Encroachers cannot claim additional land beyond allotted plots under the Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project, as the Scheme is designed to protect the livelihoods of landless poor without conceding unjust gains to existing encroachers.

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam,J.)

Writ Petitions have been instituted, challenging the orders dated

14.02.2018, whereby Petitioners’ claim to execute sale deeds in respect of larger extent of plots, in addition to plots already allotted in their favour, was rejected by the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and presently, Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board (in short ‘Board’), by way of common order.

2. In all these writ petitions, since common issue is involved, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from W.P.No.21884 of 2018 in respect of New Plot No.297.

3. The Tabular Column furnished by the Board in respect of allotted plots to individual petitioners is extracted hereunder:

4. Facts in brief as averred in W.P.No.21884 of 2018 would show that the entire land originally belonged to Revenue Department of Government of Tamil Nadu and it was classified as "Eri Poramboke". Since large scale encroachments were made by Slum Dwellers, Government had introduced a project, namely, Madras Urban Development Project and taken a decision to allot their occupied portion of the land under ‘as is where is condition’ to houseless persons, instead of dislocating them in the slum area and consequently, sale deeds were also executed;

4.1. The claim of petitioner is that she was in occupation of larger extent of area. Therefore, she is entitled for the remaining portion of the land and sale deed has to be executed in respect of the balance land.

5. Mr.V.Govardhanan, learned counsel for the petitioners would mainly contend that insofar as the petitioner in W.P.No.21884 of 2018, namely, Sundari is concerned, originally she was in occupation of Old Plot No.169 measuring 2400 sq.ft. and the said plot was divided as two plots and new Plot Nos.296 and 297 were allotted. Allotment was granted in respect of Plot No.297 and no patta was granted in respect of Plot No.296. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application to allot and execute a sale deed for Plot No.296. Since the claim of petitioner was rejected vide impugned order dated

14.02.2018, the petitioner has instituted W.P.No.21884 of 2018.

5.1. Mr.V.Govardhanan, learned counsel would further contend that Plot No.169 has to be treated as a single plot. The petitioner was in occupation of the said plot and it cannot be subdivided by the authorities. The Sub-Division per se is unacceptable. Therefore, allotment ought to have been made in respect of the entire extent of land in Old Plot No.169 and thus, the rejection order is liable to be interfered with.

6. Mr.B.Balaji, learned Standing Counsel for the Board would oppose, by stating that petitioners herein are encroachers and they had encroached upon lands belonging to Revenue Department. The Government took a policy decision to allot the said land to encroachers to the extent they occupied and therefore, they cannot claim larger extent of land as a matter of right. In the present case, actual occupation was taken into consideration during preparation of enumeration list and accordingly, revised new Plot No.297 was allotted in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.21884 of 2018 and in respect of other portion of the land, it was not allotted. Insofar as the Board is concerned, her possession has been construed as an encroachment. He would contend that allotment order was issued and after receipt of sale deed, beneficiary has to register the sale deed before the jurisdictional Sub-

Registrar by following due procedures.

7. This Court has considered the arguments as advanced between the parties.

8. Admittedly, the land belongs to Revenue Department of Government of Tamil Nadu and large scale encroachments were made