Madras High Court asks TNSCB to amend allotment pact

Chennai: In an attempt to curb the menace of transfer and sale of houses allotted to people, evicted from encroachments, by Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board across the state, Madras high court has suggested  the board should take steps to amend the agreement or for any regulation incorporating a pre-emptive clause in the agreement/allotment order itself, prohibiting the sale of such houses to third parties other than the board.

“The government is taking effective steps to displace encroachers and provide them alternative accommodation by allotment of houses by TNSCB on the basis of sale-cum-hire purchase agreement. On the basis of allotment, the allottees take possession of the tenement and thereafter execute sale deed on payment of entire cost. When once those persons are given allotment of house either at nominal rate or at free of cost, it is seen that after number of years, those residents are trying to dispose of the property allotted to them and move to some other place. Moreover, this court has come across several instances where allottees have sold the properties to third parties. As the place is meant for poor, they cannot sell it third parties. The object of the allotment itself is defeated, if sold within a short span of time and thereby the allottees occupy the original place in slums,” said Justice S. Vaidyanathan.

The judge dismissed a petition from S. Michel Sugirtha represented by her agent G. Mariakannu, seeking to restrain CMDA from interfering with the petitioner's property in Koyambedu.The judge said admittedly, the petitioner was not in any of the area in the land which has been taken by the government for the purpose of developing Koyambedu Market Complex. 

The petitioner was in the alternative site, which has been identified for persons who have been issued with B-Memo. Admittedly, she was not in the Koyambedu area and the encroachers must have been found in the alternative place, which place was meant for others. The petitioner has encroached upon the government property and that she was not one among the hut dwellers who had been identified, the judge added. The judge said since the petitioner’s place has been identified and that she has occupied the government land, it was nothing but encroachment in the site meant for allotment of houses to the hut dwellers in Sections I, II and III.