C. Selvaraj vs State of Tamilnadu

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.—The writ petition has been filed by 48 petitioners claiming to be dwellers of Sherkhan Thottam in Puliyur Village, Chennai seeking directions against the respondents more specifically the Slum Development Authority, to formulate a Scheme in respect of the slum for it''s rehabilitation by construction of tenements. In effect, what has been prayed for is an in situ rehabilitation in the area.

The review applications have been necessitated in the earlier writ petitions on account of the residents of the area wanting removal of encroachments which are said to have occurred on the roads.

It is the case of the petitioners in the writ petition that those orders were passed in the absence of full disclosure by the Slum Development Authority. In this behalf, a reference has been made to a Notification dated 29.12.1971 under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971. The Schedule to the Notification however states that the area notified is T.S. No. 10 measuring 17 grounds and 582 sq. ft. It is thus the case of the petitioners that insofar as the inhabitants of this area are concerned, they cannot simply be categorized as encroachers on land and are entitled to rehabilitation as per the provisions of the said Act.

The affidavits filed by the Slum Development Authority as well as the orders earlier passed by this Court show that the rehabilitation measure has possibly gone much beyond the area specified and alternative accommodations are being made available to persons who have been issued allotment letters, but apparently are refusing to move to Okkiyakduraipakkam. The nature of facilities there and the rehabilitation being carried out has been dealt with by us in W.P. No. 6039 of 2011 where we have upheld the measure.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that so far as the people who may be inhabiting the area beyond 17 grounds and 582 sq. ft. of T.S. No. 10 are concerned, he holds no brief because he is claiming rights only in respect of that area which forms part of the Notification.

The stand of the learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 in the writ petition is that in the context of the said Act, a judgment has been delivered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in K. Chandru Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, . This was in the context of Section 11 of that Act qua slum dwellers and pavement dwellers and it was observed that the Supreme Court was satisfied that the Government was taking steps for improving slums and for providing alternative accommodations and thus no writ or direction was liable to be issued.

In our view, all that is required to be observed qua inhabitants of the aforesaid land is that the area having been declared as slum, the provisions of the said Act would apply and thus any measure of clearance/rehabilitation would have to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

The concerned authorities will endeavour to carry out necessary exercise within a period of three months from today.

The writ petition and review applications accordingly stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs stand closed.