KASI Vs. GOVT OF T N

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein filed the writ petition, out of which the present writ appeal arises, for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents not to evict the appellants, or forbearing them from taking any proceedings for eviction of the appellants and disturb their possession and enjoyment of their houses at Raja Muthiapuram, Raja Annamalaipuram, Madras. The appellants are the residents of that locality from which, according to the appellants, the second respondent is trying to evict them forcibly. The appellants originally occupied the tenements in the land, and these tenements were built by the Government as fire proof tenements some years back. Subsequently the second respondent wanted to clear off this area, after demolishing the tenements, in order to put up a multi-storeyed building to accommodate not only the dwellers of these tenements, but also others in the slums. No doubt, the second respondent has offered alternative accommodation, along with a sum of Rs. 100, to enable them to put up temporary tenements, and has also offered a portion in the building contemplated to be constructed by the second respondent.

(2.) Fearing that the second respondent would forcibly evict the appellants herein, the appellants came forward with the present petition. There are specific allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the respondents have not furnished reasons for evicting the appellants and that the respondents are taking coercive steps for evicting the appellants from the present tenements.

(3.) The second respondent has filed a counter alleging, inter alia, that the appellants are being evicted after providing alternative accommodation to them just to construct a pucca multi-storeyed building in order to accommodate the appellants and also other slum dwellers. According to the respondents, more than eighty per cent of the persons who are occupying this portion have vacated and only these appellants are obstructing. It is only because of this obstruction that the respondents are not able to proceed with the construction work which is intended to benefit a number of slum dwellers, including the appellants herein.