Eviction procedures under the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act must comply with legal protocols; encroachers are not entitled to claim accommodation.

ORDER :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Notice of eviction issued to the encroachers are sought to be assailed in the present writ petitions.

2. The petitioners would mainly contend that they are in occupation of slum area for a considerable length of time and their rights accrued cannot be taken away by the Slum Clearance Board, presently renamed as 'Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board' for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction of the existing building.

3. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Prakash, appearing on behalf of some of the petitioners would contend that the procedures as contemplated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1971 has not been followed. Notification as required under Section 11 of the Act has not been complied with. Therefore, the proposal for demolition and reconstruction is in violation of the provisions of the Act. In the absence of specific declaration under the Act, the eviction notice issued is unsustainable. That apart, there is no assurance that after demolition and reconstruction, the writ petitioners will be accommodated in the same place. In the absence of any such assurance, the petitioners, if dislocated, would affect their livelihood. Thus, the present writ petitions are to be considered.

4. The learned senior counsel would rely upon the judgement of the constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation reported in 1985 (3)SCC 545 and para 37 reads as under:

37. Two conclusions emerge from this discussion: one, that the right to life which is conferred by Article 21 includes the right to livelihood and two, that it is established that if the petitioners are evicted from their dwellings, they will be deprived of their livelihood. But the Constitution does not put an absolute embargo on the deprivation of life or personal liberty. By Article 21, such deprivation has to be according to procedure established by law. In the instant case, the law which allows the deprivation of the right conferred by Article 21 is the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, the relevant provisions of which are contained in Sections 312(1), 313(1)(a) and 314. These sections which occur in Chapter XI entitled `Regulation of Streets' read thus :...

5. It is contended that the subject location is a notified slum area and therefore, any clearance must be notified. Thus, the action for eviction of slum dwellers are invalid.

6. The learned counsel Mr.B.Dinesh Kumar appearing for the petitioenr in W.P.No.24107 of 2024 would contend that the subject property falls in two Taluks, namely Mambalam Taluk and Egmore Taluk. This aspect was not considered by the respondents. That apart, the land does not belong to Tamil Nadu Urban Habitant Development Board and it belongs to Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board. The land is classified as “Government poromboke”. The petitioners are in occupation for long years. Therefore, the eviction proceedings initiated are to be held as invalid.

7. The learned counsel Mr.N.D.Sivakumaran appearing for interveners would submit that they are the original allottees by the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board. As far as those allottees are concerned, Board has given necessary document for their accommodation in the proposed new construction to be developed in the very same location.144 and 176 allottees respectively are the original allottees and they are presently residing outside, awaiting the projects to be completed for their re-occupation. The writ petitions are encroachers, encroached upon the