Madras High CourtMr.S.Arokiam vs The Chairman on 30 July, 2012Author:S.ManikumarBench:S.ManikumarIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.07.2012

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR

W.P.No.18999 of 2003


Mr.S.Arokiam							... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Chairman,
    Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,
    No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai 600 005.

2. The Secretary to Government,
    Housing and Urban Development Department,
    State of Tamil Nadu,
    Secretariat, Chennai.					 ... Respondents
(R2 suo-motu impleaded as per order, dated
23.04.2012)

	
	Prayer : Writ Petition is filed underArticle 226of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, the respondent to execute and register a sale deed in favour of the petitioner premises bearing Door No.1, Plot No.323, measuring an extent of 3.88 Sq.Mts, Ambedkar Street, Karunanidhi Nagar, Ullagaram, Chennai-61.
	For petitioner		:	Mr.V.Raghavachari
	For respondent		: 	Mr.R.P.Kabilan, AAG
O R D E RA slum dweller, who has paid the entire sale consideration for purchase of the plot, allotted to him, under the Madras Urban Development Project II promoted by the Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, has sought for a Mandamus, directing the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, the respondent herein, to execute and register a sale deed in respect of the premises bearing Door No.1, Plot No.323, measuring an extent of 3.88 Sq.Mts, Ambedkar Street, Karunanidhi Nagar, Ullagaram, Chennai-61.2.It is the case of the petitioner that he was allotted the above plot, vide proceedings No.82/92/A.A.7, dated 10.04.1992 of the Chairman, The Slum Clearance Board, for value of Rs.40,950/-.  As per the allotment, the petitioner has to pay the sale price in monthly instalments of Rs.465/-.  To get electricity and sewerage connections, he has obtained the prior permission from the respondent.  No objection certificate has been granted for constructing a house, by availing loan from the Financial Institutions.3.The petitioner has further submitted that he has complied with all the requirements, as per the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement, dated 27.03.1999.  The entire sale consideration of the plot has also been paid and there is no arrears, either towards instalments or other charges.  Though the petitioner has represented to the authorities to execute a sale deed in his favour and also expressed his willingness to bear all the expenses, that may be incurred for the registration of the sale deed, there was no response.  Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has sent a Lawyer's notice, dated 23.04.2003.  Though the notice has been acknowledged, there was no reply.  According to the petitioner, having received the entire sale consideration, the respondent ought to have executed the sale deed and thus has failed to discharge his duties and therefore, left with no other option, he has come forward with the present writ petition for a Mandamus, as stated supra.4.Though the writ petition is pending for nearly nine years, no counter affidavit has been filed.  However, on the basis of the instructions furnished by the Assistant Secretary (Tenements), Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent submitted that earlier, the Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.1117, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 27.06.1979, for development of lands occupied by slum dwellers, in slum areas of Madras and other areas and orders were also issued for grant of conditional patta to Slum dwellers on hire purchase basis.  He further submitted that subsequently, the Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.1911, Revenue Department, dated 28.08.1998,  permitting the Slum Clearance Board, Chennai to enter into Government poramboke lands even under banned categories for carrying out the slum improvement programmes.5.Insofar as the	property in Ullagaram Village is concerned, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the Board has resolved to approve the budget estimate to the tune of Rs.50.60 lakhs for carrying out developmental works in 8 slum areas, covering 3480 families under M.U.D.P.II., Project and Karunanidhi Nagar of Ullagaram Village, was one among the area, for which, a budget estimate to the tune of Rs.19.40 Lakhs was approved for carrying out the developmental works, with the aim of benefitting 1300 families.6.Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.1117, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 27.06.1979, Government lands may be developed under M.U.D.P.II and that the Slum dwellers executed Lease-cum-Sale Agreement.  As per the scheme, the Special Tahsildar for M.U.D.P., was to prepare layout in "as is where is" condition basis and furnish the list of beneficiaries to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board who would collect the land cost along with developmental charges, from the slum dwellers and that their encroachments would be regularised.7.Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted  that, as per the scheme in force, at that time, as soon as the entire land cost is paid and as and when the lands are transferred in favour of the Slum Clearance Board, by the Revenue Department, the beneficiary would be issued with the sale deed. Nothing was mentioned in the said government order that the land on which developmental activities were carried on had to be declared as Slum underSection 3(1)of the Tamil Nadu Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971.  Accordingly, the Slum area located in the government land (Eri Poramboke land) bearing Survey No.90 (Part) of Ullagaram Village known as "Karunanidhi Nagar" was taken up for carrying out developmental works, under Madras Urban Development Project II.  The total area of the above land is 23.31.0 Hectares.8.Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that a layout was prepared for 514 plots on the basis of  "as where is" condition and that the same was duly approved by the then Madras Metropolitan Development Authority.  The beneficiaries list for 514 plots was prepared by the then Special Tahsildar (M.U.D.P.) (vide his letter No.2859/90H.1, dated 07.08.1991).  Advance amount was collected and Lease-cum-Sale Agreement was also executed.  Land cost was collected from those who have paid the advance and executed Lease-cum-Sale Agreement. Out of 514 encroachers, only 165 persons have paid the advance amount and executed, Lease-cum-Sale Agreements. The remaining persons have not come forward to pay the advance amount, to get the Lease-cum-Sale Agreements executed in their favour.9.Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that a sum of Rs.19.49 lakhs have been spent towards the developmental works and that the works were completed.  Necessary requisition letter has also been sent to the District Collector of Kancheepuram District, in connection with the transfer of land in favour of Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and the matter is still pending. He also submitted that the District Collector has also been reminded periodically. Further, the Chairman and Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department has also conducted review meetings with the District Revenue Officials on several occasions.10.Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that though 165 allottees have paid full cost for their plots, sale deeds could not be issued to them for want of transfer of land by the Revenue Department, in favour of Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. He also submitted that like Ullgaram area, there are about 88 Schemes Areas, where sale deeds could not be issued to the allottees, because the scheme lands have been classified into various kinds of government poramboke, including water course porambokes and they are yet to be transferred.  The land could not be transferred to T.N.S.C.B., because of the following reason that the land has been classified as "Eri Poramboke ".(Water Course Poramboke) and alienation or assignment of such land is barred by a Government order issued in G.O.Rt.No.41/Revenue Department/ dated 20.11.1987 and also by the Supreme Court Judgment delivered in S.L.P. C.No.3109/2011 dated 20-08-2011.11.Record of proceedings shows that after entertaining this writ petition, in W.P.M.P.No.23796 of 2003, this Court, by an order, dated 11.09.2003, has directed the respondent to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the above premises.  When the matter came up on 23.04.2012, files were directed to be produced by the Slum Clearance Board, Chennai and upon perusal of the same, this Court has passed the following orders,
	"On this day, when the matter came up for hearing, on the basis of the status report prepared by the Assistant Secretary (Tenement), Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan, Learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that apart from Ullagaram Scheme, there are about 88 scheme areas, where sale deeds could not be issued to the allottees, because of the classification of the lands, upon which, improvements have been made by the Slum Clearance Board.  He also submitted that Government have been addressed to take suitable decision.2.	Material on record discloses that pursuant to Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated 27.03.1998, entered into between the Chairman of the Slum Clearance Board and the petitioner, the entire amount has been paid by the petitioner, and for nearly 13 years, the sale deed has not been executed, despite demand.  Since the execution of the sale agreement depends upon the decision of the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai, this Court deems it fit to suo motu implead him as a party respondent to this writ petition.  Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendment.3.	The entire amount under the Agreement of Sale has been received on 27.03.1998.  The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, has not chosen to file any counter affidavit, explaining the steps taken by him for re-classification of the lands.4.	Material on record further shows that he has been directing the District Collector, Kancheepuram District, to get the land assigned, when he had entered into a Lease-cum-Sale Agreement with many persons.  Apart from Ullagaram, it has been stated that more than 88 scheme areas, where sale deeds have not been issued for many years. In these circumstances, the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai, who has now been impleaded as a party respondent to this writ petition, is directed to submit the stand of the Government, by way of specific averments and steps taken in this regard. He is directed to file a status report by 27.04.2012.  The Learned Additional Government Pleader will communicate the orders of this Court to the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai, and that he in turn, shall issue appropriate directions, without insisting the copy of this order."12.Since the execution of the sale deed rests upon the decision of the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai, this Court,  suo-motu impleaded him as a party respondent. Subsequently, on 20.04.2012, as there was no proper instructions, and therefore, Mr.Ramalingam, Deputy Secretary, Slum Clearance and Urban Development Department, was directed to appear before this Court on 23.04.2012.13.Thereafter, when the matter came up on 10.07.2012, Mr.P.Jegannathan, learned counsel appearing for the Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, on the basis of instructions furnished by the Managing Director, Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, submitted that proposals have been sent to the Secretary to the Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai, in R.C.No.E8/16016/2003, dated 21.06.2012, for passing appropriate orders, to effect necessary charges in the revenue records and that the said proposals have been acknowledged.  Therefore, this Court has directed the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai, take appropriate decision, at the earliest and posted the matter on 20.07.2012.   Again, when the matter came up on 25.07.2012, it was represented that proposals are still pending consideration.  The Learned Advocate General, State of Tamil Nadu, who appeared on behalf of the Slum Clearance Board, Chennai also reiterated the same position and further submitted that a decision would be taken in this regard.  His submission is placed on record.14.As there is no further response from the Government, this Court is inclined to pass this order, on merits with the available materials.Heard the learned Advocate General for the State and the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai and perused the materials available on record.15.Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.1117, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 27.06.1979 and G.O.Ms.No.1911, Revenue Department, dated 28.08.1998, referred to by the learned Additional Government Pleader are extracted hereunder:Government of Tamil Nadu
Abstract
HOUSING - Metropolitan Urban Development Project under World Bank Scheme - Improvements to slum - Land occupied by slum dwellers in slum areas of Madras - problems of tenure - Acquisition of lands and grant of conditional pattas on hire purchase basis - orders  issued.Housing and urban Development Department
G.O.Ms.No.1117				Dated: 27.06.1979i) From the Member Secretary, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority D.O.Lr.23558/D3/78, Dated: 14.10.1978.ii) From the Member Secretary, M.M.D.A. Lr.No.23558/D3/78, Dated: 18.11.1978.ORDER:One of the components of the Madras Urban Development Project is the Slum improvement programme for which the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board is the designated agency. The scheme consists of improving slum areas with the provision of basic amenities access ways and provision of special and economic, facilities, including, running of pre-schools. The project provides for security of tenure to the slum dwellers.2. The question of granting conditional patta to the slum dwellers on hire purchase terms has been engaging the attention of the Government for some time past. The slum dwellers are occupying various category of lands like Government poramboke lands; Madras Corporation lands (Public) Madras Corporation lands (private), government of India lands belonging to Railway, Salt and Defence departments, Port Trust, Temple and wakf lands, private lands etc, for a long time and the extent occupied by them is also not uniform.3.	The Government, after careful consideration of the proposals of the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, pass the following orders:-In the first instance poramboke lands of the State Government and Corporation Public lands, in which improvements have been carried out, will be transferred to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board free of cost for the purpose of giving issue of patta on the stipulated conditions.As regards the Corporation private lands, temple and wakf Board lands, separate action will be taken to get them transferred to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board on payment of reasonable cost. Regarding the lands of the Defence, Salt, railways departments, Port trust, etc. the concerned Ministry will be addressed by the State Government to transfer these lands to the State Government. Action will also be taken to acquire the private lands. Various improvements contemplated under the Accelerated Slum Improvements scheme and Madras Urban Development Project will be carried out in these, lands also in a phased manner by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board or any other agency designated by Government and conditional pattas issued.PROCEDURE FOR THE GRANT OF CONDITIONAL PATTAS TO SLUM DWELLERS,
	(1) Only such of the slum dwellers, who do not own house - sites or houses elsewhere and who have been residing in a slum on or before 30.06.1977, will be eligible for the grant of conditional patta. An extent of 20 square meters on payment of Rs.700/- with interest at 6% will be allotted to each slum dwellers.Wherever the plot occupied by eligible slum dwellers is in excess over 20 meters, it will be charged at the following rates:-a) Inner core of Madras city,
Viz.		North Madras 		)(
		Arokonam railway line 	)(
		South : Peters Road 	)(
		West : Gants road, 	)(	Rs.55.00 per 
		Perambur Barracks road,)(	Square Meter
		Rundals road,		)( 
		Pantheen road (part)	)( 
		East : Bay of Bengal	)(b) Intermediate core of Madras city, 
Viz.,	North : Vaidyanathamudali st.,)(
	South: Adyar reiver 		)(
	East : Bay of Bangal 		)(	Rs.45.00 per 
	West: Saidapet OT		)(	Square Meter
		Nungambakkam		)(
		Railway line and		)(
		New Avadi Road (part)	)(c) Rest of the Madras Corporation area Rs.40.00 per square meter.d) Outside the Madras Corporation area and within the Madras Metropolitan area Rs.35.00 per square meter.This excess is subject to a ceiling of 220 sq.mts. or one ground and any excess over this ceiling shall be forfeited to Government.ii) The cost of a 20 sq.mts. plot will be recovered in 10 years at the rate of Rs.7/- per mensem, besides the initial down payment of Rs.89/-.iii) In respect of plots which exceed 20 sq.mets., the cost of the excess area will be computed as specified in para 3 (1) above and this cost will also be recovered with interest at 6% along with the nominal monthly instalments in a period of ten years.iv) In addition to the payment of land cost, each slum dweller shall pay a sum of Rs.8/- per mensem towards improvement charges.v) They shall also pay to the Corporation of Madras or to the concerned local body, a sum of Rs.2/- (Rupees two only), towards provision of water supply and other sanitary facilities. The question of upward revision of this service charges will be considered after five years.Thus the slum dwellers holding a 20 sq.metres plot, should pay, in all, Rs.17/- (7+7+2) per mensem towards the cost of plot, development and service charges. Besides this, those who are assigned lands in excess referred to under item (iii) above; andvi) Each allottee shall execute an agreement with the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board agreeing to abide by the conditions of assignment. Subject to he above conditions and on payment of the initial deposit of Rs.89/- and execution of an agreement, a conditional patta will be issued to each allottee, on the condition that the land so allotted should not be transferred or sold to anybody within a period of 10 years. In the event of the death of a allottee under this scheme, the plot will be transferred to his/her legal heir.4. The work relating to survey, demarcation of plots, fixing survey stones, enquiry about the house sites / buildings patta will be entrusted to the Revenue Department.5. A fund shall be created by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board with receipts from the sale of plot and improvements and this amount will be utilized for payment of land cost and slum improvements. The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board shall be in-charge of effective collection of the amounts due from the beneficiaries under this scheme.6.	The Madras Metropolitan Development Authority and the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board will render necessary assistance to the slum dwellers, who are granted pattas under this scheme, for mortgaging the lands with the Nationalized Banks and other Financial - Institutions to obtain loans for raising buildings on the assigned lands. Urban Co -operative Housing Societies may also be formed in slum areas, wherever necessary, and arrangements made for sanction of Loans to the members for construction of houses through the Registrar of Co - operative societies (Housing).7.	The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority are requested to take immediate action to implement the decisions communicated in this order. The Madras Metropolitan Development Authority is requested to submit to Government a monthly progress report to reach them by the 10th of every month.8.	This order issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department - vide its U.O.No.1498/FS/P/79, Dt.14.05.1979.(By order of the Government)
P.Kandasamy,
 Commissioner & Secretary to Govt.Government of Tamil Nadu
Abstract
Land - Tamil Nadu Urban Development project aided by world Bank - Slum Improvement programme - Slum infested Government lands - Banned categories of Government poramboke lands - proposal - orders issued -Modified orders  Issued.REVENUE (LI)DEPARTMENT
G.O.Ms.No.1911				Dated: 28.08.1998
						READ AGAIN:
						READ AGAIN:
	1. G.O.Ms.No.741, Revenue, Dt: 04.05.1990
	2. G.O.Ms.No.742, Revenue, Dt: 04.05.19903. From the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, D.O.Lr.N1/251986/89, Dt: 13.05.1990.ORDER:The World Bank aided Tamil Nadu Urban Development project is being implemented at a cost of Rs.632 crores of which the shelter Component which includes sites and service scheme and Slum Improvement Programme (SIP) accounts for Rs.306 crores. Under the Slum Improvement programme, it is intended to provide basic service such as water supply, drainage, sanitary units, street lighting at an approximate average cost of Rs.3,000/- per household. The project would cover nearly 94,000 slum families over a period of 6 years ten project cities viz. Madras. Madurai, Coimbatore, Salem, Vellore, Erode, Tirunelveli, Tuticorin and Tirchy the total financial outlay for the Slum Improvement project Rs.46.36 crores.2. In this connection, based on the recommendation empowered committee two separate orders were issued in G.O.Ms.No.741. Revenue dt. 04.05.1990 and G.O.Ms.No.742 Revenue dt. 04.05.1990 on relating to unobjectionable and another relating to objectionable and banned categories of Government lands which are now occupied by slum dwellers.3.	In G.O.Ms.No.741 Revenue dt.04.05.1990 the Government have ordered that such of those Government lands which are unobjectionable and which do not fall within the banned category of Government lands like water course porambokes, grazing ground porambokes etc., but which are occupied by slums for the past several years be alienated free of cost to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board for implementation of Tamil Nadu Urban Development project with the assistance of the World Bank. The Collectors of the Districts concerned have also been directed therein to permit the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board to enter upon such Government lands for implementation of the World Bank aided project pending issue of orders of transfer of land. In G.O.Ms.No.74, Revenue dt. 04.05.1990 Government have ordered that the Collectors may send proposals for reclassification Government land which fall within the banned categories of land like water course porambokes. Grazing ground poramboke etc., but which are occupied by slums for the past several years, for transfer to Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board for implementation of Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project with World Bank assistance through Commissioner of Land Administration.4.	The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board has no stated that more than 60% of the slums are on objectionable poramboke land He has stated that the Collectors may require time to send the proposals to the Government. As the Slum Improvement programme is a time bound programme and shall be implemented within its time frame, he has requested that the collectors may be empowered to permit Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board enter upon the lands pending issue of orders for transfer if there is a justification to reclassify the objectionable poramboke lands in, favour of Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board to implement the Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project, that the slum improvement works could be completed in time to avail of World Bank credit.5. The Empowered committed before whom the matter was place has recommended that right of entry can be given to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board to undertake improvement schemes on the basis of personal inspection of the Collector or District Revenue Officer and reclassification order will be issued by the Government on the basis of the report of the Collector and the commissioner of land Administration.6. The Government after careful examination accepts the recommendation of the Empowered Committee. Accordingly, in supercession of the orders issued in G.O. Second read above, the Government direct that in respect of implementation of slum Improvement scheme under Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project aided by World Bank, the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board be permitted to enter upon such of the lands that fall within the banned categories like water course porambokes. Grazing ground porambokes etc., which are occupied by slums for the past several years. The collectors District Revenue Officers are requested to permit the right of way to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, if there is justification to undertake improvement scheme in banned categories of lands on the basis of their personal inspection. The also should send specific proposals to the Government for reclassification of the land for eventual transfer to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board for implementation of Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project Scheme with full justification through the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration for issue orders, with a copy of the inspection report.7.	This order issues with the concurrence of Finance Department vide its U.O.No.4343 PS.P.SC.Dt. 03.08.1990.(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR)
N.RAMANATHAN,
 DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT16.An allotment order has been issued to the petitioner, for a plot measuring 3.88 sq.mts at a cost of Rs.40,950/- to be paid in instalments at the rate of Rs.465/- and payment of monthly instalments starting from 01.04.1992, to be remitted within 10 years. The order reads as follows:Proceedings of the Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
Presence : Thiru.Gangadhar Jhas, I.A.S.,

Place : Estate Office, World Bank Project, I, II, III, Chennai5

Proceedings No.82/92/M/A/A.A.7/A.A/U.D.P.(I,II,III), dated 10.04.1992
	Sub: Chennai  Scheme for the development of the Outskirts of City, Karunanidhi Nagar, Ulagaram  Slum area  Ownership of land  made through lease and sale agreement  Issuance of Allotment order.Ref:  1.Govt.Order No.1117 (Department of Housing and Urban Development), dated 27.06.1979.2. Govt.Order No.1100 (Department of Housing and Urban Development), dated 29.08.1980.3. From the District Collector, Chennai, Letter No.9493/91/E4 dated 12.02.1992 of the Board.4. Letter of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority.5. Related Documents.Order :-An allotment order has been passed in respect of the slum area, Chennai. Karunanidhi Nagar, Ullagaram, granting the ownership of the plot mentioned in Column-1 to the person mentioned in Column -3, who is residing in the said plot on the basis of Lease Cum Sale Agreement, under the World Bank Project.Plot No.
Door No.
Allottee Name Father (or) Husband Name
Plot area sq.m.Price of Plot 


Rs. P.
Monthly instalment 


Rs.  P.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)323---Thiru.Arokiam/ Soosai Marian.3.88
40,950/-465/-The extent of the alloted plot, sale consideration and the monthly instalment in respect of the plot allotted to the aforesaid allottee are mentioned in Serial Nos.4, 5 and 6 respectively.The monthly instalment starting from 01.04.1992, mentioned in S.I.No.6 has to be remitted by the aforesaid allottee, for a period of 10 years. For each and every month, the allottee should remit the monthly instalment on or before the 10th day of the same month. If he fails to remit, he should pay an interest at the rate of 8%.The allottee should remit along with the monthly instalment of the aforesaid plot, the development charge of Rs.8/- (Rupees Eight) as mentioned in the Agreement Form.It is informed through this allotment order that, if the allottee violates the conditions, mentioned in the allotment order and the conditions imposed in the agreement Form, the allotment would be cancelled.Sd/-for The Chairman.To :-Thiru/Tmt.Arokiam,
	Plot No.32316.Subsequently, permission has been granted by the Slum Clearance Board to the petitioner to get electricity service connection for the plot allotted to him, which is as follows:Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
No Objection Certificate for the Electricity Connection

R.O.C.No.212/98/M/A.A.7			Dated 27.03.1998
	Thiru/Tmt.Arokiam, S/o.Susaimarian, who is residing at the Door No.1, Ambedkar Street, Karunanidhi Nagar Scheme area, was allotted Plot No.323 on the basis of Lease cum Sale Agreement for the ownership of the land, under the World Bank Project. Permission is hereby accorded to the aforesaid allottee to get electricity connection for the plot allotted to him, with the conditions which are hereunder.1. All the expenses incurred for the electricity connection should be borne by the allottee at his own cost.2. No Compensation would be given at any situation, if he vacates the plot or if he is vacated from the plot.3. The Electricity Board shall not be held responsible for the loss caused due to the accident / substandard work.4. The allottee should remit the electricity bill directly to the concerned office of the electricity board.5. If there is any arrear in respect of the Electricity charges, the board will not take any effort/responsibility for remitting the same.6. The allottee should not cause any loss to the property of the board.Sd/-for The Chairman,
				   Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,
			K.K.Nagar, Sivalingapuram, 
			Chennai  600 076.To 
Thiru/Tmt.Arokiam/Susaimariyan,
Plot No.323, Karunanidhi Nagar,
Ullagaram,
Chennai  61.17.Later on, the Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, has granted permission to the petitioner to receive loan for construction of building in the plot allotted to him, and the order reads as follows:Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
The Estate Officer,
Estate Office, World Bank project,
K.K.Nagar,
Sivalingapuram,
Chennai  600 076.Issuance of No Objection Certificate to receive the loan for the construction of buildings in the plot.R.O.C.No.212/98/F/A.A./U.D.P., dated 27.03.1998
	Thiru/Tmt.Arokiam, S/o.Susaimarian, who is residing at Plot No.323, Karunanidhi Nagar, Ullagaram, was allotted the aforesaid plot under the lease cum sale agreement for the ownership of the land under the World Bank Project. The aforesaid allottee has remitted the total sale consideration, Development charges and maintenance charges. Permission is granted to him to receive the loan from the Nationalised Bank, Private Bank or Housing Society which grants advance amount for the construction of house or through the management in which he works for the construction of house in the aforesaid plot, with the following conditions :1. The allottee should obtain permission for the construction of the building, from the Chennai Corporation.2. The sale deed shall be given to the allottee, after 5 years, from the date of remittance of the total amount.3. If there is a change in the sale consideration and development charges, remitted by the allottee in respect of the plot allottee to him announced by this office later on, the sale deed shall be issued only after remitting the aforesaid amount.4. There is not any connection between the Board and the bank or financial institution, from which the allottee has received the loan.Sd/-Estate Officer,
					World Bank Project,
					K.K.Nagar, Sivalingam,
					Chennai  600 076.To 
Thiru/Tmt.Arokiam/Susaimariyan,
Plot No.323, Karunanidhi Nagar,
Ullagaram,
Chennai  61.18.By order, dated 27.03.1998, the Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, has granted 'No Objection Certificate' to the petitioner for getting sewerage facility/water pipe connection, as follows:Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board

No Objection Certificate for getting Sewerage facility/water pipe connection

R.O.C.No.212/98/A.A.7/F			Dated 27.03.1998

	
	Thiru/Tmt.Arokiam, S/o.Susaimarian, who is residing in Plot No323,  at Door No.1, Ambedkar Street, of Karunanidhi Nagar (2) Scheme area, was allotted Plot No.323, on the basis of Lease cum Sale Agreement, for the ownership of land, under the World Bank Project. The aforsesaid allottee is hereby granted permission for sewerage facility/water pipe connection with the following condition :1.The allottee should inform the office, the date, on which the sewerage facility/water pipe connection was received.2.All the expenses towards the sewerage facility/water pipe connection have to be borne by the allottee himself.3.If any damage caused to the properties of the Board, owing of the sewerage facility/water pipe facility. The allottee should take the responsibility for the said loss and compensate the same at your own costs.4.The amount payable to the sewerage and water board shall be remitted.5.No compensation shall be granted by the Board for any reason and for any purpose.6.The board shall not pay the arrears in sewerage/water charges for any reason and shall not be responsible for this.7.The allotee should inform the respective officers of the board, before the stipulated period, in the event of vacating the plot.8.The allottee should not fix the sewerage/water connection with the common pipe connections given by the board.9.If any damages caused to the road while laying sewerage/water connection, the expenditure incurred for setting right the said damage, shall be collected from you.Sd/-for The Chairman,
				Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,
					K.K.Nagar, Sivalingapuram,
							Chennai  600 076.To 
Thiru/Tmt.Arokiam/Susaimariyan,
Plot No.323, Karunanidhi Nagar,
Ullagaram,
Chennai  61.Copy :-The Administrative Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Division.19.The Lease cum Sale Agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, is extracted hereunder:This Agreement was entered into between Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board and  Thiru.Arokiyam, S/o.Soosai Marian residing at Karunanidhi Nagar, Chennai on 27th day of March 1999.This Agreement is executed between The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, a body corporate, constituted under the provisions of the TamilNadu Slum Area (improvement and clearance) Act, 1971, herein represented by the Secretary cum Personnel Officer, working in the office building, bearing door No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai  5, acting under the authority granted to him by the Board, in writing in this behalf in its resolution dated 29.5.1972 OF THE ONE PART AND the aforesaid Thiru.Arokiam OF THE OTHER PART. The Secretary Cum Personnel officer of the Board shall hereinafter be called the lessor-vendor (which term shall wherever the context so permits, mean and include its successors in interest and assigns.) The aforesaid Arokiam shall hereinafter be called as lessee-purchaser. (Which term wherever the context so permits, mean and include his heirs executors, and legal representatives).2. Since the Board, which was constituted under the TamilNadu Slum areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971, has created improvement Schemes, for the slum areas and acquired vacant lands, reclaimed them and laid out as plots for constructing buildings and other super structures, for the allottees to reside.3. The TamilNadu Slum Clearance Board has acquired the Scheme area namely Ganapathy Nagar with the aid of the world Bank/International Development Association and has plotted out the same.4. Negotiations were in respect of allocating the Plot bearing No.323, morefully described in the  Schedule  of property, mentioned as 'property' hereinafter, among the lessee and purchasers, and lessor and vendors, subject to the conditions enumerated hereunder,
	The contracts, agreements or documents of different nature, entered into with the Metropolitan development Authority, TamilNadu Housing Board, or on its behalf in respect of this property, after the commencement of the TamilNadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971, would entirely bind the Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board.The Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board has the legal authority to execute and implement the said contracts and agreements, as per the decision taken now and then, by the Tamilnadu Slum Clearance board in lieu of the Metropolitan Development Authority and  Tamilnadu Housing Board,
	It has been agreed for the allocation of this property, subject  to  rules and regulations mentioned hereunder, by the lessor/vendor, according to the request made by the lessee/purchaser to the lessor/vendor to give the lessee, this property on sale, on the basis of lease cum sale, agreeing to bear all the expenses payable towards the full value fixed by the TamilNadu Slum Clearance Board, stamp paper, registration charges, and miscellaneous charges by instalments and the request made to the lessor/vendor, for allowing him to be in the enjoyment of the property, till such time of absolute settlement of all the instalments, 
	The agreement in evidence thereof is drafted as hereunder :1. This property is hereby given on lease to the lessee/purchaser from 1.4. 92 on the basis of lease and sale. He has to pay the monthly instalment amount fixed hereunder within the 10th day of every month.2) (a) The lessee / purchaser, has to remit Rs.465/- as monthly instalment, from the commencement of 1.4.92 for a period of '20' years, for the value of this property, along with interest and other charges.b) The lessee / Purchaser has to remit Rs.465/- as monthly instalment, from 01.04.1992 for a period of '20' years, to the lessor / vendor, for the development charges.c) The lessee / purchaser, has to remit Rs.2/- together with the monthly instalment to the lessor / vendor, for the incidental expense and maintenance charges of this property. After 5 years, this amount may be enhanced.5. On the date of execution of this agreement, the amount, Rs.90/- has to be remitted as the Earnest money deposit. Later on, the lessee / purchaser, has to remit the monthly instalment in the ensuring months, before the 10th day of every month. It there is arrears for two months, the Board would put an additional  lock and take possession and to realise the arrear, the possession would be confiscated and the money obtained in auction, would be adjusted for the arrear.6. In case, the lessee / purchaser defaults remitting the monthly instalment ; the lessor / vendor reserves the right to collect it with 12% interest, since the date of default and thereafter, to deduct the said arrear in the first instalment amount to be remitted by him. In the event of three consecutive defaults being made, the lessor / vendor is entitled to take back the property. Further, till the date of taking back the property, the amounts remitted by the lessee / purchaser would not be refunded.7. The lessee / purchaser has to remit 12% interest for the arrears of monthly instalment and in addition to this, the lessor / vendor has to remit the expenses incurred in collecting the arrears.8. The lessee / purchaser has no right to assign the entire property or any part of it or sub  lease it or leave it to the possession of some one else; without the prior permission in writing of the lessor / vendor.9. The constructions and developments carried out in this property by the lessee / purchaser, without obtaining the written consent of the lessor / vendor, when the purchaser is evicted or when he leaves property, then the property would belong to the lessor / vendor. The lessee / purchaser in not entitled to get any compensation in this regard; but as regards the constructions and developmental works carried out by the lessee / purchaser on the written consent of the lessor / vendor; the same shall be assessed by the lessor / vendor and on the basis of this assessment, the lessor / vendor is bound to accept the said assessment amount.10. After each and every proceeding taken or to be taken by the erstwhile owners of the property or properties, acquired under the aforesaid development scheme mentioned above, under theLand Acquisition Actand after the Tribunal or Court deliver the final order, with regard to the land, which was acquired in that manner, if the price of the place is enhanced owing to the aforesaid legal action, the lessee / purchaser is bound to pay in proportion to the enhanced price of this property, as mentioned by the Lessor / Vendor.11. The decision taken by the TamilNadu Slum Clearance Board, with regard to the value of the property is final. The decision taken by the Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board in fixing the monthly instalment and the final value of the property, shall bind the Lessee / Purchaser. The lessee / Purchaser agrees to purchase the property in accordance with the legal procedures described in this agreement.12. (a)  Building shall be constructed in this property only after the lessee / purchaser obtaining permission from the Board. The construction shall be made only after he obtains the license, required for the construction of such building, either from the corporation of Madras or from the officers concerned. He shall construct only one building in the said plot. He shall not make any sub-division of the property.b) If the lessor / vendor, demands property tax and general expenses besides monthly instalment, the lessee / purchaser shall remit the same, till the period of lease. On failure to remit the aforesaid amount within the due date fixed by the lessor / vendor, it shall be treated as default payment and action shall be taken as per the clause 6, of this agreement.13. This property shall not be used for any other purpose; apart from residential purpose, without the written consent from the lessor / vendor.14. As far as the things, which are not mentioned in this Deed of Agreement are concerned, the lessor / vendor has the right to direct the lessee / purchaser to do such, as per the decision of the Board. The lessee has to perform such things as directed by the lessor / purchaser. If he fails to follow the directions, he will be considered, having violated  conditions of Agreement Deed.15. The lessor / vendor may sell his property, if the lessee / purchaser complies with all the conditions prescribed and if he pays the final sale consideration, interest and other charges. If it is accepted, then in respect of the sale consideration, the amount incurred for the stamp paper, Registration charges and other charge would be borne by the lessee / purchaser. By making all the arrangements to finalise the sale, and after the settlement of the sale consideration, it is the duty of lessor / vendor to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the lessee / purchaser.16. If the Lessee / Purchaser, violates the conditions of the agreement, or if he fails to pay the instalment amount or other charges, in respect of this Agreement, then, even if he has remitted the amount of sale consideration, he is liable to be evicted from the property. On such eviction, the lessee / Purchaser has no right to claim compensation for the superstructure and Developments made under the rights conferred by this deed of Agreement.17. The lesser / vendor, or his representative has the right always to enter the property and inspect on reasonable occasions.SCHEDULE
	All that piece and portion of the Plot No.323, as per the sanctioned Plan (Re.Survey No...) measuring an extent of 1 ground (plot) 3.88.0 sq.mts.DETAILS OF BOUNDARIES
	North by 	:	Ambedkar StreetEast by	:	Plot Nos.324 & 325South by	:	Plot Nos.326 & 324 A
	West by	:	Plot No.322.20.The proposals, dated 21.06.2012 sent by the Managing Director, Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, is extracted hereunder:From							

	The Managing Director,
	Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,
	No.5, Kamarajar Road,
	Chennai  600 005.To

	The Secretary to Government,
	Housing and Urban Development Department,
	Secretariat,
	Chennai  600 009.Na.Ka.No.E8/16016/2003                           Dated 21.06.2012

Respected Sir,

	Sub: Cases  Ullagaram  Karunanidhi Nagar  Scheme
			 Area  Transfer of Property-intimation of
			 Government's Stand  reg.	
	Ref: 1.G.O.No.1117, Housing and Urban Development
	           Department, dated 27.06.1979.

	        2.G.O.No.1100, Housing and Urban Development
	           Department, dated 29.08.1980.

	        3.G.O.No.1911, Revenue (L1) Department, dated
	           28.08.1998.
-----As per the Government Orders, cited under reference,  development works were carried out, with an expenditure of Rupees 20 lakhs under the Madras Urban Development Project (MUDP) through the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board in Karunanidhi Scheme Area, Ullagaram, Chennai. The aforesaid scheme area is situated in the land in Survey No.90, Ullagaram Village, Sholingnallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, to an extent of 23.31.0 hectares, under the classification Eri-ulvai (Lake). The plan, As is where is was prepared for the said land and the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority gave approval to the Plan of the site, comprising 823 plots. Among these 165 plots had been allotted to the eligible beneficiaries from the year 1992. Earnest money deposit has been collected from the beneficiaries and Deed of Agreement for lease and sale has been executed. One Thiru.Arockiam, S/o.Soosaimariyan, the allottee of Plot No.323, had paid the entire sale consideration for the aforesaid plot to the Board. He has instituted a case in W.P.No.18999/2003 in the High Court, Madras against the Board, praying to give the sale deed for the plot. It was informed on behalf of the Board by the Legal Advisor of the Board, during the hearing of the aforesaid case, in the court, it was submitted that the sale deed for the plot would be issued only after receiving the Government Order, by transferring the land, with the classification of land with water sources for the scheme area, in the name of the Board.A demand was made to the District Collector, Kancheepuram in the year 1996 and reminder letters were also sent to the said District Collector, requesting to effect transfer of property in the name of the Board, in respect of the land, situated in the aforesaid scheme area and continuous action to be taken in this regard. In this circumstance, when the W.P.No.18999/2003 again came up for hearing in the High Court, Madras, the Hon'ble Judge stated that the Board did not take any action in issuing the sale deed to the beneficiaries of Karunanidhi Nagar, Ullagaram, Chennai, for more than 20 years, after collecting the sale consideration of the land and the Hon'ble Judge instructed to file in writing, as to the stand taken by the Government, in this regard.Consequently, in the discussion held at the Secretariat, on 07.06.2012, under the Chairmanship of the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, with regard to the transfer of the land, situated in Karunanidhi Nagar Scheme Area, Ullagaram, Chennai, in the name of the Board, the Secretary to Government, P.W.D. Department, the Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, the Joint Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner for Land Administration and the District Collector, Kancheepuram participated. On the basis of the judgments dated 27.06.2005 and 28.01.2001 of the High Court, Madras and the Supreme Court respectively, it was informed that the proposals for transfer of land and assignment of land in respect of the lands classified as water source, cannot be accepted and that no objection certificate shall not be issued for such lands. In the event of implementing the decision taken in the Joint Committee Meeting of the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, held on 07.06.2012, about 37 thousand beneficiaries would be benefited by getting the allotment of plots in about 120 Scheme Areas, with the classification of water sources through Madras Urban Development Project (MUDP) and Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project (TNUDP) implemented by the Board throughout Tamil Nadu. In the event of returning the amount collected by the Board from the aforesaid beneficiaries, with interest, the Board would incur heavy loss, since there arose a situation in which the stand of the Board ought to be known to the court, consequent to the stand taken by the Government, the Advocate General was instructed to appear on behalf of the Board, in view of the significance of this case. Accordingly, when this case came up for hearing in the High Court, the Advocate General mentioned the details of the case and stated that he would discuss with the Chief Secretary to the Government to find out possibilities for issuing sale deeds, by transferring the lands in the name of the Board, in so far as the items in which allotment of plots were made by the Board, after the project works were carried out in the lands under the classification of water sources and place it again to the court. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 25.06.2012.In the meanwhile, as per the requisition of the Learned Advocate General in his letter dated 19.06.2012, when the Secretary of the Board had discussion with the Advocate General, the details of the case were informed. Among the Scheme Areas implemented by the Board throughout Tamil Nadu, in about 120 scheme areas, in which the transfer of land was not effected, the deeds of sale could not be issued to about 55 thousand beneficiaries. Sale deeds, could not be issued to about 37 thousand beneficiaries in the scheme areas, implemented by the Board in the Poramboke lands, with water sources.After the order passed by the High Court, Madras on 27.06.2005, the order of stay of the Government had already been relaxed in respect of  the following two scheme areas, the government order was issued through the Revenue Department, by transferring the land in the name of the Board.(1) Egmore Nungambakkam Taluk, Saligramam Village, Vijayaraghavapuram Scheme Area, G.O.No.400 Revenue L.D.5(2) Department, dated 23.06.2006.(2)	Tambaram Taluk, Perungulathur Village, Mahakavi Bharathi Nagar Scheme Area, G.O.No.479 Revenue L.D.5(1) Department, dated 01.08.2008.As per the Government Orders cited under reference, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board has given livelihood to the slum-dwellers, in several places, through Madras Urban Development Project and Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project, for the development of slum-dwellers after making prior entry and made the Slum  dwellers occupy and reside in the poramboke lands with water sources. About 20 years have gone, since the development works of these scheme areas were carried out and completed. When the works of the scheme were carried out, there were no orders of stay passed by the High Court and Supreme Court regarding the transfer of the lands with the classification of lands with water sources. On the contrary, it has been ordered in G.O.No.1911, Revenue (L.1) Department, dated 28.08.1998 asking to recommend the transfer of lands, under the classification, of lands with water sources, which were encroached, upon to the Slum Clearance Board and to give permission for prior entry to the Slum Clearance Board. Further, the opinions given by the Secretary of Revenue Department and the Secretary of Public Works Department, in the meeting, held on 07.06.2012, under the Chairmanship of the Secretary of Revenue Department, are not applicable to the Madras Urban Development Project and Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project, implemented by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, about 20 years back, by making prior entry in the poramboke lands with water sources.1.	As per the Government Order dated 27.06.1979 cited under reference No.1, the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board has carried out the development works relating to the slums, located in the poramboke lands, about 20 years back. Then, no Government Order or orders of the High Court or Supreme Court were in force.2.	In the circumstances, the government order passed in the year 1987, and the order of the Madras High Court passed in the year 2005, were in force, the stay order has been relaxed by the Revenue Department, and an order has been passed causing transfer of property in the name of the Board in respect of the Poramboke lands with water sources, situated in the two scheme areas, as mentioned above.3.	Besides this, orders have been issued, since 1987, by making transfer of property in the name of the Board by the Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, by relaxing the stay order in respect of the Poramboke lands, with water sources, situated in about 67 scheme areas.4.	In the Judgment dated 28.01.2011, passed by the Supreme Court of India, it was ordered to remove only the illegal occupation, but the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board identified slum areas, about 20 years back itself, made pre-entry in that area, carried out Developmental works, issued allotment orders in respect of the plots, in which the slum dwellers resided, on the basis of As is where is, collected earnest deposit from them, and entered into lease cum sale agreement with them. Further, a huge amount was spent by the Slum Clearance Board, and all the basic infrastructure facilities were provided to them.Therefore, the persons who had obtained allotment orders by the Board in respect of these scheme areas, cannot be treated as illegal occupants and cannot be evicted in accordance with the order of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the order passed by the Supreme Court of India, is not applicable to the schemes implemented by the Board in the poramboke land with water sources.5.	Under thesection 12of the Tamil Nadu Tanks Protection and Eviction of Encroachment Act 2007, enacted by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the year 2007, provision has been made to the effect that transfer of land could be made in one portion of the lake, which is under the control of P.W.D., in the manner of not causing damage to its water storage area and water quality, for the sake of public welfare. All the poramboke lands with water sources in all the scheme areas in which the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, has implemented the project and therefore, had already lost its nature of water source, even 20 years back, and having lost its Ayacut and channels, and became a developed area, consisting of many buildings. Even though, the lands situated in this scheme area, have been mentioned as poramboke land with water sources as per the documents of the Revenue Department, the said lands have totally lost its nature, and it is in a situation that it cannot be treated as the poramboke land with water sources. After the enactment of this Act, in the year 2008, when the Board implemented the scheme area, namely Mahakavi Bharathiyar Nagar, in the land classification, as poramboke land with water sources in Perungalathur village, government order has been issued by the Revenue Department effecting transfer of property (Government Order (Rt) 479/Revenue R.Dis5(i)Department, dated 01.08.2008) in the name of the Board for the Scheme Mahakavi Bharathiyar Nagar
		Therefore, the Managing Director of the Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, has requested the Secretary, Revenue Department, Chennai and bring it to the knowledge of the government, treating all the scheme areas, implemented in the poramboke land with water sources, by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, 20 years  ago, as special case, and to obtain exemption to these scheme areas from the order of stay, and to obtain necessary orders for effecting Transfer of Property in the name of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. He has further requested the Secretary to the Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai, to make necessary recommendations for amending, thesection 12of the Tamil Nadu Tanks Protection and Eviction of Encroachment Act, 2007, if required and to grant exemption from the stay order in effecting transfer of property in respect of the poramboke land with water sources in which the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board has implemented the scheme and to pass orders accordingly.Sd/- V.Chandrasekaran                                                                              Managing Director.
                                                                              Sd/-                                                                              Secretary.21.One of the components of the Madras Urban Development Project was the Slum improvement programme, for which the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board has been designated as the agency. The scheme consists of improving slum areas with the provision of basic amenities, access ways and provision of special and economic, facilities, including, running of pre-schools. The project provides for security of tenure to the slum dwellers.  Insofar as the World Bank aided Tamil Nadu Urban Development project is concerned, out of  Rs.632 crores, for shelter Component, including sites and service scheme and Slum Improvement Programme (SIP), a sum of Rs.306 crores has been earmarked for such purpose. Under the Slum Improvement programme, it has been intended to provide basic amenities, such as water supply, drainage, sanitary units, street lighting, at an approximate average cost of Rs.3,000/- per household.  As per G.O.Ms.No.1911, Revenue (L1) Department, dated 28.08.1998, the project would cover nearly 94,000 slum families over a period of 6 years in ten project cities viz. Madras. Madurai, Coimbatore, Salem, Vellore, Erode, Tirunelveli, Tuticorin and Tirchy and the total financial outlay for the Slum Improvement project was Rs.46.36 crores.22.In G.O.Ms.No.1911, Revenue (L1) Department, dated 28.08.1998, the Government have directed that in respect of implementation of slum Improvement scheme under Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project aided by World Bank, the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board may be permitted to enter upon such of the lands that fall within the banned categories like water course porambokes. Grazing ground porambokes etc., which are occupied by slums for the past several years. From the abovesaid Government Order, it is also eviden that even in respect of lands falling under banned categories like water course porambokes, grazing porambokes, etc., which are occupied by slums, the Districts and District Revenue Officers, have been requested  to permit the right of way to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, if there is justification to undertake improvement scheme in banned categories of lands on the basis of their personal inspection. Even in the year 1998, i.e., six years later than the allotment made to the petitioner, the Government have directed the Revenue Department to send proposals to the Government for classification of the land for eventual transfer to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board for implementation of Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project  Scheme with full justification through the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration for issue orders, with a copy of the inspection report.23.As stated supra that Plot bearing Door No.323, measuring an extent of 3.88 Sq.Metres, Karunanidhi Nagar, Ulagaram, Chennai-61, has been allotted to the petitioner, vide proceedings of the Chairman, Slum Clearance Board, Chennai-76, in No.82/92/M/A/A.A.7/A.A./U.D.P.(I, II, III), dated 10.04.1992, for the value of Rs.40,950/- and that he has to pay a monthly instalment of Rs.465/-.  It is also evident from the said proceedings, allotment has been made under the scheme for development of the outskirts of the City, Karunanidhi Nagar, Ulagaram.  As per the allotment order, the allottee, along with the monthly instalment of the aforesaid plot, should remit developmental charge of Rs.8/- as mentioned in the agreement.24.Thereafter, vide proceedings in ROC.No.212/98/M/A.A.7, dated 27.03.1998, permission has been accorded to the allottee by the Slum Clearance Board, Chennai to get electricity service connection to the plot, allotted to him.  He has been permitted to remit electricity bills directly to the concerned Office of the Electricity Board and that it has also been stated in the abovesaid order that, if there was any arrears, in respect of electricity charges, the Slum Clearance Board, will not take any effort/responsibility for remitting the same.25.Subsequently, another order has been issued in ROC.No.212/98/F/A.A./UDB, dated 27.03.1998, by the Estate Officer, Estate Office, World Bank Project, K.K.Nagar, Sivalingapuram, Chennai-76, granting No Objection Certificate to the petitioner to receive loan, for the construction of a building in the plot allotted to him.  The order also reiterates that the petitioner has been allotted the aforesaid plot under the lease cum sale agreement for ownership of the land, under the World Bank Project.  Permission has been granted to him, to receive loan from a Nationalised Bank, Private Bank or Housing Society, which grants advance amount for the construction of house or through the Management, in which, he works, for the construction of the house, in the aforesaid plot, subject to the following conditions:"(1) The allottee should obtain permission for the construction of the building from the Chennai Corporation.(2) The sale deed shall be given to the allottee, after five years, from the date of remittance of the total amount.(3) If there is a change in the sale consideration and developmental charges, remitted by the allottee in respect of the plot allotted to him, announced by this office lateron, the sale deed shall be issued only after remitting the aforesaid amount."26.Yet another order in R.O.C.No.212/98/A.A.7/F, has also been issued to the petitioner, granting permission for sewerage facility/water pipe connection, subject to the conditions,
	"1. The allottee should inform the office, the date, on which the sewerage facility/water pipe connection was received..2. All the expenses towards the sewerage facility/water pipe connection have to be borne by the allottee himself3. If any damage caused to the properties of the Board, owing of the sewerage facility/water pipe facility. The allottee should take the responsibility for the said loss and conpensate the same at your own costs.4. The amount payable to the sewerage and water board shall be remitted.5. No compensation shall be granted by the Board for any reason and for any purpose.6. The board shall not pay the arrears in sewerage/water charges for any reason and shall not be responsible for this.7. The allotee should inform the respective officers of the board, before the stipulated period, in the event of vacating the plot.8. The allottee should not fix the sewerage/water connection with the common pipe connections given by the board.9.	If any damages caused to the road while laying sewerage/water connection, the expenditure incurred for setting right the said damage, shall be collected from you."27.Material on record further discloses that on 27.03.1999, the Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, has entered into a lease cum sale agreement with the petitioner, subject to the following conditions, inter alia,
	"11. The decision taken by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, with regard to the value of the property is final. The decision taken by the Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board in fixing the monthly instalment and the final value of the property, shall bind the Lessee / Purchaser. The lessee / Purchaser agrees to purchase the property in accordance with the legal procedures described in this agreement.12. (a)  Building shall be constructed in this property only after the lessee / purchaser obtaining permission from the Board. The construction shall be made only after he obtains the license, required for the construction of such building, either from the corporation of Madras or from the officers concerned. He shall construct only one building in the said plot. He shall not make any sub-division of the property.b) If the lessor / vendor, demands property tax and general expenses besides monthly instalment, the lessee / purchaser shall remit the same, till the period of lease. On failure to remit the aforesaid amount within the due date fixed by the lessor / vendor, it shall be treated as default payment and action shall be taken as per the clause.6 found in this agreement."28.Reading of the lease cum agreement between the parties also reiterated that the Board, constituted under theTamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971, has created improvement schemes for the slum areas, acquired vacant lands, reclaimed them and laid out as plots, for constructing buildings and other superstructures, for the allottees to reside and that the Slum Clearance Board has acquired the Scheme area, viz., "Ganapathy Nagar", with the aid of the World Bank/International Development Association and has plotted out the same.29.As per Condition No.15 of the Lease cum Sale Agreement, dated 27.03.1999, entered into between the petitioner and the Board, the lessor/vendor may sell his property, if the lessee/purchaser complies with all the conditions prescribed and if he pays the final sale consideration, interest and other charges.  If it is accepted, then in respect of the sale consideration, the amount incurred for the stamp paper, registration charges and other charges would be borne by the lessee/purchaser.  By making all the arragements to finalise the sale and after the settlement of the sale consideration, it is the duty of lessor/vendor to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the lessee/purchaser.30.Perusal of the proposal in R.C.No.E8/16016/2003, dated 21.06.2012, addressed to the Secretary to the Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, by the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, makes it abundantly clear that the development works have been carried out, with an expenditure of Rs.20 Lakhs under the Madras Urban Development (MUDP) through the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board in Karunanidhi Scheme Area, Ullagaram, Chennai.  The aforesaid scheme area is situated in the land in Survey No.90, Ullagaram Village, Sholingnallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, measuring an extent of 23.31.0 hectares, under the classification "Eri-ulvai" ("Lake"). The plan, "As is where is" condition has been prepared for the said land and that the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority has given approval to the Plan site, comprising 823 plots.  As per the proposal, among these, 165 plots had been allotted to eligible beneficiaries from the year 1992. Earnest money deposit has been collected from the beneficiaries and that Deed of Agreement for lease cum sale, has been executed.  Though an attempt has been made to the District Collector, Kancheepuram in the year 1996 and reminder letters have been sent, requesting to effect transfer of property in the name of the Board, in respect the land, situated in the aforesaid scheme area and continuous action was also stated to have been taken by the Board, there was no response and even after collecting the sale consideration for the land, developmental charges from the allottee, sale deeds have not been executed to the beneficiaries of K.K.Nagar, Ullagaram, for more than 20 years, from the date of allotment.31.Perusal of the proposal also shows that about 37,000 beneficiaries have been allotted plots in about 120  Scheme Areas,  throughout the State of Tamil Nadu, with the classification of water sources, through Madras Urban Development Plan (MUDP) and Tamil Nadu Urban Development Plan (TNUDP), implemented by the Board, throughout Tamil Nadu.  Further, among the Scheme Areas implemented by the Board, throughout Tamil Nadu, in 120 scheme areas, transfer of land has not been effected and consequently, sale deeds have not been issued to about 55,000 beneficiaries. Among them, sale deeds have not been issued to about 37 thousand beneficiaries, in the Scheme areas, implemented by the Board in Poramboke lands, with water sources which were in existence long back.32.Perusal of the proposal further reveals that government orders have been issued by the Revenue Department, transferring the land in the name of the Board, viz., (1) Egmore Nungambakkam Taluk, Saligramam Village, Vijayaaraghavapuram Scheme Area, G.O.No.400 Revenue L.D.5(2)  Department, dated 23.06.2006, and (2) Tambaram Taluk, Perungulathur Village, Mahakavi Bharathi Nagar Scheme Area, G.O.No.479 Revenue L.D.5(1) Department, dated 01.08.2008.33.Perusal of the materials furnished by the writ petitioner and the proposals of the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, dated 21.06.2012, makes it clear that allotment of the plot to the Slum Dwellers, has been made by the Board, on condition that the allottee should pay the cost of the plot in instalments and that the Board has also issued orders, permitting the slum dwellers, to obtain electricity connection, sewerage facility/water pipe connection  and that permission has also been obtained to raise loans from the Nationalised Bank, Private Bank or Housing Society, which grants advance amount for the construction of a house or through the Management, in which, he works for the construction, of a house in the aforesaid plot, subject to the conditions, stated supra.34.From the allotment order, dated 10.04.1992 and the further proceedings, granting permission for the abovesaid purposes, it is manifestly clear that the ownership of the land was meant to be conveyed through a lease cum sale agreement.  As stated supra, as per Condition No.15 of the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement, dated 27.03.1999, the Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, has made it clear that after the settlement of the sale consideration, it is the duty of the lessor/vendor, i.e., the Board to execute the sale deed, in favour of the lessee/purchaser.35.Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, all the above mentioned proceedings have been finalised in the year 1999 itself.  So far, sale deed has not been executed by the Slum Clearance Board, as agreed. An offer has been made to the petitioner, as well as to 55,000 allottees throughout the State, in the Slum areas, implemented by the Board to purchase the lands on lease cum sale basis, and among them, sale deeds have not been issued to 37,000 beneficiaries in 120 scheme areas implemented by the Board in Poramboke lands.  Admittedly, it is the Board, which has identified the beneficiaries and allotted a plot to them.  It is the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, which has identified the slum areas about 20 years back, made pre-entry in that area, carried out developmental works, issued allotment orders to the beneficiaries in respect of the plots, in which the slum dwellers were residing, on the basis of "As is where" condition, collected earnest money deposit, periodical instalments, towards the land cost, developmental charges and permitted them to obtain electricity service connection, sewerage/water pipe connection, permitted them to raise loans, for putting up the construction and entered into lease cum sale agreement with them. The Slum Clearance Board, for the development of slum areas, through out the State, has also spent huge amount funded by the World Bank/International Development Association, under two schemes, viz., Madras Urban Development Plan (MUDP) and Tamil Nadu Urban Development Pan (TNUDP) respectively, implemented by the Board.   Clause 15 of the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement and the conduct of Slum Clearance Board, in granting permission for the abovesaid purposes clearly proves that the Board has held out a promise for executing a sale deed, on receipt of the value of the plot and developmental charges.36.In the case on hand, now after nearly 20 years from the date of allotment, ie., 10.04.1992, the Board cannot disown its promise, on the basis of which, the petitioner has acted upon. The Board is estopped from doing so.37.The doctrine of legitimate expectation has been described in the following words; a person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The explanation may arise either from representation or promise by the authority, including an implied representation or from consistent past experience.i)In the decision reported in AIR 1984 SC 2414  (The Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd., Vs.Union of India), when considering the doctrine of the promissory estoppel, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:-"It is true that in the formative period, it was generally said that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked by the promise unless he has suffered 'detriment' or 'prejudice'. It was often said simply, that the party asserting the estoppel must have been induced to act to his detriment. But this has now been explained in so many decisions all over. All that is now required is that the party asserting the estoppel must have acted upon the assurance given to him must have relied upon the representation made to him. It means, the party has changed or altered the position by relying on the assurance or the representation. The alteration of position by the party is the only in dispensible requirement of the doctrine. It is not necessary to prove further any damage, detriment of prejudice to the party asserting the estoppel. The Court, however, would compel the opposite party to adhere to the representation acted upon or abstained from acting. The entire doctrine proceeds on the promise that it is reliance based and nothing more".12.At page 2420 again the Supreme Court quoted with approval the dictum laid down by Lord Denning in Central Newbury Car Autions Ltd., Vs. Unity Finance Ltd reported in 1956-3 All.E.R.,905 and referred to the decision reported in 1979-2 SCR 641 in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co., Ltd., Vs.State of U.P. Wherein Bhagwati,J observed as follows:"We do not think in order to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel it is necessary for the promisee to show that he suffered detriment as a result of acting in reliance on the promise. But we may make it clear that if by detriment we mean injustic to the promises which could result, if the promiser were to recede from his promise then detriment would certainly come in as a necessary ingredient. The detriment in such a case is not some prejudice suffered by the promisee by acting on the promise, but the prejudice which would be caused to the promisee, if the promisor were allowed to go back on the promise"ii)InUnion of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., reported in (1985) 4 SCC 369,  the Supreme Court held as follows:"9.The true principle of promissory estoppel is that where one party has by his word or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise or representation which is intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise or representation is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise or representation would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so, having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties".iii)In Union of India Vs.India Tobacco Co., Ltd., reported in AIR 1986 SC 806, the Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel represents a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice and though commonly named promissory. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted heredunder:"Estoppel, it is neither in the realm of contract nor in the realm of estoppel. The basis of this doctrine is the interposition of equity which has always true to its form, stepped into mitigate the rigour of strict law. This doctrine, though of ancient vintage, was rescued from obscurity by the decision of Mr.Justice Denning as he then was in his celebrated judgment in Central Lond Property Trust Ltd., Vs.High Trees House Ltd., reported in 1956-I All.E.R.256. The true principle of promissory estoppel is that where one party has by his word or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise of representation which is intended to create legal relations or affect a legal relationship to arise in the future knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the Promise or representation is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise or representation would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so, having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties. It has often been said in England that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot itself be the basis of an action; it can only be a shield and not a sword, but the law in India has gone for ahead of the narrow position adopted in England and as a result of the decision of this Court inMotilal Sugar Mills Vs. State of Uttar Pradeshreported in 1979 (2)SCR 641, it is now well settled that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not limited in its application only to defence but it can also found a cause of action.The decision of this Court inMotilal Sugar MillsCase (Supra) contains an exhaustive discussion of the doctrine or promissory estoppel and we find ourselves wholly in agreement with the various parameters of this doctrine outlined in that decision".iv)InNavjyoti Coop.Group Housing Society Vs. Union of Indiareported in (1992) 4 SCC 477, the Supreme Court  held as follows:"15.... In the aforesaid facts, the Group Housing Societies were entitled to 'legitimate expectation' of following consistent past practice in the matter of allotment, even though they may not have any legal right in private law to receive such treatment.  The existence of 'legitimate expectation' may have a number of different consequences and one of such consequences is that the authority ought not to defeat the 'legitimate expectation' without some overriding reason of public policy to justify its doing so. In a case of 'legitimate expectation' it should afford him an opportunity to make representations in the matter. In this connection reference may be made to the discussions on 'legitimate expectation' at 151 of Vol.1(1) of Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn(re-issue). We may also refer to a decision of the House of Lords in Council of Civil Service Unions Vs.Minister for Civil Service reported in 1985 AC 374. It has been held inthe said decisionthat an aggrieved person was entitled to judicial review if he could show that a decision of the public authority affected him of some benefit or advantage which in the past he had been permitted to enjoy and which he legitimately expected to be permitted to continue to enjoy either until he was given reasons for withdrawal and the opportunity to comment on such reasons.16.It may be indicated here that the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' imposes in essence a duty on public authority to act fairly by taking into consideration all relevant factors relating to such 'legitimate expectation'. Within the conspectus of fair dealing in case of 'legitimate expectation', the reasonable opportunities to make representation by the parties likely to be affected  by any change of consistent past policy, come in. We have not been shown any compelling reasons taken into consideration by the Central Government to make a departure from the existing policy of allotment with reference to seniority in registration by introducing a new guideline". (Emphasis supplied)v)InKasinka Trading and another v. Union of Indiareported in 1995 (1) SCC 274, the Supreme Court, at paragraphs 12 and 13 has explained the "principle of promissory estoppel", as follows:"12. The doctrine of promissory estoppel or  equitable estoppel is well established in the administrative law of the country. To put it simply, the doctrine represents a principle evolved by equity to avoid injustice. The basis of the doctrine is that where any party has by his word or conduct made to the other party an unequivocal promise or representation by word or conduct, which intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing as well as intending that the representation, assurance of the promise would be acted upon by the other party to whom it has been made and has in fact been so acted upon by the other party, the promise, assurance or representation should be binding on the party making it and that party should not be permitted to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so, having regard to the dealing, which have taken place or are intended to take between the parties.vi)InNational Buildings Construction Corpn. v. S. Raghunathan, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 66, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:"18. The doctrine of legitimate expectation has its genesis in the field of administrative law. The Government and its departments, in administering the affairs of the country, are expected to honour their statements of policy or intention and treat the citizens with full personal consideration without any iota of abuse of discretion. The policy statements cannot be disregarded unfairly or applied selectively. Unfairness in the form of unreasonableness is akin to violation of natural justice. It was in this context that the doctrine of legitimate expectation was evolved which has today become a source of substantive as well as procedural rights. But claims based on legitimate expectation have been held to require reliance on representations and resulting detriment to the claimant in the same way as claims based on promissory estoppel.vii)In Madras Cements Ltd., Vs.State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1999 (II) CTC 108, this Court has held as follows:36.To succeed in a plea of promissory estoppel it is indispensable to prove that the promisee has altered his position in reliance on an assurance which he has received. Such a promise should have been made which is intended to create legal relation sand which to the knowledge of the person making the promise was going to be acted on a person to whom it was made and which was in fact so acted on. Here, the promise is 'acted on'. Such action, in law as in physics, must necessarily result in an alternation of position. But it is difficult for this Court to imagine such a case which would qualify in all promissory estoppel cases. The abovesaid qualifications to get a benefit out of the said promissory estoppel have to established on the basis of the facts available to the petitioners.viii)InPunjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1999 4 SCC 727, at paragraph 35, the Supreme Court after considering State of Karnataka Vs.Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1  and Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Assns. V.Union of India reported in 2006(8) SCC 399, has held as follows:35.In such cases, therefore, the Court may not insist an administrative authority to act judicially but may still insist it to act fairly. The doctrine is based on the principle that good administration demands observance of reasonableness and where it has adopted a particular practice for a long time even in the absence of a provision of law, it should adhere to such practice without depriving its citizens of the benefit enjoyed or privilege exercised.
				(emphasis in original)ix)InState of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd., reported in (2004) 6 SCC 465,  the Supreme Court has held as follows:"28.This Court rejected all the three pleas of the Government. It reiterated the well-known preconditions for the operation of the doctrine:(1) a clear and unequivocal promise knowing and intending that it would be acted upon by the promisee;(2) such acting upon the promise by the promisee so that it would be inequitable to allow the promisor to go back on the promise.29.As for its strengths it was said: that the doctrine was not limited only to cases where there was some contractual relationship or other pre-existing legal relationship between the parties. The principle would be applied even when the promise is intended to create legal relations or affect a legal relationship which would arise in future. The Government was held to be equally susceptible to the operation of the doctrine in whatever area or field the promise is made  contractual, administrative or statutory. To put it in the words of the Court:The law may, therefore, now be taken to be settled as a result of this decision, that where the Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promisee and, in fact, the promisee, acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promisee, notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required byArticle 299of the Constitution.*	*	*
[Equity will, in a given case where justice and fairness demand, prevent a person from insisting on strict legal rights, even where they arise, not under any contract, but on his own title deeds or under statute.*	*	*
Whatever be the nature of the function which the Government is discharging, the Government is subject to the rule of promissory estoppel and if the essential ingredients of this rule are satisfied, the Government can be compelled to carry out the promise made by it.x)InJitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 161, the Supreme Court in its judgment has explained the principle of doctrine of legitimate expectation as a right distinct from an anticipation. The paragraphs 58 and 59 are extracted hereunder:"58.Application of doctrine of legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel must also be considered from the aforementioned viewpoint. A legitimate expectation is not the same thing as an anticipation. It is distinct and different from a desire and hope. It is based on a right. [SeeChanchal Goyal (Dr.) v. State of RajasthanandUnion of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn. Itis grounded in the rule of law as requiring regularity, predictability and certainty in the Government's dealings with the public. We have no doubt that the doctrine of legitimate expectation operates both in procedural and substantive matters.59.InKuldeep Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhithis Court held:25. It is, however, difficult for us to accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel Mr Soli J. Sorabjee that the doctrine of legitimate expectation is attracted in the instant case. Indisputably, the said doctrine is a source of procedural or substantive right. (R. v. North and East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan) But, however, the relevance of application of the said doctrine is as to whether the expectation was legitimate. Such legitimate expectation was also required to be determined keeping in view the larger public interest. Claimants' perceptions would not be relevant therefor. The State actions indisputably must be fair and reasonable. Non-arbitrariness on its part is a significant facet in the field of good governance. The discretion conferred upon the State yet again cannot be exercised whimsically or capriciously. But where a change in the policy decision is valid in law, any action taken pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof, cannot be invalidated.xi)InShree Sidhbali Steels Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 193 :"32.The doctrine of promissory estoppel is by now well recognised and well defined by a catena of decisions of this Court. Where the Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promisee and, in fact, the promisee, acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promisee notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required byArticle 229of the Constitution. The rule of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine has to be moulded to suit the particular situation. It is not a hard-and-fast rule but an elastic one, the objective of which is to do justice between the parties and to extend an equitable treatment to them. This doctrine is a principle evolved by equity, to avoid injustice and though commonly named promissory estoppel, it is neither in the realm of contract nor in the realm of estoppel. For application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel the promisee must establish that he suffered in detriment or altered his position by reliance on the promise".xii)InState of Haryana v. Mahabir Vegetable Oils Private Limited, reported in  (2011) 3 SCC 778, the Apex Court has held as follows:"25.The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable remedy and has to be moulded depending on the facts of each case and not straitjacketed into pigeonholes. In other words, there cannot be any hard-and-fast rule for applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel but the doctrine has to evolve and expand itself so as to do justice between the parties and ensure equity between the parties i.e. both the promisor and the promisee.In S.Shanmughanathan Vs.The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Anna Nagar, Division, Madras 40 reported in 1991 (2) LW 499, a learned Judge of this Court considered a similar case of refusal to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner therein regarding a plot agreed to be sold on hire purchase basis for construction of residential building. Similar to the case on hand, no objection certificate was given by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board for construction of the plot by the petitioner therein, after getting licence and permission, the Housing Board objected to the relief sought for by the petitioner therein for execution of a sale deed, the learned single Judge after considering the principle of doctrine of promissory estoppel and a few decisions of the Supreme Court at paragraph 14 has held as follows:"14.In view of the principleslaid down bythe Supreme Court with regard to the doctrine of promissory estoppel, I am of the view that the principles applies to the facts of the present case in all fours. The petitioner having acted upon the promise of the respondent has constructed a residential building and it is not open to the respondent to rescind from the promise and refuse to execute the sale deed at this stage.  It is no answer to say that the order of the Government passed in October, 1989 prevents the respondent from executing the sale deed.  As already stated, the order of cancellation was passed behind the back of the petitioner and it is a nullity. As such, the writ petition will stand allowed. Writ of Mandamus to issue to the respondent to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of Plot No.591-A-2 after receiving the balance amount of Rs.53,000/- which is said to be due from the petitioner, within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order".38.As per the terms and conditions of the lease cum sale agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Slum Clearance Board, the Board has got a duty to execute the sale deed, but has failed to do so.   It is well known that a legal right is an assertable right, which could be enforced against the authorities, whenever any erroneous action is taken or if they fail to discharge their duties, the aggrieved can approach this Court. A legal right can a right conferred by a statute and it is also claimed independently of any statute. Legal sense is defined as an advantage or benefit conferred upon a person by rule of law.39.The petitioner has established a legal right and therefore, he is right in demanding the performance of the duty, which ought to have been performed by the Board, in executing the sale deed, as per the agreement, dated 27.03.1999.  Slum dwellers cannot afford to litigate for long number of years. There is a failure on the part of the respondents in discharging their duties. This Court is not inclined to burden this judgment by quoting many judgments, as to when a Mandamus would lie.  It is suffice to quote a few, which are hereunder:(i) InThe State of Orissa Vs. Madan Gopal Rungta, reported in AIR 1952 SC 12, the Supreme Court at paragraph 5, held that, "The language of the Article shows that the issuing of writs or directions by the Court is founded only on its decision that a right of the aggrieved party under Part III of the Constitution (Fundamental Rights) has been infringed. It can also issue writs or give similar directions for any other purpose. The concluding words ofArticle 226have to be read in the context of what precedes the same.  Therefore the existence of the right is the foundation of the exercise of jurisdiction of the court under this Article.(ii)  InMani Subrat Jain and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in 1977 (1) SCC 486, the Supreme Court at paragraph 9, held as follows:-"9. The High Court rightly dismissed the petitions. It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. (See Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. I, para 122;State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha;Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed and Ferris: Extraordinary Legal Remedies, para 198.)"(iii) InState of Orissa Vs. Ram Chandra, reported in AIR 1964 SC 685, the Supreme Court at paragraph 8, has held as follows:-"8. On the merits, the position is absolutely clear. UnderArticle 226of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of the High Court is undoubtedly very wide. Appropriate writs can be issued by the High Court under the said article even for purposes other than the enforcement of the fundamental rights and in that sense, a party who invokes the special jurisdiction of the High Court underArticle 226is not confined to cases of illegal invasion of his fundamental rights alone. But though the jurisdiction of the High Court underArticle 226is wide in that sense, the concluding words of the article clearly indicate that before a writ or an appropriate order can be issued in favour of a party, it must be established that the party has a right and the said right is illegally invaded or threatened. The existence of a right is thus the foundation of a petition underArticle 226.40.Proposals of the Managing Director, Slum Clearance Board, Chennai dated 21.06.2012 shows that the Government have issued Orders in G.O.No.400 Revenue L.D.5(2)  Department, dated 23.06.2006, and G.O.No.479 Revenue L.D.5(1) Department, dated 01.08.2008 for Egmore Nungambakkam Taluk, Saligramam Village, Vijayaaraghavapuram Scheme Area and Tambaram Taluk, Perungulathur Village, Mahakavi Bharathi Nagar Scheme Area respectively, by which lands have been transferred to the Slum Clearance Board, Chennai.41.The Managing Director, Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, in its proposal, dated 21.06.2012, has also invited the attention of the Government that even under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Tanks Protection and Evition of Encroachment Act 2007, enacted by the Government of Tamil in the year 2007, to the effect that transfer of land could be made in one portion of the lake, which is under the control of Public Works Department, in the manner of not causing damage to its water storage area and quality, for the sake of public welfare. According to the Managing Director, Slum Clearence Board, Chennai, all the slum areas, in which, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board has implemented the projects, have lost the nature of water source long back.  It has also been observed by him that as on today, the subject lands cannot be treated as poramboke lands or water resource.42.Though in this writ petition, the petitioner alone has sought for a Mandamus, as per the proposals of the Managing Director, Slum Clearance Board, there are about 55,000 slum dwellers, who have not been issued with sale deeds and many of them are stated to have paid the entire sale consideration for the plots allotted to them, including the developmental charges and made improvements, in the plots allotted to them. Slum dwellers live in a small area and by no stretch of imagination, they can afford to have a posh living in the small extent of land allotted to them, for which, they have paid their cost, including the developmental charges.  The grievance of nearly 55,000 slum dwellers through out the State, has to be redressed and for that purpose, this Court, which is exercising an equitable jurisdiction, does not expect that each and every slum dweller to file a separate writ petition. Besides it is an unnecessary expenditure, involving and repetitive process for the parties and also for the Registry of this Court.  It is also the settled legal position that persons similarly placed need not be driven to Courts to file separate writ petitions one after another, and their grievance can be vindicated by a single order, to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, repetitive process in dealing with the same type of writ petitions to be filed by the slum dwellers.43.Considering the plight of 55,000 slum dwellers who are similarly placed and their common grievance, in the interest of justice, this Court is of the view that  the decision made in this writ petition can be made applicable to all the 55,000 slum dwellers in the State who are similarly placed.  The Judgment made in this writ petition, has to be treated as "judgment in rem"  for all the similarly placed persons.  Reference can be made  to a decision inC.L.Pasupathy v. Engineerin Chief (WRO) reported in 2009 (2) MLJ 491, where the distinction between judgment-in-rem and judgment-in-persona has been explained.  At Paragraphs 27 to 29, this Court held as follows:"Historically the term judgement "in rem" was used in Roman law in connection with actio but not in connection with "jus actio in personam". The effect of "actio in rem" was to conclude against all mankind, but the effect of "actio in personam" was to conclude with regard to the individual only. After the Roman forms of procedure had passed away, the term "in rem" survived to express the effect of an action "in rem" and gradually, it came to import "generally".28. The judgements "in rem" signified as judgements which are good against all mankind and "judgements in personam" signified the judgements which are good only against the individuals who are parties to them and their privies. The point adjudicated upon in a "judgement in rem" is always as to the status of the "res" and is  conclusive against the world as to that status, whereas in a judgement "in personam", the point whatever it may be, which is adjudicated upon, not being as to the status of the "res" is conclusive only between the parties or privies. Reference can be made to Firm of Radhakrishnan Vs. Gangabai, 1928 S 121, Ballantyne vs. Mackinson 1896 2 QB 455.29.	Courts have held that, "Judgement in rem", operates on a thing or status rather than against the person and binds all persons to the extent of their interest in the thing, whether or not they were parties to the proceedings. The judgement "in rem",as distinguished from judgement "in personam" is an adjudication of some particular thing or subject matter, which is the subject of controversy, by a competent Tribunal, and having the binding effect of all persons having interests, whether or not joined as parties to the proceedings, in so far as their interests in the "res" are concerned. In determining whether a judgement is "in rem", the effect of the judgement is to be considered and it is tested by matters of substance, rather than by measure of any particular draft or form."44.Admittedly, the Slum clearance Board has chosen to implement the Slum improvement programmes.  It is also seen the the tentative project cost for the slum improvement programme was Rs.46.36 Crores, in respect of 94,000 slum families over a period of 6 years in ten project cities viz. Madras, Madurai, Coimbatore, Salem, Vellore, Erode, Tirunelveli, Tuticorin and Tirchy.  It cannot be contended that the petitioner or other slum dwellers, numbering 55,000 people throughout the State of Tamil Nadu, have unauthorisedly put up the constructions in the lands, contrary to any Government Orders. At this juncture, this Court is of the view that they cannot be termed as encroachers, as every thing done by the Slum Dwellers on the plots allotted to them, have been permitted to be done, by the Board. A specific promise has been held out to them by the Board, that the slum dwellers would be issued with sale deeds on collection of land cost and developmental charges. But there is a failure on the part of the respondents in honouring their promise. The principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation squarely applies to the facts of this case. The slum dwellers have been permitted to reside for a long number of years. Their houses cannot be pulled down. The education of the children cannot be disrupted and that the slum dwellers cannot be driven to some other place. Their long possession and enjoyment of the plots, have been recognised by the Government and the Board. When the developmental works have been carried out under the World Bank and other financial sources, by identifying the slum areas throughout the State and after receiving the entire cost of the land, from 55,000 beneficiaries, at this juncture, it cannot be said that the project has made carried out in certain banned categories of lands and therefore, they cannot be issued with any sale deeds. As stated supra, the Government and the Board have found that there was good ground and justifiable reasons, to enter into the lands and spent huge amounts for development.45.On the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the plight of the poor 55,000 Slum dwellers living in 120 slum developmental areas, who have not been issued with the Sale Deeds, even after the receipt of the entire sale consideration for the plots, allotted to them and in the light of the decisions, stated supra, a Mandamus is issued to the  Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9, and the Managing Director, Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, to execute the sale deeds to the petitioner as well as to all the 55,000 slum dwellers, by taking a positive decision, on the proposals, dated 21.06.2012, sent by the Managing Director, Slum Clearance Board, Chennai to the Government, the whole exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.46.In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed.  No costs.skm

To1. The Chairman,
    Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,
    No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai 600 005.2. The Secretary to Government,
    Housing and Urban Development Department,
    State of Tamil Nadu,
    Secretariat, 
    Chennai