Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Feb 15, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version
Online edition of India's National Newspaper Friday, Feb 15, 2008 ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Tamil Nadu |
 |
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
Tamil Nadu
Refer to an October, 1990 order permitting sale of 1,014 tenements to occupants “Corporation and Municipalities were unable to allot tenements to other employees” CHENNAI: Holding that government employees occupying quarters have no legal right to demand sale of the tenements to them, the Madras High Court has declined to direct the Government to sell its tenements at Egmore to the tenant-employees. A Division Bench comprising Justice P.D. Dinakaran and Justice R. Regupathi, allowing an appeal preferred by the Corporation of Chennai, said: “…there is no dispute that the Government alone is the owner of the lands and the contesting respondents [employees] are the occupants of the respective tenements only in their capacity as the employees of the Corporation on rental basis and there is no privity of contract between them…” The Judges further noted that the occupants had no legal right over the tenements in view of the policy decision taken by the Government on July 21, 1997. The matter relates to the petition from residents of 66 tenements, occupied by employees of the Chennai Corporation, Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Fire Service, seeking to register the place in their own names. As a precedent, they referred to an October 1990 order of the Government permitting sale of 1,014 tenements to the occupants concerned. Though in July 1995 the Government took a policy decision to relax the ban of sale of the Egmore tenements, in July 1997 it took a stand that no tenements allotted to employees as tenants would be sold. Despite the latest policy decision, the present petitioners moved the High Court in 2004. Additional Advocate-General P.S. Raman, opposing the plea, contended that such a request could not be considered as the Corporation and Municipalities were unable to allot tenements to other employees. “Pragmatic adjustments”The Bench, pointing out that the petitioners had come to court nearly seven years after the policy decision, said: “We are unable to appreciate the contention of counsel for the employees that they have a legal right to purchase their respective tenements.” The Judges further said: “The Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments and policy decision, which may be necessary or called for under the prevalent peculiar circumstances. The court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another decision would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical…”
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |
Copyright © 2008, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
