Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 195
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. VENUGOPAL, R.PONGIAPPAN, JJ.
S.Selvi and Ors - Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, O/o. The District Collector and Ors - Respondent
W.P.No.11470 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos.12454, 12455 of 2017, 21552 of 2018
Decided on : 04-01-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel For M/s.M.Ezhilarasi
For the Respondent:Mrs.Narmatha Sampath Additional Advocate General Asst by Mr.T.M.Pappiah Mr.V.Anandhamurthy Mr.S.Sundaresan
The revocable nature of permission to reside in the subject land and the need for compliance with court orders.
Headnote:
Eviction - Rehabilitation - Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, belonging to the 'Irular Tribe', were relocated to Irular Colony, Chennai, as a rehabilitation measure after the Tsunami. The impugned notice for eviction was issued by the Tahsildar, Velacherry, without prior notice and without application of mind. The petitioners claimed to be original allottees of the land and argued that they were not encroachers. They also highlighted their source of livelihood and the right to life, including the right to means of livelihood.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned notice was issued in compliance with the court's earlier order to remove encroachments. The court also noted the relocation recommendations made by the authorities and the provision of built tenements for the petitioners. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the need for a police outpost, sufficient lighting, and additional schools in the rehabilitation area.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the impugned eviction notice, the petitioners' status as original allottees, and their right to livelihood and rehabilitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the revocable nature of the permission to reside in the subject land and the need for compliance with the earlier court orders. The court also highlighted the importance of providing essential facilities in the rehabilitation area.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court directed the authorities to establish a police outpost, provide sufficient lighting, and assess the need for additional schools in the rehabilitation area.
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
1. Heard both sides.
2. Summary Facts:
2.1. According to the Petitioners, they belong to the 'Irular Tribe' and were originally residence of Thiruvallur Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041. After Tsunami, they were relocated to Irular Colony, 4th Cross Street, Besant Nagar, Chennai as a rehabilitation measure and are residents for past 13 years.
2.2. The stand of the Petitioners is that they are the original Allottees of the aforesaid land belonging to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Further, the 2nd Respondent/Tahsildar, Velacherry had made a recommendation to the 1st Respondent/District Collector, Chennai for relocating 37 Irular families to a place near Crematorium/ Cremation ground whereby 2 plots of land which is vacant without use and the said recommendation is pending with the 1st Respondent from the year 2006. While that be the fact situation, the 2nd Respondent/Tahsildar, Velachery by aiding with the private builder has issued an impugned notice dated 13.04.2017 for evicting them in compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.29497 of 2008 dated 30.08.2013. Hence, the Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition.
3. Contentions of the Petitioners:
3.1. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the impugned notice dated 13.04.2017 was issued by the 2nd Respondent/Tahsildar, Velachery and in fact, the Petitioners were not arrayed as parties in W.P.No.29497 of 2008 dated 30.08.2013.
3.2. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the 2nd Respondent/Tahsildar, Velacherry had ignored the order passed by this Court in Review Application No.108 of 2015 dated 20.07.2015 whereby a clear finding was rendered to the effect that there was no encroachment in the land which is the subject matter of W.P.No.29497 of 2008.
3.3. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners comes out with a plea that the Petitioners are residing in the Petition land for 13 years and their children are attending the nearby Schools and their source of Livelihood is nearby their residences.
3.4. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners projects an argument that the impugned notice dated 13.04.2017 was issued by the 2nd Respondent without application of mind and that the Petitioners were not issued with prior notices before the issuance of the impugned notice dated 13.04.2017.
3.5. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners emphatically takes a stand that the Petitioners are not on the road land; that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had not issued the notice; that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board's property was given to the Chennai Greater Corporation as 'Gift' for formation of a road and that it is for the Chennai Corporation to take action under the City Municipal Corporation Act, 1990.
3.6. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners proceeds to point out that if the Petitioners are not 'Encroachers' and when the land is vested with the Chennai Corporation, then, the Tahsildar has no role to play, therefore, the impugned notice dated 13.04.2017 is an illegal one.
3.7. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submits that when once the rehabilitation measure is pending and that when the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had not issued the impugned notice dated 13.04.2017 and when the Petitioners are there from the year 2004 in Block T.S.No.11 of the Urur Village, Besant Nagar and when they were accepted because of 'Tsunami', then, without termination of their Lease/Licence, they cannot be evicted in Law.
3.8. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners contends that even assuming without admitting that the 2nd Respondent/ Tahsildar, Velacherry has jurisdiction and has role to play, the Petitioners were not issued with prior notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and also that, orders were not passed under Section 6 of the Act.
3.9. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners refers to the order of the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.29497 of 2008 [between
