{"id":47258,"date":"1985-07-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1985-07-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985"},"modified":"2016-12-22T09:12:44","modified_gmt":"2016-12-22T03:42:44","slug":"k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985","title":{"rendered":"K. Chandru Etc.Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 10 July, 1985"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
K. Chandru Etc.Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 10 July, 1985<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1986 AIR 204, \t\t 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 100<\/div>\n
Author: Y Chandrachud<\/div>\n
Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. ((Cj), Fazalali, Syed Murtaza, Tulzapurkar, V.D., Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J), Varadarajan, A. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nK. CHANDRU ETC.ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT10\/07\/1985\n\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nTULZAPURKAR, V.D.\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nVARADARAJAN, A. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1986 AIR  204\t\t  1985 SCR  Supl. (2) 100\n 1985 SCC  (3) 536\t  1985 SCALE  (2)31\n\n\nACT:\n     Constitution of  India, 1950,  Articles 21 and 19(1)(e)\nand (g)-  Right to  life under\tArticle 21, whether includes\nthe right to livelihood, and, if so, since the right to live\nand the\t right to work being integrated and inter dependent,\nwhether the  eviction of  a person from a slum or a pavement\nunder  the   provisions\t of   the  Tamil   Nadu\t Slum  Areas\n(Improvement  and   Clearance)\tAct,   1971  read  with\t the\nprovisions of  the Tamil  Nadu Land  Encroachment Act, 1905,\nthe Madras  City Municipal  Corporation Act,  1919  and\t the\nTamil Nadu  Town and  Country  Planning\t Act,  1971  thereby\nputting his  very right to life in jeopardy, is violative of\nArticles 21 and 19 (1)(e) and (g) of the Constitution.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The State\tof Tamil  Nadu enacted\tthe Tamil  Nadu Slum\nAreas (Improvement  and Clearance)  Act, 1971  in  order  to\neradicate slums\t which are  likely to  become  a  source  of\ndanger to  public health  or sanitation. Acting in pursuance\nof the\tprovisions of  the said Act, about 450 huts situated\non the\tCanal Bank  Road adjoining  the Loyola\tCollege were\ndemolished on  November 17,  1981. On the following day, the\nChief Minister\tof Tamil  Nadu made  a\tstatement  that\t the\nGovernment had decided to demolish slums which had come into\nexistence after June 1977. On November 19, 1981 the Chairman\nof the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board made a statement that\nalternative accommodation  had been  provided to persons who\nwere evicted from the slums situated on the Canal Bank Road.\nThe petitioner\tin these two writ petitions for the issuance\nof a  writ of  mandamus have  prayed for two reliefs namely,\n(1) to\trestrain the  respondent's State  from evicting slum\ndwellers and  pavement\tdwellers  in  the  city\t of  Madras,\nwithout providing alternative accommodation to them and (ii)\nto direct  the respondent's State to provide basic amenities\nlike water, drainage and electricity to the slum dwellers.\n     In the  Counter-affidavit filed  by the State on behalf\nof the\trespondents  the  allegation  that  450\t slums\twere\ndemolished  without   offering\talternate  accommodation  to\npersons evicted\t thereby was  denied. While  asserting\tthat\nalternate accommodation\n101\nis always provided before the slums are removed and that the\nprovisions contained in section 11(a) of the Tamil Nadu Slum\nAreas (Improvement  and Clearance)  Act, 1971  regarding the\nprinciples  of\t national  justice   are  followed,  it\t was\nexplained how  and why\tthe hutments near the Loyola College\nand  Choolaimedu   were\t removed   by  providing   alternate\naccommodation.\n     On a  careful consideration of the statements contained\nin  the\t  counter-affidavits  filed   on   behalf   of\t the\nrespondents, that the Government of Tamil Nadu has adopted a\nbenevolent and\tsympathetic policy  in regard  to  the\tslum\ndwellers and  finding that  steps are  being taken  for\t the\npurpose of  improving the  slums and wherever they cannot be\nimproved alternate  accommodation is  provided to  the\tslum\ndwellers before\t they are  evicted, the\t Court considered it\nnecessary  not\tto  issue  any\twrit  or  direction  to\t the\nrespondents.\n     Expressing the  confidence\t that  the  Government\twill\ncontinue to  evince the same dynamic interest in the welfare\nof  the\t  pavement  dwellers  and  slum\t dwellers  and\tthus\ndisposing of the petitions, the Court,\n^\n     HELD:  The\t  right\t to   life  includes  the  right  to\nlivelihood. The\t sweep of  the right  to life  conferred  by\nArticle 21 is wide and far reaching. It does not mean merely\nthat life  cannot be  extinguished or  taken  away  as,\t for\nexample, by  the  imposition  and  execution  of  the  death\nsentence, except  according to procedure established by law.\nThat is\t but one  aspect of  the right\tto life.  An equally\nimportant facet\t of that  right is  the right  to livelihood\nbecause, no  person can\t live without  the means  of living,\nthat is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood\nis not\ttreated as  a part  of the  constitutional right  to\nlife, the  easiest way of depriving a person of his right to\nlife would  be depriving a person of his means of livelihood\nto the\tpoint of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only\ndenude the  life of its effective content and meaningfulness\nbut it\twould make  life impossible  to live.  And yet, such\ndeprivation would  not have  to be  in accordance  with\t the\nprocedure established  by law, if the right to livelihood is\nnot regarded  as a  part of  the right\tto life. That, which\nalone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life\nlivable, must  be deemed  to be an integral component of the\nright to  life. Deprive\t a person of his right to livelihood\nand you\t shall have  deprived him  of his life. Indeed, that\nexplains the  massive migration\t of the\t rural population to\nbig cities.  They migrate  because they\t have  no  means  of\nlivelihood\n102\nin the\tvillages.  The\tmotive\tforce  which  propels  their\ndesertion of  their hearth  and homes  in the village is the\nstruggle for  survival, that  is, the  struggle for life. So\nunimpeachable is  the evidence of the nexus between life and\nthe means  of livelihood.  They have  to eat to live: only a\nhandful can  afford the\t luxury of  living to eat. That they\ncan do,\t namely,  eat,\tonly  if  they\thave  the  means  of\nlivelihood. It is in this context, it is said that the right\nto work\t is the most precious liberty that man possesses. It\nis the\tmost  precious\tliberty\t because,  it  sustains\t and\nenables a  man to  live and  the right to life is a precious\nfreedom. Since\tthe right  to life under Article 21 includes\nthe right  to livelihood and since the right to life and the\nright to  work\tbeing  integrated  and\tinterdependent,\t the\neviction of  a person  from a  Slum or\ta pavement under the\nprovisions of  the Tamil  Nadu Slum  Areas (Improvement\t and\nClearance) Act,\t 1971 read with provisions of the Tamil Nadu\nLand  Encroachment  Act,  1905\tthe  Madras  City  Municipal\nCorporation Act,  1919 and  the Tamil  Nadu Town and Country\nPlanning Act,  1971 there  by putting his very right to life\nin jeopardy, is violative of Article 21 and 19(1)(e) and (g)\nof the constitution. [79 D,F-H, 80 A-B, 103 D,F, 108 C]\n     Olga Tellis  & Ors.  v. Bombay  Municipal Corporation &\nOrs.<\/a> etc. [1985] Supp. 2 S.C.R. p.51 applied.\n     (The Court\t directed:  (1)\t Since\tMadras\thas  a\tlate\nmonsoon, the  pavement dwellers\t in the\t city  will  not  be\nevicted before\tDecember 31, 1985: (ii) The State Government\nwill do\t its best  to provide  alternative accommodation  to\nthose amongst  them who\t are able  to show  that  they\twere\nliving on  pavements before June 30, 1977;(iii) In so far as\nthe slum dwellers are concerned the counter-affidavits filed\non behalf  of the  respondent's State  contain an  assurance\nthat it\t is the\t policy of the State Government not to evict\nsuch of\t them as  were living in the slums prior to June 30,\n1977, without  providing alternate  accommodation  to  them.\nThat assurance\twill bind the Government; and (iv) In so far\nas the\tother slum dwellers are concerned, they too will not\nbe evicted before December 31, 1985 unless the land on which\nany slum  stands is  required by the State Government for an\nurgent\tpublic\t purpose.  In  the  event  that\t it  becomes\nnecessary to  evict any\t of the\t slum dwellers\tbelonging to\nthis  category\t prior\tto  December  31,  1985,  the  State\nGovernment will have liberty to apply to this Court.)\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  : Writ Petition Nos. 8927 & 9380
\nof 1981.\n<\/p>\n
103<\/span><\/p>\n
     C.S. Vaidyanathan & Prabir Choudhary for the Petitioner
\nin W.P. No. 8927 of 1981.\n<\/p>\n
     M.S. Ganesh and R. Venkataramani for the Petitioners in
\nW.P. No. 9380 of 1981.\n<\/p>\n
     L.N. Sinha,  Attorney General,  K.G. Bhagat, Additional
\nSolicitor General  and A.V.  Rangam, for  the Respondents in
\nW.P. Nos. 8927 & 9380 of 1981.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     CHANDRACHUD, CJ.  By  these  two  writ  petitions,\t the
\npetitioners ask\t for a\twrit  of  mandamus  restraining\t the
\nrespondents from  evicting the\tslum dwellers  and  pavement
\ndwellers  in   the  city   of  Madras,\t without   providing
\nalternative accommodation  to them.  They also pray that the
\nrespondents  should  provide  basic  amenities\tlike  water,
\ndrainage and electricity to the slum dwellers.\n<\/p>\n
     The State\tof Tamil  Nadu enacted\tthe Tamil  Nadu Slum
\nAreas (Improvement  and Clearance)  Act, 1971  in  order  to
\neradicate slums\t which are  likely to  become  a  source  of
\ndanger to  public health or sanitation. It is alleged by the
\npetitioners that,  acting in  pursuance of the provisions of
\nthe said Act, about 450 huts situated on the Canal Bank Road
\nadjoining the Loyola College were demolished on November 17,
\n1981 the  On the  following day, the Chief Minister of Tamil
\nNadu made  a statement\tthat the  Government had  decided to
\ndemolish slum which had come into existence after June 1977.
\nOn November  19, 1981  the Chairman  of the  Tamil Nadu Slum
\nClearance  Board   made\t  a   statement\t  that\t alternative
\naccommodation had  been provided to persons who were evicted
\nfrom the slums situated on the Canal Bank Road-\n<\/p>\n
     The Tamil\tNadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 provides by
\nsection 2  that all  public roads,  streets,  lanes,  paths,
\netc., are  the property\t of the State Government. The Madras
\nCity Municipal\t(Corporation) Act,  1919 contains provisions
\nin  sections   220-222\tregarding  encroachments  on  public
\nstreets.  The\tTamil  Nadu   Slum  Areas  (Improvement\t and
\nClearance) Act,\t 1971 was  passed in order to make provision
\nfor the\t improvement and  clearance of\tslums in  the State.
\nSection\t 3   of\t that\tAct  contains\tprovisions  for\t the
\ndeclaration of\tan area\t as a slum area if, inter alia, such
\narea is or may be a source of danger to the health or safety
\nof the\tpublic\tby  reason  of\tthe  area  being  low-lying,
\ninsanitary, squalid  or over-crowded.  Section 5 of that Act
\nempowers the  prescribed authority  to direct that no person
\nshall erect any building in a
\n104<\/span>
\nslum  area  without  its  previous  permission\tin  writing.
\nChapter IV  of\tthe  Act  contains  various  provisions\t for
\nimprovement of\tslum areas.  Section 11(a)  provides that if
\nthe Government\tis  satisfied  that  the  most\tsatisfactory
\nmethod of  dealing with the conditions in a slum area is the
\nclearance of  such area\t and demolition of all the buildings
\ntherein, it  may by  a notification declare the area to be a
\nslum clearance\tarea, that  is to say, an area to be cleared
\nof all\tbuildings in  accordance with  the provisions of the
\nAct. The  provision to\tthat section,  which  is  important,
\nrequires  that\t before\t issuing   such\t notification,\t the
\nGovernment shall call upon the owners of lands and buildings
\nin such\t slum area,  to show  cause why\t such a\t declaration
\nshould not be made and that, after considering the cause, if
\nany is\tshown by  such owners,\tthe Government may pass such
\norders as  it may  deem fit.  Section 29 of the Act provides
\nthat notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
\nthe time  being in  force, no  person shall, except with the
\nprevious permission  in writing of the prescribed authority,
\ninstitute any  suit or\tproceeding for obtaining a decree or
\norder of  eviction of an occupant of any building of land in
\na slum\tarea, or  execute such\tdecree or  order  if  it  is
\nalready obtained.  Chapter VIII\t of the\t Act deals  with the
\nconstitution of\t the Slum  Clearance Board  and its  powers.
\nLastly, the  Tamil Nadu\t Town and Country Planning Act, 1971
\ncontains  provisions   for  the\t  constitution\tof  regional
\nplanning authorities, local planning authorities and the new
\ntown development  authorities. Under section 17 of that Act,
\nthe local  planning authority  is  under  an  obligation  to
\nprepare\t a   ‘master  plan’  for  the  local  planning\tarea
\nproviding, inter  alia, for  the manner in which the land in
\nthe planning area shall be used.\n<\/p>\n
     The Report prepared by Shri Badrinath, the Collector of
\nMadras, which  is called  the ‘Urban  Development of Greater
\nMadras Report’,\t shows that 43 per cent of the population of
\nMadras\tlives  in  slums,  apart  from\tthose  who  live  on
\npavements ;  that increasing  industrialization of  the city
\nhas  led  to  the  proliferation  of  slums  and  that,\t the
\nGovernment and\tthe private  sector shall  have to  work  in
\ncollaboration if  any appreciable  improvement of  the slums
\nhas to\tbe brought  about.  The\t ‘Socio-Economic  Survey  of
\nMadras Slums’  by Shri\tR.Arangannal, Chairman\tof the Tamil
\nNadu  Slum   Clearance\tBoard,\t contains  significant\tdata
\nregarding the  conditions of  slums in\tTamil  Nadu.  It  is
\nheartening to find that the Report contains a statement that
\n“the  Tamil   Nadu  Government\trealised  that\tthe  feeble,
\nhalting, incomplete  and disconcerted  measures of  the past
\nhave to\t give  place  to  a  comprehensive,  integrated\t and
\nconcerted policy to be put through on an emergency
\n105<\/span>
\nfooting”, and  that, “the  slum dwellers  are  an  essential
\nelement in  city life,\twho are\t as necessary  as any  other
\nsection of  the population  for the  life of  the city”. The
\nSurvey Report shows that out of 1202 slums, 454 are situated
\nin the north of Madras and 748 in the south, about 6% of the
\ntotal area  of the  land in  Madras being occupied by slums.
\nAccording to  the Survey Report, though Madras is called the
\n‘City Beautiful’,  there are  1202 “ugly spots” in the city,
\nwhich hold  one-third of the city’s population which leads a
\nmiserable and unhygienic life, devoid of basic amenities and
\nelementary requirements\t of civilised  existence. The Report
\nconcludes by  saying that  “The motto  of slum clearance is:
\nGod revealeth in the smile of the poor”.\n<\/p>\n
     The ‘Structure Plan for Madras Metropolitan Area’ drawn
\nby the\tMadras Metropolitan Development Authority, says that
\ndespite the  efforts to\t reduce the emergence of slums, 3025
\nhuts came  into existence  every year between 1971 and 1978,
\nshowing an  increase of\t 3.34% per annum. The Structure Plan
\nshows that the Slum Clearance Board, since its establishment
\nin 1971, had undertaken a programme of investment, which had
\nreached the  figure of\tRs.34.06 crores by 1979. In addition
\nto the\tclearance of certain slums through transfer of their
\noccupants to  tenement buildings,  the Board  undertook\t the
\nimprovement of\tslums under  the  Environmental\t Improvement
\nSchemes (EIS)  and the\tAccelerated Slum Development Schemes
\n(ASDS). The  Slum Clearance  Board  was\t designated  as\t the
\nimplementing agency by the World Bank. The current programme
\nwhich is  undertaken by\t the Board  for the  improvement  of
\nslums,\tis   an\t admirable  step  which\t shows\ta  realistic
\nawareness of  an urgent social problem. Under the World Bank
\nprogramme of  slum improvement,\t 30,000 households benefited
\nduring the  period 1977\t to  1980  and\tnearly\t50,000\tslum
\ndwellers benefited during the course of the next four years.
\nThe  accent   of  the\tTamil  Nadu  Government\t is  on\t the
\nimprovement  of\t  slums\t rather\t than  on  their  clearance.
\nParagraph 10.45 of the Structure Plan says that arrangements
\nare proposed  to be  made to  transfer ‘patta’\t(security of
\ntenure) rights\tto those  slums which are situated on public
\nlands and  which are  selected for  upgrading.\tSince  slums
\nwhich  are  situated  on  the  river  banks  and  in  narrow
\ninaccessible areas  cannot be improved, they are proposed to
\nbe removed.  The families  affected by\tsuch removal will be
\noffered alternate tenements, sites or service plots.\n<\/p>\n
     On behalf\tof the\tState  of  Tamil  Nadu,\t the  Madras
\nMetropolitan Development  Authority and\t the Commissioner of
\nPolice, Madras,\t a counter-affidavit  has been filed by Shri
\nC.Ramachandran,\t  Commissioner\t  and\tSecretary   to\t the
\nGovernment, Housing and Urban
\n106<\/span>
\nDevelopment Department.\t The statements\t contained  in\tthat
\naffidavit may  be summed  up thus  : The allegation that 450
\nslums\twere\tdemolished   without\toffering   alternate
\naccommodation to  persons affected  thereby, is\t untrue. The
\npolicy of  the State  Government is  to improve\t the  living
\nconditions in  the slum\t areas and  to\tprovide\t sanitation,
\ndrainage, water\t supply, school,  health care,\tetc., to the
\nslum dwellers. The State Government spends over three crores
\nof rupees  every year for construction of tenements for slum
\ndwellers. Alternative  accommodation  for  438\tfamilies  of
\nPushpa Nagar  was ready\t for being offered to displaced slum
\ndwellers. Finding  that the  Pushpa Nagar slum dwellers were
\nbeing given alternative accommodation, certain other persons
\ntrespassed upon\t that land  and it  is only  they  who\twere
\ndenied alternative  accommodation. The\treason for  fixing a
\nnew date-line  for enumeration\tof slum\t dwellers  was\tthat
\nseveral representations were received by the Government that
\nthe  earlier   date,  January\t1,  1974,  resulted  in\t the
\nelimination of\tmany persons  who, because  of the floods of
\n1977, had  lost documentary  evidence showing that they were
\nin  occupation\tof  the\t slum  prior  1974.  That  date\t was
\ntherefore extended  by the  Government, after consulting all
\npolitical parties, until June 30, 1977.\n<\/p>\n
     A\tcounter-affidavit   has\t also  been  filed  by\tShri
\nT.K.Kapali, Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board.
\nThe statements in that affidavit may be summed up thus : The
\nrehabilitation of  the slum  dwellers, which  is a  colossal
\ntask, has not been undertaken by any other Government on the
\nsame scale  as is  done by  the Government of Tamil Nadu. In
\nfact,  several\t other\tStates\t in  India  had\t sent  their
\nrepresentatives to  Tamil Nadu\tto study  the working of its
\nSlum Clearance\tBoard. The  Board had  so far  built  38,000
\ntenements for  slum dwellers.  A sum  of rupees\t thirty five
\ncrores was  spent for constructing these tenements and a sum
\nof five\t to six crores is spent every year for that purpose.
\nThough the  cost of a tenement given to a slum dweller comes
\nto about Rs. 16,000 for which the fair rent would be Rs. 105
\nper month,  the Board  was charging  a licence fee of Rs. 20
\nper month  only to  them. 95,414  families had\tbenefited on
\naccount of  the facilities  provided under the Environmental
\nImprovement Scheme and 75,000 additional families were being
\nprovided amenities  under the  World Bank  Project. A sum of
\nRs.19 crores  was proposed  to be spent during the next four
\nyears for  improving  the  living  conditions  of  the\tslum
\ndwellers. Under\t that scheme,  lands on which huts have been
\nconstructed are\t allotted  to  the  hut\t dwellers  on  hire-
\npurchase basis.\t Home Improvement  loans  ranging  from\t Rs.
\n1,500 to  Rs. 3,500  were given\t to persons belonging to the
\nlower income
\n107<\/span>
\ngroup and  outright grants  made to  persons who were in the
\nlowest\tcategory.   Cottage  industries\t  and  schools\twere
\nconstructed in\tthe  slum  areas  and  a  number  of  income
\nsupplementation projects  are started  in order\t to  provide
\nmeans  of   livelihood\tto   the  slum\tdwellers.  Alternate
\naccommodation  is  always  provided  before  the  slums\t are
\nremoved. The  hutments near  the Loyola College consisted of
\ntwo categories,\t one of\t which was Pushpa Nagar, which was a
\nnotified slum.\tThat slum  was vacated\tfor the\t purpose  of
\nconstruction of\t a multi-storeyed  building at a cost of Rs.
\n47.79 Lakhs  for  the  sole  purpose  of  Housing  the\tslum
\ndwellers of Pushpa Nagar. The other category, which formed a
\nsmall minority,\t was from  Choolaimdu  who  encroached\tupon
\npublic\tproperties  after  finding  that  the  Pushpa  Nagar
\nhutment\t  dwellers    were   being    provided\t alternative
\naccommodation. These persons had their own huts or residence
\nelsewhere.\n<\/p>\n
     The petitioners  have filed  rejoinders to the counter-
\naffidavits but,\t except for  denying the  statements in\t the
\ncounter-affidavits, the\t rejoinders do\tnot contain anything
\nto which reference need be made.\n<\/p>\n
     We are  satisfied, on  a careful  consideration of\t the
\nstatements  contained  in  the\tcounter-affidavit  filed  on
\nbehalf of the respondents, that the Government of Tamil Nadu
\nhas adopted a benevolent and sympathetic policy in regard to
\nthe slum  dwellers. Steps are being taken for the purpose of
\nimproving the  slums and  wherever they\t cannot be improved,
\nalternate accommodation\t is provided  to the  slum dwellers,
\nbefore they are evicted. In view of this position, we do not
\nconsider it  necessary to issue any writ or direction to the
\nGovernment  of\t Tamil\tNadu.\tWe  will  only\texpress\t our
\nconfidence that\t the Government\t will continue to evince the
\nsame  dynamic  interest\t in  the  welfare  of  the  pavement
\ndwellers and slum dwellers. We may remind the Government, if
\nat all, of what the Collector of Madras, Shri Badrinath, has
\nstated in his Report : “The motto of slum clearance is : God
\nrevealeth in  the smile of the poor.” Let the poor smile for
\na while.\n<\/p>\n
     Since Madras  has a  late monsoon,\t we direct  that the
\npavement dwellers  in the  city will  not be  evicted before
\nDecember 31,  1985. The State Government will do its best to
\nprovide alternative  accommodation to those amongst them who
\nare able  to show  that they were living on pavements before
\nJune 30,  1977. Insofar\t as the slum dwellers are concerned,
\nthe counter-affidavits\tfiled on  behalf of  the respondents
\ncontain an  assurance that  it is  the policy  of the  State
\nGovernment not to evict such of them as were
\n108<\/span>
\nliving\tin  the\t slums\tprior  to  June\t 30,  1977,  without
\nproviding alternate  accommodation to  them. That  assurance
\nwill bind the Government. Insofar as the other slum dwellers
\nare concerned,\tthey too will not be evicted before December
\n31, 1985  unless the  land  on\twhich  any  slum  stands  is
\nrequired by  the  State\t Government  for  an  urgent  public
\npurpose. In the event that it becomes necessary to evict any
\nof the\tslum dwellers  belonging to  this category  prior to
\nDecember 31, 1985, the State Government will have liberty to
\napply to this Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Our decision  of the constitutional points in the cases
\nof the\tBombay Pavement\t and Slum Dwellers will govern these
\nwrit petitions also.\n<\/p>\n
     The writ  petitions will  stand disposed  of  with\t the
\nobservations and  directions given  above. There  will be no
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\t\tPetitions dismissed.\n109<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India K. Chandru Etc.Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 10 July, 1985 Equivalent citations: 1986 AIR 204, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 100 Author: Y Chandrachud Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. ((Cj), Fazalali, Syed Murtaza, Tulzapurkar, V.D., Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J), Varadarajan, A. (J) PETITIONER: K. CHANDRU ETC.ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-47258","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nK. Chandru Etc.Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 10 July, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Chandru Etc.Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 10 July, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1985-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-22T03:42:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Chandru Etc.Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 10 July, 1985\",\"datePublished\":\"1985-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-22T03:42:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985\"},\"wordCount\":2316,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985\",\"name\":\"K. Chandru Etc.Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 10 July, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1985-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-22T03:42:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Chandru Etc.Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 10 July, 1985\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K. Chandru Etc.Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 10 July, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Chandru Etc.Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 10 July, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1985-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-22T03:42:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Chandru Etc.Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 10 July, 1985","datePublished":"1985-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-22T03:42:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985"},"wordCount":2316,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985","name":"K. Chandru Etc.Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 10 July, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1985-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-22T03:42:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-chandru-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-10-july-1985#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Chandru Etc.Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 10 July, 1985"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47258","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=47258"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47258\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47258"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47258"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47258"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}