Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

The District Collector Vs R.Aruldoss — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2026
The District Collector Vs R.AruldossThe District Collector v. R.Aruldoss

Dismissed¶49

The District Collector v. R.Aruldoss

Writ Appeal (Clause 15, Letters Patent) – Madras High Court

Madras HC12 Jun 2026/1495/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court Division Bench (Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ and G. Arul Murugan, J), W.A.No.1495 of 2026, decided 12.06.2026: dismisses State appeal (District Collector and Project Director, PMAY Urban, Thiruvarur) against order dated 27.02.2025 in W.P.No.1594 of 2024 directing release of Rs.1,70,000/- PMAY subsidy to beneficiary R.Aruldoss S/o Rayappan after erroneous credit to another account; default attracts 9% per annum interest from 01.01.2019; eligibility upheld despite 2015 construction and 2017 claim; Kudavasal BDO; Clause 15 Letters Patent; C.M.P.No.13890 of 2026 dismissed consequentially.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellants; the writ appeal and the interim application (C.M.P.No.13890 of 2026) were dismissed with no order as to costs, leaving undisturbed the Single Judge's directions to release Rs.1,70,000/- within eight weeks, failing which interest at 9% per annum from 01.01.2019 till date of disbursement.

Why is it important?

The benefit of the PMAY Scheme had already been extended to the first respondent, and only thereafter did he construct the house; further, the permission was never cancelled. Accordingly, there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. ¶48

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellants; the writ appeal and the interim application (C.M.P.No.13890 of 2026) were dismissed with no order as to costs, leaving undisturbed the Single Judge's directions to release Rs.1,70,000/- within eight weeks, failing which interest at 9% per annum from 01.01.2019 till date of disbursement.

Issue for consideration

Whether the first respondent remained eligible for the PMAY assistance of Rs.1,70,000/- notwithstanding that he had already constructed the house in 2015 and claimed the benefit only in 2017. +1 more

Court's answer

The benefit of the PMAY Scheme had already been extended to the first respondent, and only thereafter did he construct the house; further, the permission was never cancelled. Accordingly, there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Ratio / Principle

The writ appeal, being bereft of merit and substance, is dismissed; there shall be no order as to costs, and consequently the interim application is also dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (Clause 15, Letters Patent) – Madras High Court – PMAY (Urban) subsidy of Rs.1,70,000/- sanctioned to a beneficiary in Thiruvarur district but erroneously credited to the account of another person of a similar name – Learned Single Judge disposed of W.P.No.1594 of 2024 directing respondents to release the sum within eight weeks, failing which interest at 9% per annum from 01.01.2019 till disbursement – State contended the beneficiary had already constructed the house in 2015 and claimed the benefit only in 2017 – Division Bench (Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan) held that the PMAY benefit had been extended before construction and the permission was never cancelled, hence no error in the Single Judge's order – Writ appeal dismissed, no costs; connected interim application C.M.P.No.13890 of 2026 also dismissed.

A

W.A.No.1495 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.06.2026

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,

CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

W.A.No.1495 of 2026

in

C.M.P.No.13890 of 2026

The District Collector Thiruvarur District Thiruvarur.

The Project Director Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban) Thiruvarur Collectorate Office Thiruvarur.

Appellant(s)

Vs

R.Aruldoss

S/o. Rayappan, No.2/199/1 Main Road Ambethgar Nagar, Koonthalur Kundalur, Kodavasal Thiruvarur District

Tamil Nadu 609 501.

Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban) Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs Rep. by Under Secretary to the Government of India Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110 011.

___________ Page 1 of 6_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.1495 of 2026

The Block Development Officer

Block Development Office Kudavasal Taluk, Thiruvarur District Thiruvarur.

Respondent(s)

Prayer :Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent seeking to set aside the order dated 27.02.2025 made in W.P.No.1594 of 2024.

For Appellant(s): Mr. R.Veeramani Government Pleader

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

This writ appeal, filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,

assails the order dated 27.02.2025 passed in W.P.No.1594 of 2024, which was filed by first respondent herein seeking direction to grant a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- for the completion of house under Pradhan

Mantri Awaz Yojana Scheme (PMAY Scheme).

The brief facts of the case are that first respondent, being eligible for assistance under PMAY Scheme, was granted permission to construct house. Thereafter, subsidy of Rs.1,70,000/- was also sanctioned in favour of first respondent and the same was not

Page 2 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.1495 of 2026

credited in the State Bank of India account of first respondent and therefore, he made a representation. Appellants, in reply, stated that the amount has been erroneously credited to the account of one Aruldoss, S/o. Arokkiyasami and assured that the amount will be credited to the account of first respondent. As appellants did not credit the amount in the account of first respondent, first respondent filed the writ petition seeking direction to deposit the amount in his account.

The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:

“5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of on the following terms:

(i) the respondents 2 to 4 shall ensure that the sum of Rs.1,70,000/- released to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of the website uploaded copy of this order, without insisting for the certified copy;

(ii) If the said amount is not apid within the stipulated time, the same shall carry further interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 01.01.2019 till the date of disbursement;

(iii) No costs.”

___________ Page 3 of 6_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.1495 of 2026

Learned State counsel submits that first respondent is not

eligible for the aforesaid amount since he had already constructed the house in the year 2015 and was paying taxes and claimed the benefit only in the year 2017.

We have heard learned counsel for State and perused the record. We find that the benefit of PMAY Scheme was already extended to first respondent. Only thereafter, he had constructed the house. Further, the permission was never cancelled. Thus, we find no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

The writ appeal being bereft of merit and substance is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim application is also dismissed.

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 12.06.2026

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

kpl

___________ Page 4 of 6_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.1495 of 2026

To

Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban) Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs Rep. by Under Secretary to the Government of India Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110 011.

The Block Development Officer Block Development Office Kudavasal Taluk, Thiruvarur District Thiruvarur.

___________ Page 5 of 6_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.No.1495 of 2026

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

(kpl)

W.A.No.1495 of 2026

12.06.2026

___________ Page 6 of 6_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the first respondent remained eligible for the PMAY assistance of Rs.1,70,000/- notwithstanding that he had already constructed the house in 2015 and claimed the benefit only in 2017.¶47
The court held
The benefit of the PMAY Scheme had already been extended to the first respondent, and only thereafter did he construct the house; further, the permission was never cancelled. Accordingly, there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.ratio¶48
2.
Whether the order dated 27.02.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1594 of 2024 contains any error justifying interference in the writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.¶48
The court held
The writ appeal, being bereft of merit and substance, is dismissed; there shall be no order as to costs, and consequently the interim application is also dismissed.ratio¶49

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Letters PatentClause 15¶30

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 27.02.2025 in W.P.No.1594 of 2024 disposing of the writ petition with directions to respondents 2 to 4 to ensure release of Rs.1,70,000/- to the petitioner within eight weeks, failing which interest at 9% per annum from 01.01.2019 till date of disbursement, with no costs.¶26
Learned Single Judge, High Court of Judicature at Madras · 27.02.2025
Prior proceeding
First respondent filed W.P.No.1594 of 2024 seeking direction to grant Rs.1,70,000/- for completion of his house under the PMAY Scheme.¶31
Prior proceeding
Subsidy of Rs.1,70,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the first respondent but was not credited to his State Bank of India account.¶33
Prior proceeding
On representation, appellants stated the amount had been erroneously credited to the account of one Aruldoss, S/o. Arokkiyasami, and assured it would be credited to the first respondent's account.¶37
Prior proceeding
Since the amount was not credited, the first respondent filed the writ petition seeking direction to deposit the amount in his account.¶37

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
The District Collector, Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur¶12
appellant
The Project Director, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban), Thiruvarur Collectorate Office, Thiruvarur¶13
Mr. R.Veeramani
respondent
R.Aruldoss, S/o. Rayappan¶16
respondent
Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban), Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Rep. by Under Secretary to the Government of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110 011¶19
respondent
The Block Development Officer, Block Development Office, Kudavasal Taluk, Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur¶23

Coram

AI extract

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikariauthor¶50
G. Arul Muruganmember¶50

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 12 Jun 2026 · June
Registered: 5 Jun 2026
Case no.: /1495/2026
CNR: HCMA012175942025
Bench: G.arul Murugan
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: W.A.

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from G.arul Murugan

Dr.S. Subbiah, Vs Mr.P.Senthil kumar I.A.S and Another
11 Jun 2026
Central Bank of India Vs George Oakes Limited
11 Jun 2026
Sri Venkateshwara Educational Trust, Vs Medical Assessment and Rating Board
11 Jun 2026
Thenmozhi Vs a.Kavitharani
12 Jun 2026
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Ganesan Anbuselvam
12 Jun 2026
Thillai Lokanathan Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu
12 Jun 2026

Cite this judgement

The District Collector v. R.Aruldoss, /1495/2026 (MAD), decided on 12 June 2026.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Letters PatentClause 15

View all statutes

Procedural history5

Order dated 27.02.2025 in W.P.No.1594 of 2024 disposing of the writ petition with directions to respondents 2 to 4 to ensure release of Rs.1,70,000/- to the petitioner within eight weeks, failing which interest at 9% per annum from 01.01.2019 till date of disbursement, with no costs.Learned Single Judge, High Court of Judicature at Madras · 27.02.2025
First respondent filed W.P.No.1594 of 2024 seeking direction to grant Rs.1,70,000/- for completion of his house under the PMAY Scheme.
Subsidy of Rs.1,70,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the first respondent but was not credited to his State Bank of India account.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and G. Arul Murugan

Parties & counsel