IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03-12-2010
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN
W.P. No. 19587 of 2010
and
M.P. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2010
S. Krishnamurthy .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Director of Municipal Administration
Secretariat
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
2. The District Collector
Cuddalore District
Cuddalore
3. The Commissioner of Municipality
Cuddalore Municipality Office
Cuddalore
4. The Chairman
Cuddalore Municipality
Cuddalore .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records connected with the proceedings of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.1007-09-H.2 dated 23.10.2009 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents not to evict the petitioner from Door No.7, Ward 5, Block 45, T.S. No. 1734, Kuppankulam, Thirupathirupuliyur, Cuddalore -02 and to consider his request for grant of patta for the said land or alternative accommodation within the Cuddalore Municipality limit based on the petitioner's recent representation dated 25.03.2010.
For Petitioner : Mr. K. Thilageswaran
For Respondents : Mr. A. Arun
Additional Government Pleader for RR1 and 2
Mr. R. Murali
Government Advocate for R3 and R4
ORDER
The petitioner is an occupant of a residential house allotted by the municipality for sanitary employees. The petitioner admits in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that only five employees are working as Sweepers in the municipality in that area and all other occupants are legal heirs of the then sanitary employees in the municipality. According to the petitioner, his father was one of the sweepers in the municipality and he retired in the year 1998. While so, the third respondent issued the impugned notice dated 23.10.2009 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises within 15 days as he is not entitled to occupy the premises. Immediately, the petitioner made various representations, including the representation dated 25.03.2010 seeking alternative accommodation. Since no order was passed by the respondents, he filed the present writ petition challenging the notice dated 23.10.2009 issued by the respondent with a consequential prayer to direct the respondents to provide him alternative accommodation..
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner is in occupation of the premises for more than 40 years and therefore without providing him an alternative accommodation, the respondent should not proceed to evict him from the residential premises.
3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that in the premises allotted to sanitary employees, third parties have started occupying without any legal right. Even those employees, who have retired long back are not inclined to vacate the premises and continue to occupy the same for a long time. According to the respondents, the premises which are meant for sanitary employees of the municipality have been constructed long back and presently, they are in a dilapidated condition. Therefore, considering the safety of the occupants, the respondents have decided to demolish the dwelling houses and to put up a new construction, for which funds have also been allotted. The respondents have also passed orders in favour of contractors to proceed with the construction, however, the contractor could not proceed with the construction due to pendency of the present writ petition and the interim order granted by this Court. It is also stated that out of 30 dwelling units, 10 quarters are occupied by the employees of the municipality, 17 by the retired sanitary workers and 3 quarters are occupied by third parties. Under those circumstances, notice dated 23.10.2009 was issued to the petitioner and others which is valid. The petitioner’s father retired even during 1998 but till date the petitioner is occupying the premises illegally. Moreover, now the petitioner’s father also died and therefore, on the death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner can be construed as a trespasser and he has no legal right to file the present writ petition.
4. Heard both sides. The petitioner admits that he is in occupation of the premises after his father’s retirement in the year 1998. It is also admitted that the petitioner’s father died long back. The petitioner continues to occupy the premises without any legal right and his occupation can only be construed as an encroachment. It is clearly admitted by the petitioner that he is not paying any rent for his occupation of the premises. According to the respondent, the premises are in a dilapidated condition and therefore, they have decided to demolish the existing super-structure and to put up a building thereon under the Infrastructure Gap Filling Fund 2008-2009 at an estimated cost of Rs.68.75 lakhs. The Government also accorded financial sanction for construction of such building. Thereafter, the contract was also awarded in favour of a contractor but he could not commence the construction work due to the pendency of the writ petition and for other reasons namely the premises being occupied by third parties. Under those circumstance, the third respondent issued the impugned notice dated 23.10.2009 calling upon the petitioner to vacate and handover the premises within 15 days. Instead of complying with the demand made by the third respondent, the petitioner had sent various representations seeking alternative accommodation. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the notice dated 23.10.2009 of the respondent by contending that without providing him an alternative accommodation, the respondents cannot be permitted to evict him from the premises. Such a prayer cannot be considered by this Court. The petitioner has no legal right or locus standi to file the present writ petition. The petitioner cannot seek alternative accommodation as a matter of right. At best, the petitioner is entitled to a notice prior to evicting him from the premises, which was also issued by the respondent. Inspite of the notice dated 23.10.2009, the petitioner did not vacate the premises and squatting on the premises illegally without even paying any rent. By virtue of an interim order obtained from this Court, the petitioner is in occupation of the premises for more than one year from the date of issuance of the impugned notice. Under those circumstance, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Taking into consideration that the petitioner is in occupation of a residential house, the petitioner is given time to vacate the premises within 30 days from today, provided he files an affidavit of undertaking to that effect within one week from today. If such an affidavit of undertaking is not given by the petitioner, it is open to the respondent to proceed further in accordance with law.
5. With the above direction, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
rsh
To
1. The Director of Municipal Administration
Secretariat
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
2. The District Collector
Cuddalore District
Cuddalore
3. The Commissioner of Municipality
Cuddalore Municipality Office
Cuddalore
4. The Chairman
Cuddalore Municipality
Cuddalore