Ramani vs The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board

Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 9120-9121 of 2015

Mrs. Ramani .Appellant(S)

Versus

The Tamil Nadu Slum-Clearance Board & Ors. ..Respondent(S)

JUDGMENT

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order dated 06.09.2006 in Writ Appeal (WA)

No. 1785/1999 and subsequent order dated 22.12.2014 in

Review Petition No. 145/2006 in WA No. 1785/1999

passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, the

original allottee of the land in question has preferred the

present Special Leave Petitions.

2. As the petitioner herein was allotted a plot bearing No. 25

in Thirumoolar Colony Scheme area by the Tamil Nadu Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Neetu Sachdeva Date: 2022.11.24 12:53:49 IST

Slum Clearance Board. The petitioner paid all the amounts Reason:

1

payable in pursuance of the said allotment. She was also

issued with a No Objection Certificate for obtaining water

connection and drainage connection. However, before

putting up any construction, she was required to obtain

the permission from Chennai Municipal Corporation to put

up construction. The petitioner applied for approval of the

building plan on 15.03.1996. But without waiting for the

approval to be granted to the building plan, she proceeded

with the construction. It appears that the plot in question

was earmarked as “public convenience.” A civil suit bearing

OS No. 326/1996 was filed against the Board so as to

restrain the Board in making allotment to the individual.

Hence, the plot allotted to the petitioner was required for

the “public purpose.” At this stage, it is required to be

noted that the Chennai Metropolitan Development

Authority (CMDA) originally granted approval to the layout

in the scheme “town planning scheme” which showed the

land in question to be earmarked for “public convenience.”

However, since the plot allotted to the petitioner was

required for the public purpose, the CMDA did not approve

the proposal for making the allotment. That thereafter, the

2 Slum Clearance Board cancelled the allotment of the plot

in question by proceedings dated 03.06.1996. It appears

that despite the order of cancellation vide proceedings

dated 03.06.1996, the petitioner continued with the un-

authorized construction and even without the building

plan getting sanctioned/approved. According to writ

appellant before the Division Bench of the High Court, the

petitioner along with 50 persons stormed into the colony

and began demolishing the public lavatory. Therefore, writ

petition came to be filed before the High Court being Writ

Petition No. 11868/1996 and W.M.P. No. 16016/1996,

directing the Slum Clearance Board to remove illegal

construction by submitting that there are above 400

families residing in the said colony therefore, the Slum

Clearance Board has constructed public toilets,

bathrooms, etc., in plot No. 25 to cater the needs of the

residents of the locality.

2.1 The petitioner herein filed the writ petition before the

learned Single Judge being Writ Petition No. 10441/1996

challenging order 03.06.1996 cancelling the allotment, the

3 learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition setting

aside the cancellation of the allotment by observing that

there was no jurisdiction with the Slum Clearance Board

to cancel the allotment.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by

the learned Single Judge, respondent No. 2 herein –

Thirumoolar Colony has preferred the present writ appeal

before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division

Bench of the High Court by a detailed judgment and order

has set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge

by observing that as the plot was intended for a public

purpose under the layout for the scheme approved by the

Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and the

same was intended for a public purpose, the same could

not have been allotted in favour of an individual and also

by observing that construction put up by the petitioner

herein was absolutely illegal and un-authorized

construction even without getting the building plan

sanctioned by the Chennai Municipal Corporation.

4 2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the

High Court the original allottee has preferred the present

Special Leave Petitions.

3. Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate has appeared

on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Amit Anand Tiwari,

learned AAG has appeared on behalf of the respondent –

State.

3.1 Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on

behalf of the petitioner has assailed the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court on the

following grounds and submitted as under: -

(i) That respondent No. 2 herein – writ appellant had no

locus to file the writ appeal as the writ appellant

cannot be said to be an aggrieved person;

(ii) That the Slum Clearance Board whose order of

cancellation of the allotment was set aside has

accepted the judgment and order passed by the

learned Single Judge;

5

(iii) That in the area/locality in question full development

has taken place and therefore, the land is not need

for any public utility;

(iv) That the petitioner has put up the construction after

getting the plans sanctioned may be subsequently.

3.2 On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondent – State/Board has vehemently submitted

that as the plot in question was reserved for public

utility/public convenience for the locality under the

sanctioned scheme by the Chennai Metropolitan

Development Authority and when despite the above the

land was allotted in favour of individual dehors the scheme

sanctioned by the Chennai Metropolitan Development

Authority and the families residing in the said

colony/locality were deprived of the facility of the public

toilets/bathrooms, etc., it cannot be said that original writ

appellant had no locus and they cannot be said to be an

aggrieved person. Reliance is placed upon the decision of

this Court in the case of Bangalore Medical Trust Vs.

B.S. Muddappa and Ors.; (1991) 4 SCC 54 (para 29). It is

6 submitted that it is observed and held by this Court in the

aforesaid decision that the residents of the locality are the

persons intimately, vitally, and adversely affected by any

action of the Development Authority which deprived them

of facilities given for their enjoyment.

3.3 On merits it is vehemently submitted that the petitioner

put up the un-authorized and illegal construction without

getting the building plan sanctioned from the competent

authority/municipal corporation and by using force and

even the allotment in favour of the petitioner was

absolutely illegal, as the plot allotted to the petitioner was

reserved for public convenience, reserved under the

scheme sanctioned/approved by the Chennai Metropolitan

Development Authority under town planning

scheme/master plan, the same could not have been

allotted to any individual. It is submitted that immediately

within few months even before any construction was put

up the allotment in favour of the petitioner came to be

cancelled. It is submitted that thereafter the Division

Bench of the High Court has not committed any error in

7 quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed

by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted as such the

true, correct, and full facts were not brought to the notice

of the learned Single Judge which have been considered by

the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court while

passing the impugned judgment and order.

4. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties at length.

5. At the outset it is required to be noted that as such the

plot in question was originally reserved/earmarked for

“public convenience” pursuant to the approved layout

under the scheme sanctioned by the Chennai Metropolitan

Development Authority. The plot in question was therefore

required to be used for “public utility” only. It appears that

in fact the public toilets and the bathrooms were

constructed which were being used by the family members

of the colony. However, immediately on getting the

allotment in her (petitioner) favour the public toilets,

bathrooms came to be demolished/damaged and

immediately the writ appellant filed the original suit as well 8 as the subsequent writ petition before the High Court.

Within a few months the allotment in favour of the

petitioner came to be cancelled by proceedings/order dated

03.06.1996. Though the petitioner applied for approval of

the building plan on 15.03.1996, without waiting for the

approval to be granted to the building plan by the Chennai

Municipal Corporation, the petitioner proceeded with the

construction. Not only that at the time when the petitioner

put up the construction, the petitioner was aware of the

litigation(s) and despite the same she put up the

construction. Therefore, thereafter when the allotment has

been cancelled having found it to be illegal and contrary to

the sanctioned layout in the scheme by the Chennai

Metropolitan Development Authority and thereafter, when

the construction put up is found to be unauthorized, the

petitioner cannot claim any equity. The petitioner put up

the construction despite the restrain order. From the order

passed by the learned Single Judge, it appears that the

true, correct, and full facts were not placed before the

learned Single Judge. Therefore, the Division Bench of the

High Court has rightly interfered with the judgment and

9 order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing and

setting aside the cancellation of the allotment in favour of

the petitioner.

6. Now so far as the submissions made on behalf of the

petitioner that the writ appellant cannot be said to be an

aggrieved person and had no locus to file the appeal, more

particularly, when the Slum Clearance Board did not

challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge is

concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. It is required to

be noted that under the sanctioned layout scheme by the

Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, the plot in

question was earmarked for public convenience and the

same was required to be used and in fact was being used

by the family members of the colony for public toilets,

bathrooms, etc. As observed and held by this Court in the

case of Bangalore Medical Trust (supra) the development

scheme is meant for reasonable accomplishment of the

statutory object which is to promote the orderly

development of the city. It is further observed and held

that the residents of the locality are the persons intimately,

10 vitally, and adversely affected of any action of the

development authority and the Government which is

destructive of the Government and which deprives them of

facilities reserved for the enjoyment and protection of the

health of the public at large. Therefore, when the land

earmarked for public convenience was taken away and was

allotted in favour of the private individual, the residents

and locals were deprived of the right to use the plot for

public convenience and therefore, the writ appellant can be

said to be an aggrieved person with the order passed by

the learned Single Judge.

7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and

having found that the plot in question was

reserved/earmarked for public convenience for the

residents of the locality/colony which could not have been

allotted in favour of individual and that the construction

put up by the petitioner was absolutely illegal and un-

authorised, no error has been committed by the Division

Bench of the High Court quashing and setting aside the

judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge

11 setting aside the cancellation of the allotment. We are in

complete agreement with the view taken by the High

Court.

8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above there

is no substance in the present Special Leave Petitions and

the same deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly

dismissed.

…………………………………J. (M. R. SHAH)

…………………………………J. (M.M. SUNDRESH) NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 24, 2022.

12