ORDER
1. The petitioner claims to be a Registered Association under the Societies Registration Act. The prayer in this writ petition is for a issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide fire-proof house/shelters to the residents of Annai Sathya Nagar and also to provide suitable rehabilitation measures and pass such further orders.
2. The members of the petitioner’s association are occupying an extent of C13-22-0174 sq.ft of land opposite to the Reserve Bank of India in R.S.No.11736 of VOC Nagar Village. The land, as of now, is in the name of the Government, Revenue Department. Admittedly, the members of the petitioner’s association have encroached and occupied the land belonging to the Government. It is, further, seen from the records, especially in the counter
filed in W.P.No.1348 of 1992, that notice under section 7 of the Encroachment Act has been issued on 14.7.82 and Section 6 notice was issued on 6.1.1983. This proceedings were approved by the Collector and sent to the Tahsildar. The encroachers earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.252 of 1983 and this Court by an order dated 15.7.91 directed the Government to provide alternative accommodation. It is, further, stated that the Government has prohibited the assignment of this land to anybody and therefore, the Government thought of removing the encroachments even in the year 1982 by issuing proper notice. It is, further stated that the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board has been addressed to provide alternative accommodation to the encroachers who have put up huts before 30.6.1984.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the residents of Annai Sathya Nagar belong to Scheduled Caste community, who work as casual labourers in the Madras Port. Few people, also work as construction workers, rickshaw, pullers, small petty traders and domestic servants. They have been residing there for the past thirty years, all of them have family ration cards and their children are studying in YMCA School. While so, on 15.3.2000, there was a fire at around 1230 PM which spread and all the huts were burnt down. After this accident, the residents have put up make-shift huts hear the vicinity. Several Officers including the Honourable Minister for Dairy Development and Slum Development Mr. Sundaram visited the area and promised relief and rehabilitation measures. They were informed that funds to the tune of rupees sixty lakhs have been sanctioned for the construction of fire-proof houses. While so, the police have been harassing the residents and pressurising them to leave the area for Thorapakkam, which is a low-lying swamp. They have obtained signatures of the residents forcibly and are preparing to cart many families away, which is illegal. According to the petitioners, the respondents are found to put up fire-proof houses as promised and since they have failed in their obligation, the above writ petition is filed.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the State is bound to provide free and compulsory education to all children and to provide fire-proof houses and suitable rehabilitation measures. The failure on the part of the Government is violative of provisions of Part IV of the Constitution. It is further submitted that the provisions of the various statutes including the Contract Labour Regulation Abolition Act 1970 are being violated. They must be provided with accommodation by the contractor. If the contractor fails to provide the same, the principle employer has to provide the said facility.
5. Learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the prayer in the writ petition as such is not maintainable. He factually refuted the allegation that all the residents of Annai Sathya Nagar are residing there even after the fire accident. According to him, 310 families have voluntarily vacated and moved the ready-built constructed tenements at Okkiyam Village, Thorapakkam after verification of their family ration cards. Only about ten families are reluctant to move to the alternative
accommodation of ready-built houses for ulterior purposes and for reasons known to themselves.
6. Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that the occupants were trespassers of the Government land and the Government has already taken a decision not to allow any sort of residential or slum activity in this particular area in view of security reasons in and around the Secretariat, Reserve Bank of India, High Court and Port Trust and therefore, the Government has prohibited any transfer and assignment of the said to anyone. He further referred to a Writ Petition No.253 of 1983 filed earlier by one Thiru Perumal, son of Kuppan representing VOC. Nagar (later named as Annai Sathya Nagar). The said writ petitions was dismissed on 15.7.91 with a direction that the residents shall be evicted after being provided with alternative accommodation. Accordingly, arrangements have been made and now they have been accommodated in the alternative ready-built houses. Learned Special Government Pleader denied any promise made by the Government in the Honourable Minister. It was made clear to all the residents long time back that there is no question of assignment or permission to continue their occupation in the said land. There is absolutely no scope for granting any assurance for putting up A.C. Sheet houses in the area.
7. From the above, it is clear that a number of persons were in occupation in R.S.No.11735 of VOC Nagar, Fort St. George in the Government land. They were treated as encroachers and proceedings under Sections 6 and 7 were initiated for removing the encroachments. Though the process of eviction of this encroachment has not been completed, in the writ petition filed on behalf of the residents earlier, a direction was issued to provide alternative accommodation and the writ petition was dismissed as early as in the year 1991. The petitioners are fully aware of this fact. The further fact that about 310 families have already shifted and provided with alternative accommodation and that only few of the families are trying to stay back for reasons, according to the petitioners, that the alternative accommodation provided is located on a swamp and it would be dangerous to live in such a place. It is further stated that the said place is inhospitable due to lack of basic amenities including drinking water and surrounded by various anti-social elements. It is further stated that they have to commute to a far-off distance everyday.
8. Insofar as the VOC Nagar is concerned, the Government has already declined to grant any permission to anybody to occupy this land. It is seen that as early as in the year 1997, in G.O.Ms No.362, Revenue dated 11.2.97, the Government has prohibited transferring or assigning of this land to anyone and inasmuch as eviction proceedings have already been initiated and completed, but still the petitioners were occupying, which were to be treated as objectionable. Besides, 310 families have already shifted petitioners cannot claim any particular piece of land as place for occupancy. Inasmuch as the occupants were provided with ready-built houses, the contention that the
Government has failed to provide suitable alternative accommodation cannot be sustained. The claim of the petitioners that the permanent houses are located in a swamp and are not suitable is not based on any proper material.
9. The Supreme Court, in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, ; dealing with the removal of encroachments, held that the Constitution does not put an absolute embargo on the deprivation of life and personal liberty, but such a deprivation must be, according to the procedure in the given circumstances, fair and reasonable. It must be pragmatic and a realistic one dealing with the facts of the situation. No inflexible rule of hearing and due application of mind can be insisted upon backdrop. The removal of encroachments needs urgent action. But, in this behalf, what requires to be done by the competent authority is to ensure constant vigil on encroachments of public places. The Supreme Court, in the said case, further held that it is true that in all cases it may not be necessary that alternative accommodation must be provided at the expense of the State, which if given due predence, is likely to result in abuse of the judicial process. No absolute principle of universal application would be laid in this behalf. Normally, the Court may not, as a rule, direct that the encroachers should be provided with alternative accommodation before ejectement when they encroach public properties, but each case requires examination and suitable direction appropriate to their facts.
10. In B. Saraswathi and 8 others v. Tahsildar Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvalur District, 1998 WLR 181, S.S.Subramani, J. has held that the petitioners therein admitted that they are in possession of the Government land and that they did not claim that they came into possession on the basis of consent by the Government. They are rank trespassers is evident from their own admission. Even though they claim to be in possession for the last more than 20 years, their legal status is only as trespassers. The learned Judge held that after entering into another man’s land, in this case the Government land, the trespassers themselves claim writ jurisdiction and claim equity in their favour though they have no legal right and declined to grant the relief to the petitioners following the judgment of the Calcutta High Court. The learned Judge followed the decision of the Supreme Court in A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, and Chief Secretary and others v. Mathai Kuriya Kose and others, for refusing the relief of mandamus at the hands of trespassers.
11. Insofar as the claim of the contract labour work and building construction work etc. are concerned, there are absolutely no materials to substantiate that the persons are workers of such nature and that the respondents have got a duty to provide alternative accommodation. Besides, as against the failure to implement the various provisions, it is open to the members of the petitioner Association to move the authorities concerned for the relief, if any available, under those Acts. Similarly, the particulars of the number of children studying in YMCA School near Fort St. George are not given. It is not the case of the petitioners that there are no schools available at
Thorapakkam. The distance and the travel cannot be a ground for granting the relief sought for. Firstly, it cannot be stated that the place is located unreasonably far. Petitioners cannot seek a provision within the City. Necessarily, it has to be little away from the center of the town. On that ground, it cannot be stated that it is not an alternative accommodation. The Supreme Court, in the Review Petition Order referred to by the counsel, has stated that the Slum Dwellers will be provided with settlements ensuring as far as practicable within a reasonable distance from the related place of employment.
12. The petitioners have no legal right to claim and that right has been concluded by an order of this Court in W.P.No.252 of 1983 and W.P.No.1348 of 1992.
13. For all these reasons, the relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted. The writ petition therefore fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, WMP.No.9152 of 2000 is also dismissed.