The judgment established the authority of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to take action against encroachers and emphasized the conditions for alternative accommodation under the Government Order.

Heard both sides.

2. The petitioners are occupants of the land in Town Survey No.2/2, Block No.12, Ayynavaram Village coming under Purasaivakkam-Perambur Taluk. The petitioners were given the impugned notices dated 38. 2007 by the 1st respondent, Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Anna Nagar Division, Tamil Nadu Housing Board informing the petitioners that they were in illegal occupation of the said premises. They were given one week time to remove the encroachment failing which they were threatened with removal of the encroachments by the respondents, who will also collect the appropriate expenditure from the petitioners.

3. The petitioners have come forward to state that they were in occupation of the place for more than 25 years. Notices were given by the Tahsildar, Purasaiwakkam even during the years 1979, 1988 and 1998 under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act and penal rents were collected from them. Therefore, the assertion that the land belonged to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board was erroneous. It is also stated that the Housing Board had not followed the mandatory procedure contemplated under section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, 1961 and no show cause notice was issued to them. It is further stated that as per the orders of the Government, they should be given alternative accommodation as was done in the case of other slumdwellers from the very same area. It is also stated that even if the land belonged to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, as per the Full Bench decision of this Court, the Board should take action either under the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act or the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act by issuing Notices for removal of the encroachment. Therefore, the present Notices fall short of such a legal requirement.

4. Pending the Writ Petitions, the petitioners sought for an interim order. The learned Additional Advocate General undertook that the respondents will not proceed further for one week. Subsequently, the matter stood adjourned for several dates.

5. After taking notice, the 1st respondent had filed a counter affidavit dated 211. 2009. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the land in question, namely Town Survey No.2/2, Block No.12, Ayanavaram Village was alienated to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board by the Revenue Department and is in possession of the Housing Board with effect from 1971 onwards. Therefore, no other person can claim right over the said property. It was also stated that the petitioners are encroachers and they are nothing but land grabbers. In the counter affidavit, they also referred to the Writ Petitions filed by various persons in respect of the very same property on earlier occasions.

6. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General brought to the notice of this Court the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court presided by K.G.Blakrishnan, C.J (as he then was) in Writ Appeal No.2547 of 1999 dated 21. 2000.

7. In that case, 64 persons belonged to that area initially filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.5639 of 1991 seeking for a direction to the State Government to provide alternative accommodation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1488 dated 11. 1988 as well as the order passed by the Supreme Court before evicting the petitioners from the land in question. Though the Survey Number of the land was not given, in the petition for interim injunction the property was described as R.S.No.739-Part in the Main Road adjacent to old grave yard, MKB Nagar, Vyasarpadi, Chennai 39. A learned judge of this Court by his judgment dated 26. 1999 dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the petitioners therein were not eligible to be covered in the Scheme made by the State Government. Aggrieved by the order, they had preferred the Writ Appeal. The Writ appeal filed by those persons came to be dismissed by a speaking order dated 21. 2000. The Division Bench held that the petitioners did not fulfill the norms laid down by