Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The facts leading to the litigation are as follows:-

The TNSCB took up Slum Area in old Vijayaraghavapuram under the Madras Urban Development Project. The people living in the slum area were enumerated by the District Collector and the list of beneficiaries who were entitled and eligible for getting allotment were forwarded by the District Collector to the TNSCB. A plan sketch was drawn by the TNSCB on "As is where is" basis in the area occupied by the people living under the Scheme area and sent for approval by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA). The plan was also approved. According to the TNSCB, the original Survey No.210 was classified as "Low Lying Area" and as per the District Collector's eligibility list, the plots were allotted by allotment letter made during the year 1988.

W.P.No.19699/2009) 69.0 A1/431/88 21.03.1988

5. It was stated that the original allottees paid the sale consideration as fixed by TNSCB. In the case of Kanagarathinam and Pakkirisamy, they have sold the plot after getting No Objection Certificate from the TNSCB. In any event, the issue whether the subsequent purchase is valid or not is not an issue in these writ petitions. The TNSCB is empowered under G.O.Ms.804 Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 23.09.1993 to collect penalty and sale consideration amounts from such people, who were living as encroachers in the Madras Urban Development Project (MUDP) Scheme Areas. The power was also given to the TNSCB to regularise the respective encroachment. In the very same Government Order, it was stated that if there are any encroachment made in any areas, such encroachment can be regularised after getting approval from the CMDA.

6. In the meanwhile, it was stated that one Meenakshi and nine others made a representation to the TNSCB claiming that they were encroachers under the Scheme Area. Therefore, they requested the TNSCB to regularise their encroachments as per the Government Order. On the basis of a report obtained from the Survey Department of TNSCB, the Board considered their proposals and divided the area into 10 Plots viz., Plot Nos.420/1 to 420/10. The Plan Sketch prepared by the TNSCB was forwarded to the CMDA. It was claimed that CMDA approved the sketch by their Letter No.29/96. Subsequent to the Plan Sketch approved by the CMDA, plot numbers which were assigned, were allotted to the 10 persons. The following table shows the list of Plot numbers, names of allottees, extent of area, allotment order numbers and the dates of allotment:-

9. It is at this juncture, the 10 allottees (petitioners in Cont.P.No.120/2010) filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.12732 of 2005, seeking for a direction for execution of the sale deed. It was claimed that they did not inform this Court about the cancellation of the allotment. It was also claimed that the said writ petition came to be allowed even at the admission stage on 04.05.2005 and without the benefit of any counter by the TNSCB. The said order came to be passed based on the statement made by the then learned counsel for the TNSCB, who did not get any proper instructions from the TNSCB.