Allowed

Smt.Aboorvam, v. The District Collector

Madras HC29 Mar 2016WP/9277/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition seeking recovery of benefits under the Green Housing Scheme. The Court set aside the rejection order and directed payment for the sanctioned 300 sq. ft. area, though the petitioner had constructed more.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; third respondent directed to release payment for construction up to 300 sq. ft. within eight weeks.

Smt.Aboorvam, Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 29.03.2016

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam

¶5

Writ Petition No. 9277 of 2016

¶6

and

¶7

W.M.P.No.8247 of 2016

¶8

Aboorvam ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
(Rural Development Scheme)
District Rural Development Agency
Collectorate, Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur.
3. The Block Development Officer,
(Rural Development, Thiruthuraipoondi,
Thiruvarur District. ...Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus to
call for records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the
third respondent under Na.Ka.No.704/2015/A4, dated 12.08.2015,
and to quash the same, and consequently, to direct the
respondents to settle the fund for the construction of the house
constructed under the free green housing scheme of the State
Government.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Subrahmaniam For Respondents : Mr.R.Lakshmi Narayanan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R

¶10

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the third respondent, dated 12.08.2015, and to direct the respondents to settle the amount for the construction of the house.

¶11

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

¶12

The petitioner is a beneficiary under a scheme, called "Green Housing Scheme", by which, she is entitled to the payment towards cost of construction of the house, having a constructed area of about 300 sq.ft. This allotment was made by the Block Development Officer, Thiruthuraipoondi, viz., the third respondent herein, by order, dated 20.04.2015, and condition No.2 of the allotment order reads as follows:-

¶13

"2/ tPl;od; gug;gst[ Rkhh; 300 rJu mo mstpy; muR tHpfhl;L bewpKiwg;go fl;lg;gl ntz;Lk;/ ,jw;F mjpfgl;r bjhifahf U:/1.80.000-? kl;Lk; gadhspfSf;F tH';fg;gLk; kw;Wk; Nhpakpd; rf;jpa[ld; Toa 5 kpd; tpsf;Ffs; mikf;fg;gLk;/ mjw;fhd bjhif U:/30.000-? kl;Lk; rk;ge;jg;gl;l epWtdj;jpw;F tH';fg;gLk;/ Mf bkhj;jk; U:/2.10.000-? MFk;/ "

¶14

With regard to the manner, in which, construction has to be made and the number of rooms, which are required to be provided under the said scheme has been mentioned in clause 5 of the allotment order, which reads as follows:-

¶15

"/xt;bthU tPl;ow;Fk; xU trpf;Fk; miw. gLf;if miw. rikay; miw. xU tuhz;lh. kw;Wk; kiHePh; nrkpg;gjw;fhd ,lk; mikj;jy; ntz;Lk;/ "

¶16

It is not disputed by the petitioner that she has completed construction. When she requested for sanction of the amount under the scheme, her request has been rejected by the impugned order, stating that the petitioner has constructed about 460 sq.ft. which is in violation of the allotment.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and on perusal of the materials placed on record, it is seen that the object of the scheme is to provide house to houseless, and this being a beneficial scheme for the poor and downtrodden, the Government thought fit to fix an outer limit for restricting the constructed area, so that the cost of the construction can be more or less equal throughout the State. The petitioner, having accepted the benefit under the scheme, is bound to abide by the conditions stipulated stated therein. Therefore, if at all, the petitioner is entitled to the payment, it shall be only for the construction upto 300 sq.ft. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to accept the cost of construction for 300 sq.ft., though there is little bit extra construction made. However, the petitioner would state that she has not violated the conditions, since the construction was supervised by Engineers of the Department, and

¶18

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

¶19

the raw materials were supplied by them, and the petitioner should not be blamed. Considering all these facts, and the petitioner, being the beneficiary of the Welfare scheme, cannot be put to disadvantageous position. The reasons assigned in the impugned order is incorrect, since the construction of additional area should not result in cancellation of the allotment and fairness in approach would be to grant payment for the extent, which is permissible under the order of allotment. This observation is made, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and not to be quoted as precedent.

¶20

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, impugned
order is set aside and the third respondent is directed to
release the payment for the construction carried out only in
respect of 300 sq.ft, as mentioned in the order of allotment,
dated 20.04.2015. The said direction shall be complied with by
the third respondent within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
(Rural Development Scheme)
District Rural Development Agency
Collectorate,
Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur.
3. The Block Development Officer,
(Rural Development, Thiruthuraipoondi,
Thiruvarur District.
+1 cc to Government Pleader sr.19720
Writ Petition No. 9277 of 2016
aa11/04/2016

¶21

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

Smt.Aboorvam, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Aboorvam, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Srinivasan, The President, Vs The Deputy Registrar of

G.Rathinam, Vs The Deputy Registrar of

P.Balasubramaniam Vs The Secretary to Government

Mr.a.Manivasagan Vs 1.THE Secy., to Govt., Municip

K.Natarajan, Vs The District Collector

Chettinad International Coal Vs The Competition Commission