Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

TMT. AMMAKANNU versus THE CHAIRMAN

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Tmt. Ammakannu v. The Chairman - W.P. No.8605 of 1995 [2002] RD-TN 410 (26 June 2002)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED: 26/06/2002

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM

W.P. No.8605 of 1995

and

W.M.P. No.13708 of 1995

Tmt. Ammakannu .... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Chairman,

Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,

Chepauk, Madras 600 005.

2. The Executive Engineer,

Division No.3,

Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,

Vyasarpadi, Madras 39.

3. The Estate Officer No.3

Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,

Vyasarpadi, Madras 39.

4. Tmt. Jahangir Bibi .... Respondents PETITION under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus.

For Petitioner : Mr. V.K. Rajagopalan

For Respondents : Haja Nazirudeen R1

Mr. V. Rajasekaran,TNSCB -R 2&3 :O R D E R



The petitioner prays for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent dated 19.06.1995, quash the same and to issue directions to respondents 1 to 3 to allow the petitioner to continue to reside in Door No.848, Block No.40, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Colony, Sathyamurthy Nagar, Vyasarpadi, Madras 3 9.

2. According to the petitioner, in the year 1972, Door No.848 in Block No.40, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Colony, Sathyamurthi Nagar Vyasarpadi was allotted to the husband of the petitioner. At the time of allotment, the monthly instalment payable by her husband was Rs.15/- per month. The Slum Clearance Board have issued photo identity card to their family, which shows that the allotment was made in favour of their family. Their names were also mentioned in the photo identity card issued by the Slum Clearance Board. Due to some family problems and untoward incidents which took place, their family locked the Door No.848 and went to their native place viz., Koramangalam Village in Tiruttani Taluk, Chengalpattu District. After some time, they returned back to vyasarpadi to occupy the premises and to their surprise they found that one Kuppusamy was residing in the said Door Number without the knowledge of the petitioner. A complaint was also lodged to the respondents as against the said Kuppusamy. The petitioner was unable to do anything against the said person and therefore, again she went back to her native place and after some time returned back to Vyasarpadi and once again made a complaint against the said Kuppusamy. Subsequently, the said Kuppusamy sold the property to one Ibrahim. Afterwards the respondents 1 to 3 conducted enquiries and found that Door No.848 was still standing in the name of the late husband of the petitioner. Therefore, with the help of the local police, the respondents vacated the said Ibrahim and handed over the possession of the property to the petitioner on 06.06.1995. After that, till this date, she was residing in the Door Number as the allottee of the premises.

3. While so, without conducting any enquiry, the respondents arbitrarily cancelled the allotment of the year 1972 and reallotted the same in favour of Tmt. Jahangir Bibi viz., the fourth respondent by proceedings dated 19.06.1995. The said Jahangir Bibi is the wife of Ibrahim. The respondents have realloted in favour of the fourth respondent and according to the petitioner, the same was highly illegal and arbitrary. No enquiry was conducted before the allotment was cancelled and no notice was also issued to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for the aforesaid relief.

4. In the counter filed by the Slum Clearance Board, it is admitted that the original allotment was made in favour of one Perumal, husband of the petitioner. However, the allottee Perumal had handed over the tenement to one Kuppusamy without the permission of Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. The said Kuppusamy was occupying the tenement unauthorisedly, but was paying the licence fee in the name of the allottee. The Board imposed penalty of Rs.100/- for regularisation and as such the said Kuppusamy remitted the penalty amount of Rs.100/-. Subsequently also the said Kuppusamy was paying the licence fee for the period from 1981 to 1987. Then from 18.12.1988, Tmt. Jahangirbibi, wife of Ibrahim was residing in the tenement and she had paid the licence fee for the tenement. In 1995, the petitioner had represented to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board that she is the wife of erstwhile allottee and hence she had requested the Board to hand over the tenement to her. Hence on her request, the tenement was handed over to the petitioner on 06.06.1995 after evicting the unauthorised occupants. Later, it was brought to the notice of the Board that the petitioner was not residing there and that she had secured the possession of the tenement through the Board by giving false details to get back the tenement. She had already left the tenement in the year 1981 itself. She had stated false facts and mislead the Board. The residents also gave representation on 07.06.1995 stating that it was actually Jahangirbibi and her family, who were actually residing in the tenement and not the petitioner. In the result, the Slum Clearance Board allotted the premises on hire purchase basis to the fourth respondent, after she had submitted the bills in proof of her occupation from 1988 onwards. There was no illegality or arbitrariness in the action taken by the Slum Clearance Board.

5. I also heard both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that cancellation of the original allotment in favour of the husband of the petitioner was not proper and no Show Cause notice has been given before the allotment was cancelled. The Slum Clearance Board has chosen to recognise the possession by unauthorised occupants and therefore, the entire action of the Board was liable to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents however submits that the property was abandoned by the original allottee and his wife viz., the petitioner in the year 1981 itself and as the proof of subsequent possession from 1988 was shown by the fourth respondent, allotment was rightly made in her favour. There is no basis in the contention that the failure of giving notice to show cause would vitiate the proceedings, considering that the petitioner had abandoned the property and transferred in favour of Kuppusami in 1981 sitself without informing the Slum Clearance Board.

7. I have considered the submissions of both sides. Except for the fact that the allotment was made originally in favour of the petitioner's husband in the year 1972 and that they were residing there for some time, there is absolutely no material to sustain the claims of the petitioner. In the affidavit, the petitioner has deliberately chosen not to disclose any details or facts relating to as to when actually they left the premises. No dates or even the year as to when they left the premises and when they actually came back to re-occupy the premises have been stated. It has been clearly brought out in the counter affidavit that they had vacated some time in the year 1981 and that it was being occupied by one Kuppusamy. In fact he was not the original allottee, and the penalty was also imposed against him His occupation was regularised subsequently in proceedings dated 30.07.87. The said Kuppusamy has also paid the penalty and subsequently he was occupying the premises by paying licence fee for the period from 19 81 to 1987. Thereafter, the fourth respondent has taken over possession of the premises from 18.12.1988. Her possession also continued till 06.06.1995, on which date, the Board after hearing the representation of the petitioner appears to have put the petitioner is in possession. Subsequently on a representation of the fourth respondent as well as the other residents of the area and on a proper enquiry, the Slum Clearance Board came to the conclusion that it was in the possession of the fourth respondent continuously for several years and that the petitioner had abandoned the property long back. In the said background, the allotment came to be made in favour of the fourth respondent.

8. The aforesaid conduct on the part of the petitioner would disclose that though the allotment was made in the year 1972, the petitioner as well as her family had abandoned the property some where about the year 1981, from which date for a period for more than 7 years, it was in the occupation of one Kuppusamy His possession had also been regularised. And from 1988 onwards, the property was in the occupation of the fourth respondent's family. Therefore, on a consideration of the aforesaid facts and the conduct of the petitioner as well as the deliberate failure on the part of the petitioner in not furnishing the relevant details as to when she and her family vacated the premises and when they had come back etc., the petitioner is not entitled to any sympathy. Having abandoned the property and having put Kuppusami in possession unauthorisedly for several years, cannot be permitted to assert her rights after several years.

9. In the context of failure on the part of the Housing Board to give notice, having regard to aforesaid facts and the petitioner and their family themselves having abandoned the premises, the petitioner cannot expect the Slum Clearance Board to issue any notice to the petitioner. In 1987 itself Kuppasami's possession had been regularised.

10. A further conduct of the petitioner in not taking bonafide steps to have the notice served on the fourth respondent is also another ground, which has to be taken into account. The fourth respondent was impleaded as a contesting respondent. Considering that admittedly she is in possession of the premises, when the writ petition was admitted, notice was ordered. The petitioner did not take notice to the correct address. Without furnishing the Door Number, the petitioner has merely given the address of the fourth respondent as follows:

"Tmt. Jahangir Bibi, W/o Ibrahim, Sathyamurthynagar, Vyasarpadi,

Madras 600 039."

Notice has been returned several times unserved for want of proper address. The petitioner was directed to take fresh notice for correct address in the year 1999. Thereafter also, the petitioner has not chosen to give the correct door number. With the result, the notice was returned for want of correct address. Till date no notice has been served on the fourth respondent, who is very much in occupation of the premises, due to the deliberate conduct of the petitioner not furnishing the correct door number.

13. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, there are no merits in the above writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No.13708 of 1995 is also dismissed. Though the petitioner does not deserve any relief, while parting with this case I should mention that this is a specimen case which illustrates, the kind of control which the Board has on their allotments. There is practically no control or overseeing as to who is in actual possession, whether the person in occupation is really entitled to occupy the premises, whether the rents/instalments are being paid regularly etc., There is no purpose in issuing identity cards only at the time of allotment, without there being periodical checks. Subsequently unauthorised persons are found to be in occupation for many years without any action being taken against them. If any one abandons the property or transfers without permission then the unauthorised occupant should be evicted and allotment be made to deserving persons who are waiting for allotment. None of these basic requirements are complied with thus resulting in such disputes and untenable claims.

26.06.2002 Index:Yes

Internet : Yes

sl

K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM,J

To

1. The Chairman,

Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,

Chepauk, Madras 600 005.

2. The Executive Engineer,

Division No.3,

Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,

Vyasarpadi, Madras 39.

3. The Estate Officer No.3

Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,

Vyasarpadi, Madras 39.

W.P. No.8605 of 1995

&

W.M.P. No.13708 of 1995




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.