The main legal point established in the judgment is that encroachment and unauthorized construction do not confer legal rights, and the disposal of pending appeals must be in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, No. 5, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai – 600 005 the Third Resondent herein culminating in Na. Ka. No. E5/2188/2018 dated 08.01.2019 and quash the same and further direct the Third Respondent to issue the sale deed to the Petitioner in respect of the Plot No. 337 (or) 338, in East Namachivayapuram, Chennai – 600 094 on payment of land cost to be paid by the Petitioner.)

Heard Mr. K.Balakrishnan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. R.Venkatesh, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the First Respondent, Mr. S.Saravanan, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Second and Fourth Respondents and Mr. S.Prabhu, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Third Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

2. It is borne out from the records that one Vijaya had filed the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 27955 of 2011 before this Court for a direction to the concerned authorities of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (herein after referred as ‘the CMDA’ for brevity and convenience), Corporation of Greater Chennai and the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board to immediately demolish the illegal construction put up by the Petitioner, viz., K.Shanthi and her husband R.Karmegam and remove the encroachment in the land illegally occupied by them in East Namachivayapuram, Choolaimedu, Chennai–600094 and restore the same for public purpose for which it was intended and ear-marked. In pursuance thereof, the Corporation of Greater Chennai had issued notices dated 24.11.2011 and 28.01.2017 to the Petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction made in that property. When the action taken was reported before the Division Bench of this Court on 31.01.2017, the aforesaid Writ Petition was disposed by the following order:-

The listing of this matter after almost six years appears to have at last triggered off some action on the part of the respondent Corporation / the third respondent, which has found the illegal construction put up by respondents 5 and 6 on plot No.337, East Namachivayapuram, Choolaimedu, Chennai 94, Nungambakkam Village, Egmore Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai District and has issued a locking and sealing and demolition notice under Sections 56 and 57 read with 85 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, on 28.01.2017 to the fifth and sixth respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the third respondent states that the proceedings shall be concluded within a maximum period of two (2) months from today.

3. The aforesaid statement is taken on record. The Corporation shall remain bound by the same.

Writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 stand closed.”

3. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed the Writ Petition bearing W.P. No. 2858 of 2018 before this Court for directing the concerned authority of the Corporation of Greater Chennai and the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board not to take coercive steps to demolish the buildings put in Plot No. 337, Door No. 196, East Namachivayapuram, Choolaimedu, Chennai – 600094 except under due process of law. The said Writ Petition was disposed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 02.04.2018 as follows:-

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner claims that a site/plot admeasuring to an extent of 450 sq.ft at No.196, East Namachivayapuram, Chooladimedu, Chennai600 094, bearing plot no.337 was allotted in favour of her husband viz., Karmegam, in the year 1994 and thereafter, the land was surveyed by the 3rd respondent, after issuing a notice dated 13.05.1994 in H.S./217/1994, the petitioner was also called upon to pay a sum of Rs.40/- as survey charges and he has paid also.

3. It is the claim of the petitioner that she is residing in