accommodations. The respondents stated that even on an earlier occasion, when the respondents and the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 03:28:42 pm ) WP.No.17354/2025 officials, took Biometric Survey, the petitioner did not participate and therefore, it was clear that the petitioner was not a resident of the subject location/place. The respondents in their Status Report, categorically stated that there was no separate hut or house available for the petitioner at the site and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that she was residing in the subject location/place, is not true. (5)The petitioner submitted a rejoinder to the counter affidavit and the Status Report.
(6)In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner referred to several documents like marriage invitation card, the gas cylinder bill, ID card issued by the Tamil Nadu National Health Mission, the Street Vendor Identity Card issued to the petitioner's husband and the Birth Certificate of petitioner's daughter, to establish that the petitioner was residing in the subject address. The petitioner stated that the family members of the petitioner's husband and their neighbours who were identified for allotment of alternative accommodation, were prepared to file an affidavit in support of the 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 03:28:42 pm ) WP.No.17354/2025 petitioner's claim that she was a resident of the subject location/place. The petitioner therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed. (7)Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents annexed to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit and the Status Report, clearly establish that the petitioner was a resident of the subject location/place and merely because the petitioner was absent on the day of Biometric Survey, the respondents could not deny her alternative accommodation. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner's family is a poor family and therefore, on the day of Biometric Survey, the petitioner and her husband had gone to work and therefore, their mere absence on the biometric day could not be a ground to deny her the entitlement to alternative accommodation. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner's mother-in-law and sister-in-law were each allotted alternative accommodation, and hence, denying the petitioner the same relief, was unfair, unjust and arbitrary. The learned counsel, therefore prayed that the writ petition be allowed.
9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 03:28:42 pm ) WP.No.17354/2025 (8)Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner, in her affidavit, admitted that the allotment order was assured to be issued to the female head of the family. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that mere submission of the documents like Gas Cylinder bill, Marriage invitation card etc., were not sufficient to establish the physical presence of the petitioner in the subject location/place. He further submitted that the petitioner's mother- in-law and sister-in-law were present at the time of Biometric Survey and therefore, they were issued with allotment orders for alternative accommodation and if the petitioner was really a resident of the subject location/place, she would have possessed a separate house. But, the fact is that on ground there is no separate house of the petitioner. Learned Additional Advocate General finally submitted that if the writ petition is allowed, then it will open the flood gate for similar claims and that the respondents would be put to great hardship. Hence, the learned Additional Advocate General prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 03:28:42 pm ) WP.No.17354/2025 (9)Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record. With the consent of both counsels, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing.
(10)It is discernible from the records that the Government of Tamil Nadu had granted administrative sanction for construction of Multi Nodal Facility Complex at Broadway, encompassing the Kuralagam Buildings, at a cost of Rs.822.70 Crores. It further emerges that several encroachments were identified in and around the Broadway bus stand and the Kuralagam locality. In furtherance of the proposed development objective, the Greater Chennai Corporation in coordination with the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board undertook a Biometric Survey for the purpose of identification and enumeration of eligible families residing in the said encroachments with a view to provide alternative accommodation. Pursuant to the said survey, 55 families in as many tenements were found eligible and were issued allotment orders for relocation to the Housing Units constructed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board under the Water Basin Road Scheme.
11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 03:28:42 pm ) WP.No.17354/2025 (11)It is pertinent to note that, at the time of Biometric Survey, the petitioner's mother-in-law and sister-in-law, who were residing in the said location/place, participated in the said survey and were accordingly issued the allotment orders for alternative accommodation. The petitioner contends that she was residing at the very same premises and that her exclusion from the benefit of alternative allotment was solely on the ground that she did not participate in the Biometric Survey. According to her, her non-participation was not due to her ineligibility but owing to lack of prior intimation of Biometric Survey. However, the respondents deny this claim, contending that prior notice of Biometric Survey was duly given but that the petitioner failed to participate therein only because she was not a bona fide resident of the said premises. (12)The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled for alternative accommodation on the basis of her residence in the subject location/place.
12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 03:28:42 pm ) WP.No.17354/2025 (13)In support of her claim, the petitioner has produced certain documents to establish her residence at the subject location/place. However, the learned Additional Advocate General states that as the residents of No.9, NSC Bose Road, Arul Sakthi Vinayagar Kovil, Broadway, Chennai, are all encroachers of Government land, the address is common to all residents of the location/place and no individual door number is assigned to them. The learned Additional Advocate General therefore, submitted that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the said documents, in support of her possession is misplaced and untenable. I find force in the learned Additional Advocate General's contention. In all probability, the petitioner was residing with her in-laws or residing elsewhere. (14)Two of the documents filed by the petitioner herself, lend support to the inference that she was, in all probability residing with her in-laws or residing independently in some other location. In the marriage invitation, the address of the petitioner's parents-in-law is shown as 'No.9, NSC Bose Road, Chennai', and the date of marriage is recorded as 25.06.2023. The income certificate issued to her father-in-law, 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 03:28:42 pm ) WP.No.17354/2025 Thiru.Paramasivam, also reflects the same address and was issued in the year 2011. These documents cumulatively indicate that it was the petitioner's in-laws who were permanent residence of the subject location / place from 2011 onwards. It thus appears that the petitioner was cohabiting with her in-laws or residing elsewhere. As the petitioner's mother-in-law was the female head of the family, the allotment order was rightly issued in her favour. The status report filed by the respondents further discloses that only 55 tenements existed in the subject location / place and that, all residents of the tenements were issued alternative accommodation. Having successfully delayed the demolition of the tenements in question, the petitioner now attempts to project an independent claim, though lacking substantive proof of exclusive possession. In my view, as the petitioner is not in settled and exclusive possession, she cannot claim any equitable or legal right to retain public property or seek benefit under the rehabilitation scheme. (15)In my considered opinion, the present case of the petitioner for independent allotment appears to have been made with the connivance of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 03:28:42 pm ) WP.No.17354/2025 her in-laws and with their tacit blessings. I am constrained to state this because the petitioner herself in her rejoinder, has stated that her in-laws are prepared to submit affidavit in support of her claim. An assertion which, instead of strengthening her claim, undermines its credibility. The same leads credence to the inference that the claim is engineered and not founded on independent entitlement.
(16)Undoubtedly, the State has a Constitutional and moral obligation to provide shelter to the poor and the marginalized. However, if every member of a family is permitted to claim independent allotment under Government housing schemes, the entire system would collapse under its own weight. In my view, the petitioner's conduct demonstrates a clear attempt to exploit a welfare policy of the Government by seeking a separate allotment without any substantive right or factual foundation. Such claims if entertained, would erode the very fabric of social justice mechanism. I therefore find no merit in the writ petition. (17)Further, any delay in commencing the project is likely to result in subsequent escalation of costs and derailment of the project schedule. 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 03:28:42 pm ) WP.No.17354/2025 Therefore, the respondent authorities are directed to proceed immediately with the demolition of the subject tenement and shall be at liberty to seek police assistance, if so warranted for the smooth execution of the demolition work.
(18)Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.07.2025 AP Index : Yes Internet : Yes Neutral Citation: Yes 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 03:28:42 pm ) WP.No.17354/2025 To
1.The Commissioner Corporation of Madras Ripon Building, Chennai 600 003.
2.The Managing Director The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai 600 005.
3.The Executive Engineer The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Rep.by its Managing Director Division-II, No.5, Kamaraja Salai Chennai 600 005.
4.The Assistant Engineer Chennai Corporation Zone No.V, Chennai 600 001.
17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 03:28:42 pm ) WP.No.17354/2025 N.MALA, J.
AP Order in WP.No.17354/2025 21.07.2025 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 03:28:42 pm )