Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, C.KUMARAPPAN
Pennurimai Iyakkam, through its Secretary – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners in eviction cases. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioners claim rights due to long occupation. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on rights and public policy. (Para 4 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. encroachers vs original allottees. (Para 7 , 8 , 15) |
| 5. judicial review constraints on accommodation claims. (Para 16) |
| 6. final order for eviction. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
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
Eviction procedures under the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act must comply with legal protocols; encroachers are not entitled to claim accommodation.
The main legal point established is that the authorities have a duty to develop slum areas as per the Act and prevent unauthorised encroachments, failing which appropriate actions can be directed by ....
The need for executives to exercise their powers vigilantly and effectively in accordance with the Act and the Rules.
The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not absolute and can be restricted by a procedure established by law.
Eviction of slum dwellers without due process violates fundamental rights, necessitating compensation and adequate housing provisions for affected individuals.
The court ruled that unlawful encroachers cannot claim rights under slum rehabilitation laws, reinforcing the supremacy of environmental protections and legal accountability.
The court affirmed that the Petitioners, claiming tribal allotment rights, failed to prove ownership of the land, thus upholding the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme's implementation and eviction orders.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
