Date:11/01/2009 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2009/01/11/stories/2009011160020500.htm

Tamil Nadu - Chennai

Slum clearance board told to re-register tenement

K.T.Sangameswaran

The son of the original allottee got it transferred in his wife’s name “by misusing his official position”

Board directed to make re-allotment in six weeks after collecting the statutory fees
The sale deed executed by the board in favour of the wife of the appellant’s son quashed

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board (TNSCB) to re-register a tenement here in favour of a 75-year-old illiterate mason, who alleged that his son got the tenement changed in the name of his wife.

Quashing the sale deed executed by the board in favour of the wife of the appellant’s son, a Division Bench, comprising Justices Elipe Dharma Rao and S.Tamilvanan, directed the board to make the re-allotment within six weeks after collecting the statutory fees due from him.

S. Manickam submitted he was the original allottee of the tenement at Jafferkhanpet here in 1977.

Till August 2003, he was living there with his second son’s family. He had paid all dues to the board in his name for more than 20 years.

Driven out

His son, who was working in the Police Department, by misusing his official position and influencing board officials, changed the tenement in the name of Bhavani (his wife) and drove him out. From the year 2000, whenever he went to pay the dues, he was not allowed by officials to do so.

Single judge’s order

His counsel said the single judge’s order to work out the remedy before a civil court was liable to be interfered with.

The Bench said no counter had been filed either in the writ petition or in the appeal. The original records were also not produced at the time of hearing of appeal. A perusal of the typed set of papers revealed that the Estate Officer had sent a notice in October 2003 to the appellant to show cause as to why the allotment should not be cancelled as he was not residing in the tenement. It was stated that the mason did not submit any explanation.

No opportunity of hearing

In the absence of any documentary proof as to whether any notice was actually served or not, it should be presumed that no opportunity of hearing was given, considering the fact that for nearly 20 years the appellant was paying the monthly rent and was always willing to pay the same, but could not do so at the instance of officials.

Absence of name

Mere absence of his name in the family card could not be taken as the sole criterion to decide that he was not residing in the tenement. The Revenue Inspector, who recommended transfer of the name, was said to be Ms.Bhavani’s relative. Hence, there was force in the contention that officials helped the woman in getting the tenement transferred in her name, the Bench said, setting aside the single Judge’s order.