The petitioner challenged an order denying compensation for demolished property due to lack of plan approval. The court held that since plan approval is a disputed question of fact, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to approach the Civil Court for compensation.
Liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate suit before the competent Civil Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.30509 of 2002
S.Pugazhendhi ...Petitioner
vs.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.A1/8551/2002 dated 5.6.2002 and quash the same, and direct the respondents to compensate the petitioner adequately by paying liquid cash of
Rs.6.50 Lakhs for the demolition of the building by the respondent in Old Survey No.121/4, New Survey No.491/11 in V.Kalathur Village, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District.
For Petitioner : Mr.Chella Pandian For Respondents : Mr.G.Krishna Raja Additional Government Pleader
Mr.S.Mahesh for Advocate Commissioner
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.A1/8551/2002 dated 5.6.2002 and quash the same, and consequently direct the respondents to compensate the petitioner adequately by paying liquid cash of Rs.6.50 Lakhs for the demolition of the building by the respondent in Old Survey No.121/4, New Survey No.491/11 in V.Kalathur Village, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District.
Challenging, the said impugned order dated 05.06.2002, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the aforesaid relief.
a) Whether the building constructed by the petitioner has approved plan.
b) Whether the building has been constructed in the petitioner's land or Government land.
c) Whether any portion of the building has been constructed by the petitioner in his own land has been demolished and if so what is the actual damage in terms of money.
He further submitted that, the Advocate Commissioner, after inspecting the subject property filed a report stating that the entire fault is with the Highways Department and the entire building of the petitioner had been demolished. In order to obtain compensation and to quash the impugned order dated 05.06.2002, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, seeking the aforesaid relief.
of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7.In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate suit before the competent Civil Court. No costs.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
rap
To
+1cc to M/s.C.S.Associates, Advocate Sr.36520
+1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.37192
W.P.No.30509 of 2002
pmk[co] srg 08/07/2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can grant relief or arbitration for compensation for property demolition under Article 226 where there is a disputed question of fact regarding plan approval.
Whether the petitioner should be directed to approach the competent Civil Court instead for seeking compensation for the loss incurred.
S. Pugazhendhi
The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Highways Department
The District Collector, Perambalur District
The Superintending Engineer, Highways Department, Villupuram District
The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Ariyalur
The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Office of the Highways Department (Rural), Veppanthattai
M. DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
