S.Pandiaraj, v. The Chairman

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28.09.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR & M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 S.Pandiaraj ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Chairman Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai-600 005 2.A.Palani 3.R.Mohan ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings Na.KA.2622/1955/E2 dated 14.03.1995 and quash the same and thereby directing the first respondent to allot the said plot in favour of the petitioner on any terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit and proper.

For Petitioner : Mr.Fredrick Russel Lionel For Respondents : Mr.G.Sivakumar for R1 MR.B.Janakiram for R2 and 3

O R D E R

Writ Petition is filed, seeking to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings Na.KA.2622/1955/E2 dated 14.03.1995 and quash the same and thereby directing the first respondent to allot the said plot in favour of the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is in possession of the property for more than twenty years. However, the 3rd respondent got allotment in his favour. The 3rd respondent pursuant to his allotment of the plot, has been evicted the petitioner from the premises. The petitioner already filed a suit in O.S.No.5393 of 1996 before the IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and also R.C.O.P.No.2727 of 1995 against the 2nd respondent. Hence, seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to allot a plot to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit that petitioner is only a tenant under the 2nd respondent and he has already been evicted and the Writ Petition is nothing but suppression of material facts. He already filed suit in O.S.No.15726 of 1996, the said suit has been dismissed as withdrawn on 28.06.2001. Similarly, another suit in

O.S.No.5393 of 1996 was filed, it is also dismissed as settled out of Court and further it is the contention that no application has been made for any such allotment. Therefore, he cannot as a matter of fact seek allotment.

4. When the Court has posed a question to the petitioner as to whether any application has been given for allotment, the petitioner however would submit that no application has been filed. Since he was in possession, he is entitled for allotment.

5. The petitioner who is a tenant under the 2nd respondent is not been disputed. The suit filed and the copy of the judgment indicate that he had already filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and some how or other suit was got dismissed as withdrawn and another suit was dismissed as settled out of Court. These facts really indicate that petitioner has already received some consideration and settled the suit. Be that as it may, as no applications were pending, merely on the basis of his possession, he cannot claim allotment by way of Writ Petition.

Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 28.09.2022 kpr Internet:Yes Speaking/Non speaking order To 1.The Chairman Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai-600 005

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

kpr & M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 28.09.2022