M. Venugopal, S. Vaidyanathan, JJ.

The present Review Application is taken out by the Petitioners in W.P.No.31114 of 2017 to Review the order dated 19.02.2018 passed by this Court in the Writ Petition.

2. The Review Application arises under the following circumstances:

(i) Being dissatisfied with the order passed by this Court dated 19.02.2018 in W.P.No.31114 of 2017, the Applicants had moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.46442 of 2018 and subsequently, the said petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 11.01.2019, with a liberty being granted to approach this Court within Four Weeks, with further direction being issued to maintain 'status quo' till then. Pursuant to the said liberty being granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Applicants are before this Court, seeking to Review the order dated 19.02.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.No.31114 of 2017.

(ii) It was submitted by the Applicants that Survey No.3961/3, situated at Elango Street, Govindasamy Nagar, Chennai is a notified slum under Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971 (in short 'the Act') and unless and until a notification is issued under Section 11 of the Act, the Applicants cannot be disturbed. Once the Government forms an opinion that the place notified under Section 3 of the Act is not feasible for improvement and development, thereafter a declaration is issued by the State Government under Section 11 of the Act for clearance of the notified slum area. It is a settled law by several judgments of this Court that eviction of residence in the slum area is impermissible without invoking the provisions of Section 11 of the Act.

(iii) On behalf of the Applicants, it was pointed out that the 'Slum Dwellers' are completely different from Encroachers, because after declaration of a particular area as Slum by the Slum Clearance Board, the Slum Dwellers are permitted to occupy the area, whereas the Encroachers reside without any Authority. When the area is a designated slum, notified by the State Government and the intention of the Government was to develop it, there is no question of these residents residing on the Southern side of the 'Elango Street' at a distance of more than 40-45 feet from Buckingham Canal and the Applicants, by no stretch of imagination, can be classified as Encroachers, as they fall within the ambit of Sections 3 and 11 of the Act, 1971.

(iv) The Applicants had argued that they are not the real Encroachers and the actual 366 persons residing on the 'Banks of the Buckingham Canal' were already removed. It was also pointed out that the Buckingham Canal itself is about 45 feet, after which the banks of Buckingham Canal is about another 5 feet and thus, it is clear that Elango Street is situated beyond another 45 feet and they reside on the Southern side of the Elango Street with an adequate distance of over 40-45ft. from the Buckingham Canal, which alone is notified as slum under the Act.

(v) The Applicants' submission was that since the 'Buckingham Canal' falls within the jurisdiction of Public Works Department and on inspection, the Encroachers were removed by the PWD Officials and at the same, they cannot deal with the property, in which the Applicants are residing in view of the fact that the said area comes within the jurisdiction of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board.

(vi) The Applicants took a stand that though the 10th Respondent has no vested interest in the present issue on hand, in order to enjoy the entire portion of the property of the Applicants and to take control of the area, he wanted to evict them in an illegal manner. When the Report clearly shows that there is a distance of 40 to 45 feet from the canal bund and the Government themselves had admitted the same in their 'Status Report', the act of the Respondents in evicting the Applicants from the Elango Street is a clear violation of Fundamental Rights and therefore, the 10th Respondent has no 'Locus standi' to evict the