Case Note & Summary
The dispute involved eight writ petitions filed by encroachers on government land classified as ‘Eri Poramboke’ in Chennai. The Government of Tamil Nadu introduced the Madras Urban Development Project to protect the livelihood of landless poor people occupying such lands. Under the scheme, the Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board (formerly Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board) and the Revenue Department conducted an enumeration to assess the actual extent occupied by each slum dweller. Based on this enumeration, revised plot numbers were assigned, and sale deeds were executed in favor of the occupiers for the extents found to be in their possession. The petitioners claimed that they originally occupied larger areas and that their original plots had been improperly sub-divided. They sought allotment of the remaining land and execution of sale deeds for the excess portions, arguing that the entire original extent should be treated as one single plot. The Board rejected these requests by a common order dated 14.02.2018, stating that the allotment was already made as per the enumeration and that no further claim could be entertained. The petitioners then approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the rejection and seeking a direction to issue sale deeds for the additional land. The respondents opposed the petitions, contending that the petitioners were encroachers who had been granted a concession to regularize their occupation to the extent recorded during enumeration. They argued that the scheme was intended to benefit landless poor and could not be used to confer unjust enrichment on individuals who had already received allotments. The Court observed that the land in question was highly valuable, being situated in the heart of Chennai, and that allowing excess allotment would deprive other landless poor persons of the benefit. It held that the allotment and execution of sale deeds were a concession, not a matter of right, and that no one could claim land beyond what was allotted pursuant to the official enumeration. The Court found no infirmity in the impugned rejection order and dismissed all the writ petitions with no costs, closing the connected miscellaneous petitions.
Headnote
A) Government Policy - Allotment of Government Land to Encroachers - As Is Where Is Condition - Not mentioned - The Government of Tamil Nadu formulated the Madras Urban Development Project to allot occupied portions of Eri Poramboke land to houseless slum dwellers under ‘as is where is condition’. The Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board prepared an enumeration list with the Revenue Department, and plots were allotted accordingly. Petitioners, after receiving sale deeds for revised plots, claimed they had originally occupied larger extents and sought additional land. The Court held that the allotment was a concession to protect the livelihood of landless poor, not a right; excess land cannot be claimed as it would result in unjust gain. The rejection of the applications was upheld, and the writ petitions were dismissed. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether encroachers who have already been allotted plots under the 'as is where is condition' scheme are entitled to claim additional or excess land beyond what was allotted based on the enumeration list.
Final Decision
The writ petitions were dismissed with no costs. The court upheld the rejection order, holding that petitioners are not entitled to any additional land beyond what was allotted based on the enumeration. The scheme is meant to protect landless poor and cannot be used for unjust enrichment.
Law Points
- Allotment to encroachers is a concession to protect livelihood
- no right to excess land based on original occupation
- enumeration list determines extent
- unjust enrichment not permissible
