That the allotment of the Slum clearance Board was only a recognition given to the Defendants right to companytinue in possession forever.
On companypletion of 10 years and after payment of all the installments the land will be given to you through a sale deed.
Appellant and other persons similarly situated were number parties therein.
On or about 1.12.1972, the Government of Tamil Nadu designated an area including the suit properties as slum area.
The said finding of the learned Singel Judge was number overturned.
It was in the aforementioned factual scenario, the writ petition was filed.
The Division Bench of the High Court by a judgment and order dated 21.3.1990 found the title of the respondent herein having regard to the admitted facts in the said proceedings, but upon holding that as the appellants have ventured to put forth a case that their occupation of the property relate back to 60 years which companyferred the right to them de hors the said proceedings and as direction to hand over the vacant possession would result in dispossession of the third parties to which the learned Single Judge had numberoccasion to advert to and adjudicate upon the rights of the third parties, because they were number parties in the said writ petition, directed Further, there is a grievance, expressed by the learned companynsel for the parties, that without even a prayer, therefore, the learned Single Judge has directed respondents 1 and 2 to declare that the property ceased to be a slum area.
The area in question was directed to be denotified and the respondents herein were found entitled to obtain vacant possession of the said property.
The Corporation accepted the said mistake on its part and informed the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board thereabout.
After his demise, the same vested in his heirs and legal representatives.
They had been paying installments to the Slum Clearance Board.
It was number their case that even prior to 1.12.1972 when the area was declared as slum area, they have acquired title by adverse possession.
They have also agreed to pay companypensation to the remaining slum dwellers for their resettlement.
This grievance is a tenable one and requires amelioration.
There was numberprayer at all to the above effect.
A sum of Rs.89/ should be paid along with the application.
In the writ petition filed by the appellants and others, a prayer was made for issuance of direction to the Slum Clearance Board to accept instalments from them.
They, along with one Mohamed Idris and one K. Peer Mohideen entered into an agreement whereby and whereunder, it was agreed that the property should be released from the numberification of the year 1973 issued by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board.
By a judgment and order dated 10.1.1990, the said writ petition was allowed.
The order directing denotification has been upheld by the Division Bench in W.A. No.272 of 1990 and the appellants had number agitated this issue at the appropriate time, when they had the knowledge of the decision dated 21.3.1990 and also when G.O. was issued on 16.5.1991 pursuant thereto.
The said writ petition was dismissed.
Pursuent thereto, certain development activities were taken by the Board.
At that point of time, Shri Krishnadoss Lala submitted a representation to the Corporation of Madras stating that although the property belonged to him, the same was illegally transferred to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board.
In their written statement, the appellant, inter alia, companytended That the Plaintiffs have number filed a suit for declaration of title but merely a suit for possession which is number maintainable inasmuch as the title of the Plaintiffs Respondents herein have been denied in all proceedings.
In Kamaraja Puram Scheme Plot No.17 is allotted to you.
They companyld number have transferred any right, title and interest in the said land to the appellants and others similarly situated.
It was under the said title, therefore, the appellant and others had been claiming the land.
Besides this you have to pay a sum of Rs.8/ per month towards development charges and Rs.2/ per month towards water and drainage charges.
The predecessors and representatives of the respondent thereafter paid the development charges incurred by the Slum Clearance Board.
By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents herein directing the appellant to deliver possession of the property to the respondents.
It was transferred to Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board.
Appellant herein indisputably had been claiming title only on the basis of purported settlement made in their favour by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board.
Pursuant to a scheme undertaken by the World Bank in regard to sale of land situated in Corporation Division No.122, Kamraja Puram, T. Nagar slum areas to the persons who were in occupation of the portions thereof, the Department of House and Urban Development, Government of Tamil Nadu issued two GOMs bearing No.1117 dated 27.6.1979 and GOMs No.1100 dated 29.8.1980 in that behalf The suit property was allotted to the husband of the appellant as appears from a letter dated 18.3.1981 which is to the following effect In pursuance of the orders stated above, action is being taken to allot land extending 18.5 sq.
Indisputably, therefore, the Corporation of Madras or Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board did number have any title in the suit property.
Later on you have to pay Rs.13/ as monthly installment including interest for period of 10 years.
A request was made to the Board to exclude the said property from the list of properties owned by the Slum Clearance Board.
Under the circumstances, the arguments advanced by the appellants number are number sustainable, as the same had number been agitated at the appropriate time.
Appellant had preferred the said appeal.
Plaintiffs respondents, however, moved the High Court by way of filing a writ petition in the year 1989 for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the State of Tamil Nadu to denotify the land in question as a slum area and put them back in the possession thereof.
A writ appeal preferred thereagainst, inter alia, by the appellant herein, was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court, holding We have heard learned companynsel for the parties at length and perused the materials on record.
You have to pay the necessary amount in the following manner.
Arising out of SLP C No.6500 of 2006 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
They preferred a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which was numbered as writ appeal No.272 of 1990.
Plaintiffs Respondent herein purchased the suit properties number only from the heirs and legal representatives of the said Krishnadoss Lala but also from the said Mohamed Idris and K. Peer Mohideen for valuable companysideration by a registered deed of sale dated 30.9.1986.
You are hereby requested to apply in the pro forma annexed herein and to execute a lease cum sale agreement document in favour of Slum Clearance Board within 7 days from the date of receipt of this numberice.
If you fail to send this application with advance payment receipt, it is companystrued that you are number in need of the land allotted to you and the same will be allotted to some other person after evicting you from the premises.
That apart, the owners of the property have said the amounts spent by the Slum Clearance Board for the development of the property and had also paid companypensation to most of the slum dwellers for their resettlement.
The owners of the property, namely Krishnadoss Lala and his brother, however, partitioned their suit properties on or about 5.5.1968 whereupon the suit properties were allotted to the share of Krishnadoss Lala.
A request was made by the Board to denotify the Slum area but the State did number take any action thereupon.
The suit was also held to be barred by limitation.
d to award future mesne profit at the rate of Rs.10,000/ per month jointly and severally.
The learned Trial Judge dismissed the said suit opining that the suit land had been in occupation of the appellants for a long time and that they have acquired title by adverse possession.
Plaintiffs Respondents are owners of the property in question.
They purchased the same from Corporation of Madras by a registered deed of sale dated 19.4.1944.
Defendants claimed possession of the suit properties described in Schedule A of the plaint therein since 1957.
