1. Background: The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Act, 1971 The first and only piece of legislation for slum clearance, and to establish the Slum Clearance Board. Widely viewed as progressive. Stated the need and procedure to declare slums and intervene for their improvement. Slum Clearance was to be taken up for improving the lives of slum dwellers.

2. Declarations: Who can declare and what is the procedure? Based on the Tamil Nadu Slums Act, 1971, Government authorities identify slums, once they are satisfied that a certain area fits the perceived definition of a “slum”. Areas identified as “slums” are then declared or recognized as slums. Further, these declared slums become the government’s responsibility to improve, through tenement construction or environmental improvements.

3. What rights and protections are given to declared slums? Based on the Tamil Nadu Slums Act, 1971, Protection from eviction (or due compensation through alternate accommodation in the event of one). Slums can be evicted ONLY if declared, and evictions are supposed to take place only if required to improve living conditions for slum dwellers. Tenure security: later GOs guaranteed “conditional pattas” for all residents in sites before a particular date. Access to improvements, benefits, and schemes for slums by the government.

4. 1971: First round of declarations 1202 slums (on government, private and temple land) identified and declared by TNSCB – based on a comprehensive survey. 7.37 lakh slum dwellers in the city, representing 1/3 of the city’s population. Occupied only 6% of city area: 7.2 square kilometres. 17 slums added to the list by a GO in 1985.

5. Key Finding 1 The government is NOT following the procedure outlined in the Act. 19711985 1202 declared17 (added) No new slums have been declared since 1985. Government has ‘improved’ all declared slums, but slum schemes can only be implemented in declared slums – undeclared slums left out. Lack of government recognition leads to gross underestimation of current slum population and the need for services. Access to basic services very poor in most unrecognized slums. No protection from eviction.

6. Key Finding 1 The government is NOT following the procedure outlined in the Act. By not declaring slums, government is able to exercise power over them without being bound by protections outlined in the Slum Clearance Act. Ad hoc procedure instead of the identify-declare-improve approach, not codified in law. Both declared and undeclared slums now evicted not for their improvement, but for infrastructure projects, waterways beautification, etc.

7. Key Finding 1 The government is NOT following the procedure outlined in the Act. Government begins to build large scale resettlement colonies on the outskirts of the city in 1999, a break from the in-situ tenement construction practices of the TNSCB. Both residents from undeclared and declared slums are evicted and moved to resettlement sites. Kannagi NagarSemmencheriPerumbakkam 10 th Finance Commission and Flood Alleviation Programme Mainly JNNURM 12,0385,26023,864 (total planned units)

8. Key Finding 1 The government is NOT following the procedure outlined in the Act. Not everyone evicted gets resettled. Patterns? Those evicted for JNNURM, other central schemes and external agencies were usually resettled, but those evicted for city and state funded projects were not always resettled. Slums outside of Corporation boundaries received less access to resettlement and compensation compared to those inside. In any slum, not all residents received resettlement – tenants, those without paperwork, new migrants less likely to receive resettlement tokens. From 2005 to 2009, at least 20,000 households from 20 sites evicted, but not all were resettled.

9. Key Finding 2 Tenure papers have not been provided, despite the eligibility of all slum residents to “conditional patta” (GO 1979). “Conditional pattas” were supposed to be issued to those who benefited from the MUDP and TNUDP schemes (funded by World bank) or lived in TNSCB tenements, but only a small percentage of eligible residents actually received patta.

10. Key Finding 3 No new slums have been declared since 1985, despite the city expanding and new slums cropping up. There is a gross underestimation of the number of slum dwellers in the city. The Second Master Plan stated that the city only had 819,872 slum dwellers in 2001. But the Slum Census 2001 found over a million slum dwellers, and even that was a very flawed count. In 2002, survey commissioned by TNSCB identified 242 unrecognised slums – 122 on so-called “objectionable” land and 120 on “unobjectionable” land. But no declaration followed, not even of slums on “unobjectionable” land.

11. Key Finding 3 No new slums have been declared since 1985, despite the city expanding and new slums cropping up. Since the government takes up improvements only in declared slums, this has led to very poor access to basic services in most slums in the city. The 2002 survey found that water and sanitation facilities available in the 242 slums was much lower than service standards. Also, undeclared slums face the constant threat of eviction due to the complete lack of tenure security.

12. Key Finding 4 Slums take up such a small part of the city. Why the reluctance to declare? Slums occupy a very small part of the city. The 1202 slums declared in 1971 occupied only 7.2 square kilometers,6% of the city at the time. In today’s expanded city area, all declared slums only take up 1.7% of the city area (72% of current land use estimated to be residential). The 242 unrecognised slums identified within the old Chennai Corporation limits in the 2002 survey occupy only 0.4% of today’s expanded city area. Both the Corporation area unrecognized slums and the slums identified in the entire Chennai Metropolitan area identified in the survey take up only 1.1% of the whole Chennai Corporation area, a miniscule amount of land that should be declared immediately.

13. Key Finding 5 Slums are relocated to places far away from the city centre, when a lot of excess land is available within the city itself. The government cites the non-availability of land as the reason for relocation to distant parts. However, an RTI filed with urban land tax commissioners found: Total land acquired by the TN ULC Act = 11.5 sq. km. Of this, land allotted to govt. departments = 1.08 sq. km. Total excess land available = 10.42 sq. km. ULC Land in T. Nagar and Mylapore alone (central city) = 0.45 sq. km Madhavaram and Alandur area (partly central city) = 2.2 sq. km. More than enough land is available to relocate all undeclared slums identified in 2002 survey without far-away resettlement in ghettos.

14. Key Finding 6 Relocation is the primary focus of the government, even when low cost alternatives are available. Relocation involves huge costs: financial, social, economic. According to TNSCB policy note, cost per Perumbakkam/Okkiyum Thuraipakkam tenement = 4.5 lakhs. But in 2009, TNSCB only spent Rs. 5000 per family for environmental improvement of slums. By this estimate, relocation costs 90 times more than in situ environmental improvement.

15. Key Finding 6 Relocation is the primary focus of the government, even when low cost alternatives are available. Low cost improvement opportunities have been ignored. In 2004, consultants proposed a low cost sanitation plan for some slums along the waterway at only Rs. 27 crores. However, this was dismissed by the TNSCB in favour of relocation. By government estimates, relocation would cost 20 times more than the option of providing sanitation to these slum families.