Date:02/01/2009 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2009/01/02/stories/2009010254910600.htm

Tamil Nadu

Eviction notices issued by housing board quashed

Special Correspondent

Board’s action in enhancing cost of plot to allottees challenged

CHENNAI: Partly allowing a batch of writ petitions, the Madras High Court has quashed the eviction notices issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to petitioner allottees of land under the Mogapair Eri Land Bank Scheme (MELBS).

The petitioners’, M. Palanivel and others, were originally living in a slum near the Koyambedu bridge.

Alternative site

Following a fire, the housing board came forward to provide them an alternative site.

A list of victims was enumerated by the board and an alternative site near the Mogappair Eri (lake) was conceived for the petitioners under the MELBS.

Each was allotted land to an extent of 400 to 500 sq.ft for constructing houses on their own initiative. By an allotment order of October 1995, Mr. Palanivel was informed that he had been allotted a plot to an extent of 468 sq.ft. The tentative cost per ground was fixed as Rs.1.10 lakh.

The proportionate cost for his land was fixed tentatively at Rs.19,750.

By an allotment order of August 2001, the board stated that the cost of the plot was Rs.73,715.

The petitioners challenged the board’s action in enhancing the cost of the plot allotted to them without any justification and the consequential eviction notice.

In his order, Justice K.Chandru said that the petitioners had a Fundamental Right to Shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution and the authorities also brought them under a rehabilitation scheme and allotted land. The demand for adding the interest at 18 per cent per annum in EMI was unreasonable.

The Judge directed the board to fix the revised cost of plots at the rate of Rs.1,49,400 per ground and to calculate the proportionate cost payable by each petitioner.

Nine per cent EMI

The EMI should be calculated at the rate of nine per cent interest and not 18 per cent as ordered in the allotment order, in tune with the decision of the Supreme Court in a case.

If any petitioner wanted to avail himself of outright purchase of plot, the proportionate cost may be collected at one stroke.

In such cases, only firm cost should be collected without adding any interest.