The claim for compensation based on inherited rights is dismissed due to previous eviction and lack of merit.

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

3. According to the petitioner, her grandfather was allotted Plot No.1324-F, measuring an extent of 150 sq.ft., by the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 01.12.1986. After the demise of her grandfather, the petitioner's grandmother took possession of the said property and was paying the corporation tax. Thereafter, the grandmother of the petitioner submitted a representation seeking transfer of the lease in respect of the subject property in her name. However, the said request was not considered.

4. While so, the 2nd respondent pasted an eviction notice dated

12.06.2006 on the wall of the said property, treating the petitioner's grandmother as an encroacher. The said notice was challenged by the petitioner's grandmother in W.P.No.19325 of 2006. This Court, by order dated 27.06.2006, directed the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner's grandmother in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner's grandmother submitted a detailed representation to the 2nd respondent. However, the said representation was rejected and the 2nd respondent passed another eviction order dated 24.07.2006. The said eviction order was challenged by the petitioner's grandmother in W.P.No.24601 of 2006. This Court, by order dated 03.08.2006, set aside the eviction order passed by the 2nd respondent and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Thereafter, a detailed order was passed, rejecting the request made by the petitioner's grandmother. Subsequently, the demolition of the superstructure on the subject property was carried out by the respondents. The petitioner's grandmother also filed Contempt Petition No.6 of 2006, which was closed by order dated 11.03.2009, observing that the delivery of possession in respect of the subject property had been handed over to the Housing Board by the petitioner's grandmother and thereafter the demolition of the superstructure on the said property was carried out.

5. Now, after a period of 19 years, and that too after the demise of her grandmother, the petitioner has submitted a representation seeking compensation. The claim of the petitioner is absolutely false and baseless, and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

6. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within a period of one week.