Demolition of more than 250 occupied houses took place at Ilango Street, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai. The Chennai High Court, which ruled in the case of Rajiv Roy, has ordered the removal of people from RA Puram, Elango Street, which occupies the south bank of the 40-foot-wide Buckingham-Canal connecting the Greenway and Kamaraj Road.
Based on this, the demolition work of houses has been going on for the last few days. A 60-year-old man named Kannaiya was recently set on fire after protests by locals. He was later admitted to a hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.
Meanwhile, the trial in the case against the eviction of houses in Raja Annamalai Puram was held today in a session chaired by Justice AM Kanwilkar in the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate Colin Gonzalez, appearing for the petitioner, contended, “One person has committed suicide in connection with the demolition of the RA Puram in Chennai, which has caused a great deal of controversy among the people. Being so far away can have a devastating effect on the daily lives of these people.
At present, there is no immediate alternative for these people, not even basic amenities, ”he said.
Judges who have responded to this have been issuing orders in this regard since 2011. It should be implemented by the state government. We are not going to stop the actions of the state government in this matter. It is the job of the government to provide alternative accommodation for the people involved and let them do it. We are not going to ban this aggression. Further, if the persons involved in the aggression removal case are given a specific period of time to vacate, they should abide by it. It is the duty of the government to implement an order and the Chief Minister himself is doing it.
Consequently, no alternative accommodation has been provided for the people in the area. It was argued by the petitioner that this was not fair. In response, the judges issued an order stating:
Get notice of removal of occupants first. If necessary we provide the instruction to provide temporary replacement space. But the court order must be complied with in matters of aggression; To be implemented.
And now you say that the Chief Minister has given notice of the alternative location in the Legislature, so it is not normal for the pledge itself to do so. It is not going to ban the removal of occupants. Why are the present refusing to evacuate even after so many families have already been evacuated? From what the Chief Minister has said in the Assembly he seems to be vigilant in this matter.
Use appropriate protection and enforce our order regarding removal of occupation. At the same time, these petitioners can be transferred to residences in Kannagi Nagar, Chemmancheri, Perumbakkam areas for the persons concerned. The government should provide more basic facilities to these people.
We consider that all these interim petitions which are currently being filed are aimed at upholding the order issued by the Court in 2011 to remove the occupation. We therefore dismiss all interim petitions seeking an injunction to remove the encroachments in the RA Puram areas.
Meanwhile, we adjourn the hearing on the contempt of court case, which has already failed to comply with the court order, to July 12. On that day, a status report on the removal of the occupation and the steps taken by the Government of Tamil Nadu in relation to the alternative location should be filed in the Supreme Court.
Thus the judges ordered.