Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2714 (MAD)

Chokkammal v. District Collector, Thiruvallur

2023-08-04

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2023
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent made in Na.Ka.No.1104/2023/Aa1 dated January 2023 signed on 28.02.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to issue Free House Site Patta.) 1. The writ on hand has been instituted challenging the order dated 28.02.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent, rejecting the application submitted by the writ petitioner for grant of free house site patta. 2. The petitioner states that she is a Senior Citizen and a Widow. She belongs to the Hindu Adi Dravidar Community and is working as Coolie and leading her life. The petitioner states that her children are not taking care of her and she is living separately. She is homeless and submitted an application for grant of free house site patta. The 2nd respondent without considering the case of the writ petitioner, rejected the same on the ground that her children are living happily in Chennai and therefore, she is not entitled for free house site patta. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner wants to live alone and she is not willing to lead a life depending on her children. She is working and leading her life alone. Therefore, the authorities ought to have considered the case of the writ petitioner for grant of free house site patta. She is in occupation of the land and put up a sheet shed and residing there. The respondents have failed to consider the fact that the petitioner is Coolie and she was neglected by her children. In the absence of any material to establish that the children of the petitioner are living happily in Chennai, the respondents ought not to have rejected the application submitted by the writ petitioner for grant of free house site patta. 4. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents strenuously objected the said contentions made by the petitioner by stating that the respondents produced the files and photographs to establish that after evicting all the encroachers from the waterbodies, the petitioner constructed an illegal shed in the waterbody and claimed that she was residing there. 4. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents strenuously objected the said contentions made by the petitioner by stating that the respondents produced the files and photographs to establish that after evicting all the encroachers from the waterbodies, the petitioner constructed an illegal shed in the waterbody and claimed that she was residing there. The authorities, while conducting a field inspection found that no one is living in the shed constructed in the waterbody and the phone number given by the petitioner in Aadhar Card is relating to an Advocate one Mr. Vettriselvan (9566008356). 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents reiterated by stating that an enquiry was conducted by the competent authorities based on the application submitted by the writ petitioner in Survey No.126/1B, Ammanampakkam Village falling within the Chennai Corporation area, which is classified as “Water Canal”. It is a waterbody and therefore, 25 encroachers were evicted and the Government has decided to provide an alternate free house site patta for those persons after ascertaining their eligibility. On verification, the authorities found that the petitioner was not residing in the said locality. Even at the time of grant of free house site patta to the other eligible persons, the petitioner was not residing there. Recently in the very same waterbody a sheet shed was constructed in the place, where one Smt.Nishanthi wife of Mr.Pandian was residing. The said Nishanthi was provided with an alternate free house site patta, since she was evicted from the waterbody. However, even in that shed the petitioner is not residing. 6. The Revenue Inspector, Ammanampakkam conducted an enquiry with reference to the local people, who in turn informed that the Phone Number given by the petitioner is the number of a Lawyer and the petitioner is living with his assistance. The said Lawyer is frequently visiting the shed constructed in the waterbody. However, the petitioner never came to the shed in the waterbody nor did she stay there. Based on the statement given by the Village people, the authorities found that the petitioner has three female children and one male child. They are residing at, Thiruninravur and the petitioner has not given any details regarding their children. 7. However, the petitioner never came to the shed in the waterbody nor did she stay there. Based on the statement given by the Village people, the authorities found that the petitioner has three female children and one male child. They are residing at, Thiruninravur and the petitioner has not given any details regarding their children. 7. Under those circumstances, the authorities offered the petitioner that they will make an arrangement to stay temporarily in the Sevalaya Old Age Home, where the petitioner will be accommodated and after securing the details of her children, she may be sent along with her children. 8. The fact remains that the petitioner was not residing in the waterbody along with other encroachers. After eviction of the encroachers and providing free house site patta to those encroachers, the petitioner with the assistance of Mr.Vettriselvan, who is a lawyer has constructed a shed in the very same waterbody and the authorities found that the petitioner does not even visit the shed nor is residing there. Thus, the authorities have decided that the petitioner is not entitled for free house site patta under the scheme, as it was granted only to the 25 encroachers, who where in occupation of the waterbody and evicted pursuant to the orders passed by the High Court. 9. May that as it be, if at all the petitioner is not looked after by her children, she is at liberty to file an appropriate application before the competent authorities under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 for the purpose of getting appropriate relief. If the petitioner is not willing to get any assistance from her four children, then she is at liberty to avail the benefit of the offer given by the competent authorities to stay in Sevalaya Old Age Home temporarily, till such time, the authorities find out the whereabouts of her children. Further, the Village people said that her children are residing at Thiruninravur. However, free house site patta is to be granted only to the eligible persons. Few people are attempting to secure free house site patta from the Government by creating certain circumstances or otherwise. The petitioner is aged about 80 years and there is a possibility of abusing her old age by third parties, since she has not joined with her children. 10. Few people are attempting to secure free house site patta from the Government by creating certain circumstances or otherwise. The petitioner is aged about 80 years and there is a possibility of abusing her old age by third parties, since she has not joined with her children. 10. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to accept the offer made by the authorities to stay in Sevalaya Old Age Home or she is at liberty to join with her children or claim any relief against her children under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. However, the reasons stated by the authorities for rejecting the application is in consonance with the terms and conditions of the scheme and there is no infirmity. 11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to cost.