Partly allowed

S. Arunachalam, S/O.Samy Nadar v. the District Collector

Madras HC15 Apr 2013WP(MD)/2591/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench held that since the 'Kalaignar Veedu Valangum Thittam' scheme is defunct, the petitioner is given liberty to apply for financial assistance under the 'Indira Gandhi Ninaivu Kudiyirupu Thittam'. The second respondent is directed to consider this application within four weeks, disregarding the earlier objection regarding the property.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file application under Indira Gandhi scheme; second respondent directed to consider same within four weeks.

S. Arunachalam, S/O.Samy Nadar Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.04.2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.2591 of 2013 and MP.(MD).No. 1 of 2013

¶3

S.Arunachalam : Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶6

2.The Block Development Officer, Alwar Thirunagari Panchayat Union, Alwar Thirunagari, Tuticorin District.

¶7

3.The President, Karunkadal Panchayat Board, Sathankulam Taluk, Tuticorin District. : Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondent to sanction the fund in favour of the petitioner in furtherance of the order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.A2/286/2011 dated 31.01.2011.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Rajaraman For R-1 : Mr.D.Muruganandam Additional Govt. Pleader For R-2 : Mr.R.Velmurugan

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the District Collector, Tuticorin and Block Development Officer, Alwar Thirunagari Panchayat Union to disburse the amount sanctioned to him pursuant to the order dated 31.01.2011 on the file of the second respondent.

¶12

The petitioner was selected as a beneficiary under the 'Kalaignar Veedu Valangum Thittam', whereby and where under, the Government have sanctioned Rs.75,000/- for the purpose of construction of residential house. The petitioner on the basis of the order sanctioning him financial assistance, demolished the house and started construction of a residential house. Though the petitioner started construction, part payment was not made by the respondents. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation requesting the District Collector and Block https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Development Officer to give financial assistance. Even then, the issue was not considered and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶13

¶14

When the Writ Petition was taken up for consideration on an earlier occasion, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner started construction of a residential house in a different property, which was not the property mentioned in the application and that was the reason for the failure to release the amount.

¶15

In view of the said submission, I have directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to take instructions as to whether the petitioner would be considered under any other scheme for financial assistance.

¶16

When the Writ Petition was taken up for consideration today, the learned Additional Government Pleader has produced a communication dated 09.04.2013 sent by the Block Development Officer, indicating that in case the petitioner submits an application for financial assistance under "Indira Gandhi Ninaivu Kudiyirupu Thittam" the same will be considered.

¶17

There is no dispute that the petitioner was earlier sanctioned financial assistance for construction of a residential house. The petitioner appears to have constructed a basement. Since the amount was not released, the petitioner failed to complete the construction. The respondents have got their own reason for the delay in releasing the amount. According to the respondents, the petitioner constructed a residential house in a different property and that was the reason for denial of financial assistance. However, there are no documents before me to show that the petitioner has constructed a residential house in a different property. There is also no dispute that the scheme in question i.e., 'Kalaignar Veedu Valangum Thittam" is no more in existence. Under the said circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner should be given liberty to make an application before the third respondent for financial assistance under the "Indira Gandhi Ninaivu Kudiyirupu Thittam".

¶18

The petitioner is given thirty days time from today to make an application before the second respondent for financial assistance under the "Indira Gandhi Ninaivu Kudiyirupu Thittam". In case any such application is received, the second respondent is directed to consider the said application in accordance with the scheme and in the light of the earlier order granting him financial assistance under 'Kalaignar Veedu Valangum Thittam'. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of application from the petitioner.

¶19

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/Deputy Registrar

/TRUE COPY/

Assistant Registrar

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

¶25

To 1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. 2.The Block Development Officer, Alwar Thirunagari Panchayat Union, Alwar Thirunagari, Tuticorin District. 3.The President, Karunkadal Panchayat Board, Sathankulam Taluk, Tuticorin District. +1 CC to Spl. Govt. Pleader in SR.No.20924. +1 CC to Mr. R. Velmurugan, Advocate in SR.No.21637. +1 CC to Mr. Rajaraman, Advocate in SR.No.20725. pm PKS/19.04.2013/3P/7C W.P.(MD)No.2591 of 2013 15.04.2013

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S. Arunachalam, S/O.Samy Nadar v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Arunachalam, S/O.Samy Nadar v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Nallalagan, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Sankara Sabapathi, Vs the Principal Secretaty

S.Tomy Corera, Vs the Director of Fisheries

V.M. Selvaraj Vs the Superintendent of Police

P.Ravi Vs the Deputy Supdt. of

K.Chellaswamy, Vs State of Tamil Nadu