The main legal point established in the judgment is that the eligibility for allotment of flats to slum dwellers is based on specific criteria such as proof of residence and income, and the status of being a government servant at a later point in time does not disqualify an individual from being considered a genuine slum dweller.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in his letter No.EC/883/Dn-III/2016, dated 07.12.2016 and quash the same and consequently forbear the 1st and 2nd respondents herein from allotting apartment to the 3rd to 7th respondents in slum tenement in Erikarai, Vysarpadi, Chennai - 600 039 permanently.)

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the 2nd respondent dated 07.12.2016 and seeks a direction to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 herein from allotting apartment to the 3rd to 7th respondents in slum tenement in Erikarai, Vysarpadi, Chennai - 600 039.

2. The case of the writ petitioner is that she belongs to Scheduled Caste and residing with her daughter in Murthingar Street, Erikarai, Vyasarpadi, Chennai. The Government of Tamil Nadu has taken a decision to develop the living status of the slum people residing in the above said area and issued temporary allotment orders individually by taking note of individual ration card. The very object of providing apartment is to give shelter to the slum people those who are economically and socially very poor. The other people like Central Government employees, State Government employees and Local Body employees etc., cannot be called as slum dwellers due to the reason that they are having permanent Government jobs.

3. The petitioner came to understand that the respondents 3 to 7 had obtained temporary allotment order Nos.450, 449, 451, 452 and 453 respectively. It is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent is working in the King Institute of Preventive Medicine and Research, Guindy, Chennai and therefore she cannot be termed as a slum dweller and she is not entitled for allotment. Similarly, the 7th respondent is also an encroacher and she is also not a slum dweller and allotment cannot be made to her. Therefore, challenging the impugned allotment order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

4. In the counter it is stated that the petitioner and the third respondent families are living in unhygienic conditions and it was notified as a slum and brought under the Scheme of Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. The land was alienated to the Board vide G.O.Ms.No.397, Revenue Department, dated 07.07.2005. As the slum was congested without proper road and other basic amenities, it was proposed to construct multi storeyed tenements in the same area under XIII Finance Commission grants and to rehabilitate these families in the same area. The petitioner and her daughter were one among the encroachers and therefore they were included in the list of families to be rehabilitated and issued with Topo No.456 & 454 respectively. It is further stated that temporary allotment to the individual families was issued based on their proof of residence after conducting proper enumeration and employment of an individual living in the slum was not the criteria. Further the writ petition has been filed with previous enmity with other respondents, hence oppose this writ petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the third respondent was employed in the King Institute, Guindy after the death of her husband and the respondents 4 to 7 are in no way connected to the slum has been allotted flats. Whereas, when the third respondent has become the Government servant, allotment cannot be made. It is his further contention that no Government servant should be an encroacher upon Government property as per the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules. He further submitted that the object of the Tamil Nadu Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971 is to give benefit to the poor families who are residing in the slum and not to Government servants. Hence the learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the second respondent allotting flats in favour of the respondents 3 to 7 has to be set aside.

6. However, the learne