2026:MHC:112IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.01.2026

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

W.P.Nos.35995 & 36295 of 2023

and

W.P.Nos.16788 & 24107 of 2024

and

W.M.P.Nos.35979, 36277 &36278 of 2023

& W.M.P.Nos.18453, 18454 & 26360 of 2024

W.P.No.35995 of 2023

Pennurimai Iyakkam

through its Secretary,

No.39, Dr.Alagappa Road,

Purasawalkkam,

Chenai – 600 084 ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board,

No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk,

Chennai – 600 005.

2. The Commissioner,

Greater Chennai Corporation,

Ripon Building, Rajah Muthaiah Road,

Chennai – 600 003.

3. The District Collector,

Rajaji Salai Fourth Floor,

62, Beach Road, George Town,

Chennai – 600 001.

4. The Administrative Engineer,

Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board,

1/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Division-4, Teynampet, Chennai -600 018. ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned notice

issued by respondent No.4 dated 15.12.2023 and quash the same and

consequently direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to implement the order of this

Court in W.P.No.32417 of 2014 dated 20.09.2022 to construct the dwelling

units in the Gengai Karaipuram slum area and also direct the respondent

No.1 to provide the alternate place till the time of construction of the houses

at 110/6, Gengai Karaipuram as per the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas

(Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash,Senior Counsel

for Mr.Arun Kasi

For Respondents : Mrs.G.Thilagavathy, Senior Counsel

assisted by

Mr.B.Balaji, Standing Counsel

for TNUHDB for R1 & R4

Mr.A.Arun Babu,

Standing Counsel for GCC for R2

Mr.T.Arunkumar,

Addl.G.P. for R3

W.P.No.36295 of 2023

Mr.J.Rajendar,

S/o D.Jayaraman ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,

represented by its Secretary to Government,

Department of Revenue,

Fort St.George, Secretariat,

2/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Tahsildar,

Mambalam Guindy Taluk,

Chennai – 600 078

3. Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,

represented by its Executive Engineer,

Division-4, Teynampet,

Chennai – 600 018. ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records with respect

to the impugned unsigned notice dated 18.12.2023 issue by the 3

rd

respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents in particular the

3

rd

respondent not to intervene and disturb the peaceful possession of the

petitioners herein in the subject property situated at No.2&3, Prakasham

Mudali street(hut), T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017 comprised in T.S.No.4828/3

Part in block No.110 of T.Nagar village in an extent measuring about 840

sq.ft.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Vikash

For Respondents : Mr.T.Arunkumar,

Addl.G.P. for R1 and R2

Mr.G.Thilagavathy, Senior Counsel

assisted by

Mr.B.Balaji, Standing Counsel

for TNUHDB for R3

W.P.No.16788 of 2024

1. R.Mala

2. M.Alaiayammal

3. R.Usha Rani

3/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4. J.Tamil selvi

5. K.Dhana Lakshmi

6. Jagadeeswaran

7. P.banu

8. P.Vandhana ... Petitioners

Vs.

1. The Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board,

No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk,

Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Commissioner,

Greater Chennai Corporation,

Ripon Building, Rajah Muthaiah road,

Chennai – 600 003.

3. The Administrative Engineer,

Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board,

Division-4, Teynampet,

Chennai – 600 018. ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the impugned notice

issued by respondent No.3 dated 18.06.2024 and quash the same and

consequently direct the respondent No.1 to stop the scheduled eviction

drive at Prakasam Street, Gangaikaripuram Slum area and allot them the

houses in the Badrikari project area and also direct the respondent No.1 to

provide the alternate accommodation till the time of construction of the

houses at Prakasam Street, Badrikarai, T.Nagar, Chennai as per the Tamil

Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) act, 1971

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash,Senior Counsel

for Mr.Arunkasi

For Respondents : Mrs.G.Thilagavathy, Senior Counsel

4/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

assisted by

Mr.B.Balaji, Standing Counsel

for TNUHDB for R1 & R3

Mr.A.Arun Babu,

Standing Counsel for GCC for R2

W.P.No.24107 of 2024

M/s. Gangai Kudiruppor Pothu Nala Sangam,

V.Nagar, represented by its President,

O.Dakshinamurthy,

No.X-13, Prakasam Street,

Gangaikaraipuram,

C-Block, T.Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017. ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,

represented by its Secretary,

Department of Housing and Urban Development,

Fort St.George,

Chennai – 600 009

2. The Chairman,

Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,

Chennai – 600 005.

3. The Tahsildar,

Mambalam Guindy Taluk,

Bharathidasan Road,

West Jafferkhanpet,

Chennai – 83

4. Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board,

Badrikarai Scheme Residents Welfare Association,

represented by its President, K.Murugan,

S/o Kannan,

No.14, B Block, Prakasam Street,

Gangaikaraipuram, T.Nagar,

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

(R-4 Intervenor as per order dt.01.04.2025

in WMP.No.43315/2024 in

W.P.No.24107/2024 by MSJ & KGTJ) ... Respondents

5/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the

impugned notice dated 18.06.2024 issued by the Administrative Engineer,

Block-4, of the 2

nd

respondent and quash the same and consequentially

direct the respondents to consider the judgment and decree passed by the

Hon’ble XVII Asst.City Civil Court in O.S.No.8702/1981 to 8705/1981,

8707/1981, 8708/1981, 9011/1981, 9012/1981, 9013/1981, 9015/1981

dated 28.01.1985 and 02.03.1985 passed in favour of the family members

of the petitioners association in accordance with law to provide in-site

accommodation to the members of the Association in the same place.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Dinesh Kumar

For Respondents : Mr.T.Arunkumar,

Addl.G.P. for R1 and R3

Mr.G.Thilagavathy, Senior Counsel

assisted by

Mr.B.Balaji, Standing Counsel

for TNUHDB for R2

Mr.N.D.Sivakumaran for R4

COMMON ORDER

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.

Notice of eviction issued to the encroachers are sought to be assailed

in the present writ petitions.

6/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The petitioners would mainly contend that they are in occupation of

slum area for a considerable length of time and their rights accrued cannot

be taken away by the Slum Clearance Board, presently renamed as 'Tamil

Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board' for the purpose of demolition and

reconstruction of the existing building.

3. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Prakash, appearing on behalf of

some of the petitioners would contend that the procedures as contemplated

under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and

Clearance) Act 1971 has not been followed. Notification as required under

Section 11 of the Act has not been complied with. Therefore, the proposal

for demolition and reconstruction is in violation of the provisions of the Act.

In the absence of specific declaration under the Act, the eviction notice

issued is unsustainable. That apart, there is no assurance that after

demolition and reconstruction, the writ petitioners will be accommodated in

the same place. In the absence of any such assurance, the petitioners, if

dislocated, would affect their livelihood. Thus, the present writ petitions are

to be considered.

7/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4. The learned senior counsel would rely upon the judgement of the

constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation reported in 1985 (3)

SCC 545 and para 37 reads as under:

37. Two conclusions emerge from this discussion: one,

that the right to life which is conferred by Article 21 includes

the right to livelihood and two, that it is established that if the

petitioners are evicted from their dwellings, they will be

deprived of their livelihood. But the Constitution does not put

an absolute embargo on the deprivation of life or personal

liberty. By Article 21, such deprivation has to be according to

procedure established by law. In the instant case, the law

which allows the deprivation of the right conferred by Article

21 is the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, the

relevant provisions of which are contained in Sections 312(1),

313(1)(a) and 314. These sections which occur in Chapter XI

entitled `Regulation of Streets' read thus :...

5. It is contended that the subject location is a notified slum area and

therefore, any clearance must be notified. Thus, the action for eviction of

slum dwellers are invalid.

6. The learned counsel Mr.B.Dinesh Kumar appearing for the

petitioenr in W.P.No.24107 of 2024 would contend that the subject property

8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

falls in two Taluks, namely Mambalam Taluk and Egmore Taluk. This

aspect was not considered by the respondents. That apart, the land does

not belong to Tamil Nadu Urban Habitant Development Board and it

belongs to Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board. The

land is classified as “Government poromboke”. The petitioners are in

occupation for long years. Therefore, the eviction proceedings initiated are

to be held as invalid.

7. The learned counsel Mr.N.D.Sivakumaran appearing for

interveners would submit that they are the original allottees by the Tamil

Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board. As far as those allottees are

concerned, Board has given necessary document for their accommodation

in the proposed new construction to be developed in the very same

location.144 and 176 allottees respectively are the original allottees and

they are presently residing outside, awaiting the projects to be completed

for their re-occupation. The writ petitions are encroachers, encroached

upon the land in and around the Slum Clearance Building. They are

attempting to secure allotment by filing writ petitions and initiating action to

stall the project of demolition and reconstruction of the building. Therefore,

9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

these writ petitions are to be rejected.

8. The learned senior counsel, Mrs.Thilagavathi, appearing on behalf

of the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Board would reply by stating that the

petitioners are not allottees. They are encroachers. The petitioners have

encroached upon the land and put up construction in and around the Slum

Clearance Board and in the vacant lands left for the benefit of the slum

dwellers in that area. Therefore, these encroachers have no right to

question the decision of the Board. The eligible encroachers are identified

and alternate accommodations have been granted pursuant to the

directions issued by this Court on earlier occasions. The learned Senior

counsel would reiterate that eligible encroachers were identified and

alternate accommodations are provided in the available project. Therefore,

they cannot claim any further relief in respect of the project which is

proposed to be constructed in the subject property and the writ petitions are

liable to be rejected.

9. Under the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas Improvement and Clearance

Act 1971, the Board is to provide for removal of unhygienic and insanitary

10/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

conditions prevailing in slums for better accommodation and improved

living conditions for slum dwellers for the promotion of public health

generally and for the purpose of developing slum area, redeveloping of

slum clearance of rehabilitating slum dwellers.

10. The Board engaged in rehabilitation and resettlement of urban

poor families, living in objectionable land area and project affected families.

The beneficiaries list finalised by the land owning department, local body

line Corporation of Greater Chennai in the present case.

11. In order to achieve the slum free cities, the Board is implementing

various Schemes under “Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana to provide houses

for family in dense slums and other objectionable lands under the funding

pattern of both Central and State Government fund with beneficiary

contribution. Board has to provide alternate accommodation to the eligible

enumerated list of the benefites families under the resettlement and

rehabilitation benefit.

12. The Board has reiterated by stating that in recent days, it has

11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

become trend that the encroachers who have been occupying various lands

after receiving allottment order for the tenement from the Board or either

renting out or selling to the third party and then moving to the next land and

occupying the place and seeking alternate accommodation as a matter of

right, which should be denied and in the present case also, it happened.

13. In the context of the above factors, this Court is of the considered

view that no doubt the constitutional Courts, time and again reiterated that

livelihood of slum dwellers are to be protected. But any abuse or misuse of

public lands by any citizen, at no circumstances, be encouraged by the

Courts. The rights of the slum dwellers are protected under the Act and in

that context, the issue raised in the present writ petitions are to be

considered.

14. The persons who filed intervening petition would contend that

they are the original allottees numbering 144 and 176 respectively and they

have vacated the old dilapidated building enabling the Board to demolish

and reconstruct new building for their accommodation. The Board also

issued certificate to those allottees for their re-accommodation in the project

12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

which is proposed to be constructed in subject land along with the excreta

of payment to meet out the expenditures during the intervening period

when the construction is in progress. Such welfare measures were already

taken by the Government and the Board to protect the livelihood of the

allottee slum dwellers. Already the Government has issued necessary

certificates to allottees numbering 144 and 176 and those original allottees

are to be accommodated in the proposed new construction to be made in

the subject land.

15. As far as the writ petitioners are concerned, they are encroachers

occupying the border area in the Slum Clearance Board land. Therefore,

they have no right to claim any allotment in the subject land. However, the

Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board pursuant to the orders of

this Court has conducted an enquiry and proposed to provide alternative

accommodation to the eligible encroachers in the available project as per

the eligibility criteria contemplated under the Scheme. Even for the

encroachers alternate accommodations are proposed to be provided by the

Board subject to their compliance of their eligibility criteria as per the terms

of the Scheme.

13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

16. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners have no right to claim

accommodation. However, the Board by way of concession, has agreed to

provide alternate accommodation for eligible encroachers in any one of the

projects and subject to the conditions under the welfare scheme. Beyond

the said concession, High Court, in exercise of power for judicial review

cannot grant any further concession for granting allottment in the subject

property. As far as the building proposed to be constructed in the subject

land is concerned, the original allottees are waiting for completion of the

project and all those original allottees are to be accommodated by the

Board and that being the factum established, the petitioners have not

established even a semblance of legal right for the purpose of granting the

relief in respect of the eviction notice issued by the Board, which is under

challenge in the writ proceedings.

17. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioners are

not entitled for any further relief, other than the relief already proposed to

be considered by the Board for providing alternate accommodation to the

eligible encroachers in terms of the scheme.

14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

18. The writ petitioners are directed to vacate the premises and

handover vacant possession to the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development

Board authorities enabling them to proceed with the demolition and

reconstruction of new buildings. In the event of failure on the part of the writ

petitioners/ encroachers to vacate the land, the Board is directed to evict all

the encroachers with the assistance of Police, if required and complete the

public projects for the benefit of the slum dwellers, already waiting for

completion of the project. The said exercise of evicting the encroachers/writ

petitioners shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

19. With the above observations, the Writ Petitions stand dismissed.

No costs. Consequenty, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

(S.M.S.,J.) (C.K.,J.)

05.01.2026

vsi

Index:Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Neutral citation

To

1. The Managing Director,

Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board,

No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk,

Chennai – 600 005.

2. The Commissioner,

Greater Chennai Corporation,

Ripon Building, Rajah Muthaiah Road,

Chennai – 600 003.

3. The District Collector,

Rajaji Salai Fourth Floor,

62, Beach Road, George Town,

Chennai – 600 001.

4. The Administrative Engineer,

Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board,

Division-4, Teynampet, Chennai -600 018.

5. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,

Department of Housing and Urban Development,

Fort St.George,

Chennai – 600 009

6. The Chairman,

Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,

Chennai – 600 005.

7. The Tahsildar,

Mambalam Guindy Taluk,

Bharathidasan Road,

West Jafferkhanpet,

Chennai – 83

8. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,

Department of Revenue,

Fort St.George, Secretariat,

Chennai – 600 009.

9. The Tahsildar,

16/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Mambalam Guindy Taluk,

Chennai – 600 078

10. The Executive Engineer,

Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,

Division-4, Teynampet,

Chennai – 600 018.

11. The Administrative Engineer,

Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board,

Division-4, Teynampet,

Chennai – 600 018.

17/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.

and

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

Vsi

W.P.Nos.35995 & 36295 of 2023

and

W.P.Nos.16788 & 24107 of 2024

05.01.2026

18/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis