The Supreme Court reiterated that the development scheme is meant for reasonable accomplishment of the statutory object which is to promote the orderly development of the city.
As the petitioner was allotted a plot in Thirumoolar Colony Scheme area by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board.
The petitioner paid all the amounts payable in pursuance of the said allotment. She was also issued with a No Objection Certificate for obtaining water connection and drainage connection.
However, before putting up any construction, she was required to obtain the permission from Chennai Municipal Corporation to put up construction.
The petitioner applied for approval of the building plan. But without waiting for the approval to be granted to the building plan, she proceeded with the construction. It appeared that the plot in question was earmarked as “public convenience.”
A civil suit was filed against the Board so as to restrain the Board in making allotment to the individual.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the respondent writ appellant had no locus to file the writ appeal as the writ appellant cannot be said to be an aggrieved person.
He further submitted that the Slum Clearance Board whose order of cancellation of the allotment was set aside has accepted the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge.
Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG appeared for the respondent – State, submitted that as the plot in question was reserved for public utility/public convenience for the locality under the sanctioned scheme by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and when despite the above the land was allotted in favour of individual dehors the scheme sanctioned by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and the families residing in the said colony/locality were deprived of the facility of the public toilets/bathrooms, etc., it cannot be said that original writ appellant had no locus and they cannot be said to be an aggrieved person.
The division bench of Justice M. R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh noted that as such the plot in question was originally reserved/earmarked for “public convenience” pursuant to the approved layout under the scheme sanctioned by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority.
The bench observed that when the allotment has been cancelled having found it to be illegal and contrary to the sanctioned layout in the scheme by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and thereafter, when the construction put up is found to be unauthorized, the petitioner cannot claim any equity.
It was further observed that when the land earmarked for public convenience was taken away and was allotted in favour of the private individual, the residents and locals were deprived of the right to use the plot for public convenience and therefore, the writ appellant can be said to be an aggrieved person with the order passed by the Single Judge.
It was held that no error had been committed by the Division Bench of the High Court quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge setting aside the cancellation of the allotment.
Case title: Mrs. Ramani v/s The Tamil Nadu Slum-Clearance Board & Ors.
Citation: Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 9120-9121 of 2015