S. Kaliaperumal vs State of Tamilnadu, The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer (Engg.) and The Assistant Engineer, Tamilnadu Housing Board

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The petitioners in all these writ petitions pray for issuance of writs in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned

letter issued by the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, calling the petitioners to hand over vacant possession of the land after

demolishing the building constructed thereon, with a threat that in the event of petitioners failing to do so, the building will be demolished by the

Tamil Nadu Housing Board at the risk and costs of petitioners. The case of petitioners in all these writ petitions is that the petitioners are residents

of Kurinji Nagar, Velechamandalam, Cuddalore. The petitioners purchased small pieces of land in the year 1992 from the Power Agent of

registered owners/vendors of the land in dispute, by way of registered sale deed.

The further case of petitioners is, that at the time of purchase, the petitioners verified the encumbrance certificate for the last 30 years and took

possession of the land and also constructed small houses after obtaining necessary permission from competent authorities. The employers/Banks

also advanced loan to petitioners on the security of the houses. The electricity connection was also given to petitioners and they are regularly

paying the house tax.

That some persons in the adjacent colony had received similar notices from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, stating that the land belongs to the

Board and they were directed to remove construction forthwith. Those persons came to this Court and got interim injunction against their

dispossession. (The petitioners have neither given any writ number nor particulars of those persons).

It is also case of petitioners, that vendors of petitioners were not in know of any proceedings of acquisition by the Housing Board. The

impugned notice has been challenged on the ground of it, being arbitrary, illegal and unjust, therefore, void. It is submitted, that petitioners are in

possession of the property under registered sale deed where construction has been put after obtaining sanction from the competent authority,

therefore, cannot be evicted.

The impugned notice is also outcome of non application of mind, thus being arbitrary is not sustainable in law.

The plea of promissory estoppel has been raised, on the ground that respondents having permitted the petitioners to raise construction without

any objection now cannot seek their eviction or demolish the property without following due process of law and paying compensation.

The writ petitions are opposed by the respondents, on the ground that the land on which the petitioners raised constructions, was acquired by

the State Government under The Land Acquisition Act. After passing of award, symbolic possession was handed over to the Housing Board.

The case of respondents is that the alleged power agent or vendors of petitioners did not have any title to the property, after acquisition of the

land, therefore, petitioners, being unauthorized occupants can be evicted from the land belonging to the Housing Board in exercise of power u/s 84

of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, 1961, which reads as under:

Power to Evict Certain Persons from Board Premises:

(1) If the competent authority is satisfied-

(a) that the person authorized to occupy any Board premises has-

(i) not paid rent lawfully due from him in respect of such premises for a period of more than two months; or

(ii) sublet without the permission of the Board, the whole or any Part of such premises; or

(iii) otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms, express or implied, under which he is authorised to occupy such premises; or

(b) that any person is in unauthorized occupation of any Board premises, the competent authority may, notwithstanding anything contained in any

law for the time being in force, by notice served

(i) by registered post or

(ii) by affixing a copy of it on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of such premises or

(iii) in such other manner as may be prescribed, order that the person authorized to occupy as well as any other person who may be in occupation

of the whole or any part of the premises shall vacate them within one month of the date of service of the notice.

(2) Before an order under sub-section (1) is made against any person, the competent authority shall inform the person, by notice in writing and

served in the manner provided for service of notice under sub-section (1) of the grounds for which the proposed order is to be made and give him

a reasonable opportunity for tendering an explanation and producing evidence, if any, and to show cause why such order should not be made

within a period to be specified in such notice.

(3) The competent authority may, on application, grant extension of the period specified in such notice on such terms as to payment and recovery

of the amount claimed in the notice as he deems fit.

(4) Any written statement put in by such person and document produced in pursuance of such notice shall be filed with the records of the case, and

such person shall be entitled to appear in the proceedings either in person or by pleader.

(5) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under sub section (1), the competent authority may evict that person from and take

possession of the premises and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary.

(6) If a person, who has been ordered to vacate any premises under sub-section (1) or (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) within one month of the

date of service of the notice or such longer time as the competent authority may allow, pays to the Board the rent in arrears or carries out or

otherwise complies with the terms contravened by him to the satisfaction of the competent authority, as the case may be, the competent authority,

shall, in lieu of evicting such person under sub-section (1), cancel its order made under sub-section (1) and thereupon such person shall hold the

premises on the same terms and on which he held them immediately before such notice was served on him.

The reading of Section 84 itself shows, that the impugned notice cannot be sustained in law, as it is not open to the Housing Board to evict the

petitioners without passing order as envisaged u/s 84(ii) reproduced herein above.

Learned Additional Advocate General states, that writ petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the action of respondents, as they are

encroachers in the eye of law, being subsequent purchasers, therefore, sale in their favour is void. This contention is totally misconceived. The

respondent no. 3, being statutory authority, is bound to act in accordance with law and cannot disturb the established possession of the people,

who have set up their houses after permission from the respective Government agencies. The petitioners also got electricity connection and are

paying water charges. The petitioners, therefore have proved their established possession, which cannot be disturbed in arbitrary manner. The

impugned notice otherwise is also contrary to Section 84 on which reliance is placed, thus is not sustainable in law.

Consequently, all these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned notice is quashed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.